Big 12 math
Why the ACC could spur the Big 12 to add four teams instead of two
Few details were clear when the Big 12 announced last week that it was looking to expand. Would league leaders add schools from within the league’s existing footprint or look outside of it? Would they pilfer from other Power 5 conferences or draw from lower-tier leagues? When they said they wanted “athletic department strength”, did they just mean good football or is overall excellence actually important? When they spoke about “the reputations of these institutions for integrity,” what the heck did that mean?
Yet, for all the uncertainty, one detail was abundantly obvious — the Big 12 isn’t all that pleased with TV executives.
Commissioner Bob Bowlsby was asked twice during the expansion announcement about concern over antagonizing the league’s television partners. After all, the league recently went to them with a newly created football title game, which will cost $30 million a year. Now, with the addition of schools, ESPN and FOX will be on the hook for many millions more.
The first time he was asked, Bowlsby was instructive.
“We have provisions in our existing contracts that were negotiated along with the 12-year agreements that we made,” he said. “And those stipulations were put in the contracts in anticipation of the possibility of fluctuations.” When pressed, Bowlsby got a little defensive. “In both the case of the championship game and in the case of the pro rata adjustments, we’re in complete compliance with the contract,” he said. “It’s a mutually binding contract that we put in place 4 ½ years ago.
“So, I don’t think we have to make apologies for activating around stipulations that we both agreed to.”
That’s not usually the tone you hear when conferences talk television partners. Remember, these networks are paying a huge chunk of the freight for college athletics, so the conferences and schools usually want to act at least congenial. More often than not, they gush.
Bowlsby, if you couldn’t tell, was not gushing.
Now, I’m not going to go so far to say he was angry, but he definitely seemed perturbed.
And who could blame him or his league?
For quite some time, TV types have been telling people in the Big 12 that the appetite for a conference network just wasn’t there. Six weeks ago, OU president David Boren was convinced it was a dead issue. There simply wasn’t enough interest in launching a new network for any conference that didn’t already have one.
Then along came the ACC network.
Out of the blue, ESPN announced a week ago Monday that it had come to terms with the ACC to start a network. The deal was signed. The terms were long. The money was big.
So, essentially, the Big 12 had decided over these past couple years to hold steady at 10 schools, in part, because expansion wouldn’t get them any closer to a conference network. But when the ACC got a network, the Big 12 realized it had been standing still for naught.
And now you have to wonder if the Big 12 isn’t going to go after all the TV money it can.
That would mean adding four schools instead of two.
When Bowlsby talked about “pro rata adjustment”, he was referring to the extra money the networks agreed to pay if the Big 12 added extra teams. Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com reported earlier this year that the Big 12 would add at least $1 billion over the remainder of the TV rights contract if it adds four teams and at least $500 million if it adds two. That contract runs through the 2024-25 academic year.
By expanding, the Big 12 would reduce the gap between its annual payout to each school and that of other Power 5 conferences, an ever growing concern among league members. The SEC, for example, has the biggest annual payout with each of its schools making about $9 million more than those in the Big 12.
That gap gets smaller the more teams the Big 12 adds.
What’s more, Big 12 officials might be concerned that TV’s boffo billions won’t be around forever. After all, the landscape is changing with cable unbundling and live streaming. No one can predict what the future holds in broadcast. No one knows what to expect in the TV rights deals of 2020s and 2030s.
Would adding four teams be something of a Big 12 money grab?
Sure, but money helps provide power and stability and strength. Those are things that everyone in big-time college athletics wants.
But if the Big 12 adds four teams, it would severely damage the relationship with ESPN and FOX. That’s because expanding to 14 teams would likely mean adding a couple football lightweights. Teams like Central Florida and South Florida, Tulane and Colorado State would be in the mix.
Drawing national TV audiences to Central Florida vs. Kansas State or Texas Tech vs. Tulane would be tough. Even South Florida vs. Oklahoma or Colorado State vs. Texas would be difficult for networks. They would pay out way, way more to the Big 12 than they would ever be able to recover from advertising and the like.
Adding four teams would really sock it to the networks. Maybe that’s what the Big 12 wants.
But despite their tone last week, league leaders won’t do that. They will cool off.
They know they have to continue to work with their broadcast partners. There are things to do now, such as schedule game times and juggle school interests like OU and Texas not wanting their tilt-awhirl at night when the Tilt-a-Whirl wouldn’t be the only thing that would be lit. There are also things to be done in the future, such as discussing a conference network and negotiating the next longterm deal.
The league doesn’t want to totally alienate the networks. It wouldn’t be good for business.
The networks, after all, are the very ones that the league hopes to woo into a signing on to a Big 12 network. Yes, the additional “pro rata” money would be great, but taking every available dollar now might totally sabotage a new and significant revenue stream in the future.
It’s understandable that Bowlsby was miffed at the networks and that other Big 12 head honchos might be, too. But when the time comes to decide how many teams they are going to add to the conference, league leaders will surely make their decision based on stats and smarts, not spite.