Last week the Big 12 conference held its annual spring meetings to discuss revenue distribution, the health and future of the conference, expansion possibilities, and the potential for a Big 12 Network. There were a lot of newsworthy topics, but in the end more unanswered questions left conference and college football fans scratching their heads, pondering the conference’s future intentions.
Let’s take a look at the hot topics that emanated from Irving, Texas last week.
Big XII gets a Championship Game
The biggest news to come out of the meetings was a vote that ended with unanimous support to bring back the Big 12 Championship Game starting in 2017. Bowlsby said the vision is that the title game would be on a neutral site, but didn’t rule out a home field possibility for the regular season champ. According to Bowlsby, the conference will be split into two divisions that have yet to be determined. ESPN has rights to Big 12 title game in 2017 and Fox in 2018. The two networks will alternate from after that through 2024.
While there are now questions as to whether or not this increases the likelihood of expansion and how the Big 12 should split the two divisions, most are questioning whether or not having a championship game with only ten members is a good idea. While it was reported that the news received mixed responses from coaches, Oklahoma president and Big 12 board chair David Boren and Big XII commissioner Bob Bowlsby both seemed pretty confident in the decision. Boren said the data showing that a championship game would help the Big 12 get into the playoff “was very convincing.” Commissioner Bob Bowlsby furthered Boren’s sentiments by saying “the research and the work that we’ve done tells us that even with that risk taken into account we’re better off with a game than without.â€
Bowlsby also stated in his press conference that the Big 12 Conference Championship Game (CCG) had implications for the National Championship Game (NCG) 11 times . What he failed to put in was that the record for the teams bound for the NCG in the Big 12 Championship is 6-5… not odds to be comfortable with if you’re trying to get into the National Championship Game, especially after you have already beaten the team once before in the season.
Chicago-based Navigate Research’s study concludes that the Big 12 has a 4-5 percent better chance of reaching the top four in the College Football Playoffs by adding two teams, playing one less conference game and holding a championship game. This cannot be a strong enough reason for Bob Bowlsby to make the aforementioned statement. This study has been discussed and generally seen as something that really cannot be trusted because it has only two data points (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/5/3/11573878/big-12-championship-game-expansion-realignment-study-playoff).
When you look at the fact that you have a championship game after having a round robin tournament, which will create a tricky situation that is destined to cause a problem in the future, adding this championship game makes no sense and has generally been seen as a risky move by most pundits.
Why are Boren and Bowlsby so confident with this “obvious bluff?†Because of the research they did to find out how much the Big 12 Conference Championship game was worth.
On one hand, per the College Football Playoff Revenue-Redistribution Policies, for each team a conference puts into the College Football Playoffs that conference will receive $6 million, an additional $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls), and $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. So the Big 12 is promised a possible total of $10 million per team IF the Big 12 puts a team into the playoffs.
On the other hand, the Big 12 found that a CCG would bring in a cool $27-$28 million according to Bowlsby. “The information we saw from our consultants [to enact a Conference Championship Game in football] was very compelling…â€
I agree Mr. Bowlsby. A guaranteed $27-$28 million a year is pretty compelling compared to the possibility of getting $6 or $10 million. Money has been the real driving factor behind the massive changes in the College Football landscape, and it is no different in this case.
If it really was about getting into the College Football Playoffs there might have been a stronger push for expansion, as the Navigate Research study included the addition of two more teams. Why dilute this extra $27-$28 million among two more schools?
The Big 12 is Healthier than Most Thought
No Big XII Network
https://soundcloud.com/4th-and-5/16-05-07-how-does-the-big-xii-save-itself-with-the-may-31st-meeting-or-is-it-beyond-saving), here (https://soundcloud.com/4th-and-5/16-03-25-what-is-actually-wrong-with-the-big-12-plus-a-look-at-strong-approach-to-early-recruiting), and here (https://soundcloud.com/4th-and-5/16-05-13-drama-in-the-recruiting-world-and-drama-in-the-big-xii).
Boren stated, “The market place has decided for us that this is not the time for us to consider going forward with what we might call a traditional conference network… that decision has been made for us.†Now one assumes what he hints at is how people have begun switching from watching basic cable to getting their TV needs and watching games through online sources.
However, with the ACC network deal and ESPN drawing closer and closer to becoming a reality, I have to wonder if the real reason for not going forward with a network was due to an inability to get a “traditional cable company†to take on the risk of attempting to make a conference network with a relatively small market.
It probably has more to do with Texas’ unwillingness to budge on the Longhorn Network (LHN) than anything else.
Austin American-Statesman columnist Kirk Bohls reported that despite offers to give the Longhorns an extra $15 million share of a Big 12 Network to cover its LHN income, Texas would still be very unwilling to get rid of the Longhorn Network. Bohls’s Texas source stated, “we would get the same money, but lose our branding and having our own channel? Not very compelling. If we get rid of LHN, it will be to change conferences, in my opinion.”
With Texas not willing to join a Big 12 Network, the new network would be missing the largest market in the conference and therefore severely disadvantaged.
But What About Expansion?!
Bowlsby stated in his press conference that the Big 12 will reconvene later in the summer and take a hard look at expansion. The vote this summer will strictly be on expansion.
I have gone on the record saying expansion is unnecessary and very risky given the teams interested in joining the Big 12. If the conference is hell-bent on expanding, then it doesn’t make sense to take anyone other than BYU and Cincinnati. Even then, those two do not make too much sense from a “what’s good for increasing the stability of the conference†point of view.
Although I do not know what BYU brings in in-terms of revenue per year, Cincinnati brought in around $29 million dollars in the 2014-2015 season. For reference, Iowa State brought in the lowest revenue in the Big XII and it was still $73.24 million. For TV viewership in the 2014-2015 season, BYU attracted 1.25 million viewers on average and Cincinnati 0.769 million viewers on average. For reference the Big XII average was 1.6 million. While one can expect these numbers to increase for teams that were to enter the Big 12, they still do not bring enough to the table to entice conference member schools to dilute their hefty share of a growing revenue.
However, what the Big 12 can and should do is make BYU and either Memphis, Cincinnati or Boise State as football only members. In this way you are not splitting the majority of the revenue while the two new members still make more than they did before in a G5. Additionally the Big 12 limits risk while fixing the ten team problem, and if the Big 12 chooses Memphis they cash in on the FedEx deal.