RE: Contingencies and Possibilities
Working on the assumption that BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, and Connecticut are selected by the Big 12, let's take a look at what might happen next.
Big 12 expands to 14. In a few years though, the GOR will expire and schools will be free to move without legal repercussions. Will they do so? I have my doubts and here is why...
Reason #1. The powers of the league were free to move without legal repercussions in 2010. There was no GOR. The only schools that left during the initial period of turmoil were Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Notice a pattern? None of them had little brothers that the politicians of their respective states were protecting. You might say that A&M was an exception here and it's true that their departure was the bumpiest, but keep one thing in mind...A&M did not leave its fellow state schools in an irrelevant and poor league. In fact, TCU was elevated due to A&M's departure. The state of TX now has 5 Power programs in their state as opposed to 4.
Back in the early 2000s, the ACC was ready to expand with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College. At the eleventh hour, the politicos of the state of VA forced the hand of UVA to intervene on behalf of Virginia Tech. The reason? There was significant fear that a gutted Big East, at the time a BCS league, would be relegated to irrelevance and any program in it would suffer the fate of dilution. Luckily, UNC and Duke were also voting against expansion and UVA's vote against Syracuse was critical in protecting VT's and by extension the state of VA's interests. Syracuse got bumped, VT was included, and the rest is history.
If any of you have been following the news on Big 12 expansion the last couple of days you will notice that prominent politicians from the state of TX have endorsed the inclusion of Houston in the Big 12. Why would the politicos of a state be so interested in elevating one of their own at the possible risk of reducing the power and influence of the state's flagship by diluting the league? Well, I think the answer is fairly obvious. Look no further than UT's President Fenves' endorsement of the move. So UT wants Houston in the Big 12? Unless these people are bald face lying to the public then yes. What does UT have to gain here? Well, there's the local political angle. UT wants to expand their system by putting a campus in Houston. UH supporters have been blocking that move. It's obvious there's a little give and take here, classic quid pro quo. I think it probably goes deeper though. The leaders of the state of TX want to elevate as many of their institutions as possible. Now UT might get a campus in Houston, but doesn't that hinder their flexibility later? Won't having one more local mouth to feed in the Big 12 reduce the likelihood of Texas being able to make a clean break from the Big 12 later? It might, but maybe UT isn't worried about that. Maybe they really don't have any intention of leaving...at least not without multiple big brothers in tow.
They tried that in 2010. They wanted to take the entire Big 12 South to the PAC. It was supposed to be UT, A&M, TT, Baylor, OU, and OSU to the PAC for 16. At least that was the plan. There were several reasons the deal broke apart, but what is indisputable is that UT was not burdened with a GOR at the time and could have theoretically jettisoned its little brothers(not calling A&M a little brother). Of course, OU was in the same boat. UT and OU didn't leave on their own. Maybe they didn't want to. Maybe they couldn't. I'm not exactly sure which.
Murr pointed out last night that the next round of realignment for Texas will be like the breaking apart of the SWC all over again. I can see the reasoning there and it's hard to argue, but consider this...what if one pairing down was all that was acceptable to the powers that be in TX? After all, the first thing they did when A&M bolted was elevate an old SWC member when the smart thing to do for the league would have been to take someone from another state, a new market. What if the powers that be have no stomach for an additional pairing down of power schools in their state? That would line up perfectly with the call to include Houston despite what little they really bring to the conference.
This leads me to my first conclusion: UT and OU, for whatever reason, cannot leave their little brothers behind in an inferior conference. If they could, they would have simply done it in 2010.
Reason #2. While the call to include Houston was a bit peculiar, more peculiar still is the desire to expand at all. For the purposes of UT, OU, and perhaps KU; it seems totally unnecessary.
The GOR will not hinder them in 6-8 years. Just wait it out and go where you want to go. Simple. Or perhaps wait it out and take a couple of little brothers with you to allay political pressure. KU probably can't get away with that, but OU and UT probably could depending on what league they're going to. Fairly simple right? Not to mention it is cost effective for the networks. Just let the Big 12 die right? Take the valuable parts, a couple of less than stellar products, and relegate the rest of the league to AAC status. You don't have to pay them a lot of money. You make your conference partners happy by giving them the programs they want to include. Fairly simple.
So why expand and make the process even messier than it already is. Clearly, there's no going to be any brokering at this stage assuming that was ever a serious consideration. Well, you might say that it's a cash grab. The networks are obligated to pay pro rata for new additions. Throw in a little extra cash from a CCG and maybe a few more postseason tourney appearances while giving the new members a reduced rate of revenue and the powers that be raise their revenue without really giving anything up. In the process, a stable league is created for the little brothers to thrive in once the big brothers have graduated. I get the reasoning, but consider this...whatever new conference forms without the powers that make the league valuable now will not be more valuable later. I don't see how the math adds up on this.
If UT and OU are gone, and if presumably KU is gone as well, then where does the revenue come from? The Big 12, whatever form it takes, will have its contract renegotiated at the end of the GOR. The league would likely consist of BYU, Houston, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn. They may have to add someone else if KU leaves, but the pickings will surely be slim. There's not a lot of oomph there. What kind of contract is that league going to get in the open marketplace? They certainly aren't going to get a raise because nothing will merit them keeping pace with the SEC, B1G, PAC, and maybe not even the ACC by that time. They aren't going to get what they had because they lost key pieces. This league is in trouble. This is the Big East 2.0 with the only difference being that members are less likely to get rescued by other Power leagues at some point in the future.
In short, the little brothers will fall behind. I don't see a way they can't. Now that may not necessarily be UT or OU's problem, but it will be the problem of the politicians of the respective states in which these schools reside. Their duty is to look out for the best interests of the state and its institutions. How many alumni are going to get pissed that their alma mater was allowed to languish while the flagship got to leave them in the dust and get a raise out of it? It's not going to be pretty. If politicians can be counted on for one thing, it's the strong instinct for self preservation. They want to get re-elected. They want to be thought well of and they want glory for their triumphs. What motivation will they have to let schools like OU and UT bolt if it means the little brothers have to suffer? I honestly don't see one.
If the Big 12 does expand then I think they will sign a new GOR. It might not happen quickly, but I think as we near the expiration date of the current contract a deal may be struck for a network in exchange for a long term commitment to the conference. That's basically what just happened with the ACC. Everyone thought they were on the brink for quite some time and now they've solidified themselves for a generation at least. The Big 12, while not benefitting from as good a leadership, appears to be on the same path. It just so happens they are on a different time table.
It could be exactly what the networks are waiting for actually. A new Big 12 that operates for 4-5 years could be worth more money than it is today. Programs could be lifted because of their new association albeit not significantly. The perception of the league as a football and basketball powerhouse could be improved. Maybe then ESPN converts the LHN into a league network. ESPN's only other option will be to move UT to an ESPN controlled league so that their investment in the LHN isn't for naught. UT's only other option is to abandon the LHN anyway because none of the other leagues would allow them to keep it should UT be intent on leaving the Big 12.
Perhaps UT enjoys their fiefdom that much. I don't think we can discount that off hand as UT has plenty of money. They don't need the increased revenue another league could provide. Perhaps they value power more than money. Perhaps OU doesn't really want to move away from its traditional region. I'm speculating more and more as this post progresses so I'll stop here. Now I know that I'm assuming a lot here and mainly I'm just offering this up for discussion. I'm asking though for someone to tell me where I'm wrong. Right now, I don't see it.
|