What’s going on in the Big 12 and beyond? I expand and explain every Sunday in Postscripts at Heartland College Sports, your home for independent Big 12 coverage.
Why This Potential Concession to SEC Matters to the Big 12
If you’re like me, you were probably a little confused by Yahoo Sports columnist Ross Dellenger’s report from earlier this week. Dellenger, who has been embedded with the negotiations over the Protect College Sports Act this summer, reported that negotiators had come to an important concession regarding what conferences could do with their membership and expansion.
The potential compromise allows schools that are in the Group of 6 to move up to a power conference if invited.
What I found interesting was how he couched it on social media. See below.
It felt like this might be something the SEC and Big Ten wanted, which seemed weird to me because why would either want a Group of 6 school? That’s something the ACC and the Big 12 might be more interested in down the line — under the right circumstances, of course.
Reason for Big 12 and ACC Concern
But, this is why you read the story — and why the Big 12 and the ACC should be concerned. Buried deep in Dellenger’s story was a bit on another concession the SEC and Big Ten are seeking:
“In addition to that, the revision may provide flexibility for power conference programs to move to other power leagues, such as those in the ACC and Big 12 shifting to the SEC and Big Ten. But those moves may only be made within a certain framework of parameters yet to be formalized.”
So, yeah, the SEC and the Big Ten are not done trying to tweak this thing their way. If you’re Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, this is the potential concession that really matters.
If you don’t pay attention to how legislation is crafted in D.C., I don’t blame you. But there’s a lot of horse-trading. A narrow avenue for power conference schools to add other power conferences schools would interest all four conferences, but it would be more advantageous to the SEC and the Big Ten.
After all, there isn’t a single SEC or Big Ten school that wants to join the Big 12 or the ACC. But the other way around? That’s a different story. The SEC and Big Ten want that privilege, if its needed. Or, maybe compromising on the Group of 6 pathway would make them feel less guilty about pillaging the Big 12 and ACC?
Freezing power conference membership was unpalatable to the Big Ten and SEC. But they had an in — Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell (D). She was quoted in the story as saying that schools like Washington State should have a pathway to go to a power league if they wanted to. Wazzu was left out of the last round of realignment and is still in the Pac-12, which has been relegated out of power conference status. She understands how to play to her base. The SEC and the Big Ten understand that she was a pathway to getting what they wanted.
As for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) he’s talked about standing up for the non-power conference schools in the state. But all the schools in Texas really want is for him to stop coming to their big games so they don’t have to deal with the “Ted Cruz curse,” which is a real thing. Schools like Texas A&M and Houston would be happy for someone to write that in the bill.
SEC and Big Ten Now Flexing
Everyone involved wants this deal to work. But the SEC and the Big Ten want it to work more on their terms. The SEC is already reportedly making noise about “going it alone” if they don’t like the bill. They’re one of two conferences that could do that. The Big Ten is the other. They don’t need a “super league” to do that. Just cooperation, which they already have. Freezing conference membership doesn’t serve any of the power leagues. It also takes way their autonomy.
Whether the SEC and the Big Ten break away or not, eventually they’ll need more carriage to satisfy their TV partners. If they go it alone, eight SEC games and nine Big Ten games a week isn’t going to do it. Those TV partners will want more. That’s where the narrow pathway to poach from the ACC and Big 12 — or going it alone and luring away membership — comes in.
It puts the Big 12 and the ACC in a tight spot. Here are the options as I see it:
Try to pass the legislation with the ban on all expansion. The SEC and the Big Ten won’t sign on and will likely bolt and take a lot of TV money, including playoff money, with them.
Try to pass the legislation with the pathway for Group of 6 schools and nothing else. The Big 12 and the ACC are cool. The SEC and the Big Ten won’t sign on and will likely bolt and take a lot of TV money, including playoff money, with them.
Try to pass the legislation with the pathway for Group of 6 schools and the narrow pathway for power conference poaching. The Big 12 and the ACC are on high alert for poaching. The SEC and the Big Ten get what they want.
No legislation is passed. The Big 12 and the ACC are on high alert for poaching. The SEC and the Big Ten get what they want.
There is only one pathway that protects the Big 12 and ACC and that pathway is untenable to the SEC and Big Ten. The rest of the pathways don’t protect the Big 12 or ACC. At some point the Big 12 will have to expand. They’ll need more members for more TV money. That can’t be cut off at the knees.
So that’s what was important this week. Not that the SEC and the Big Ten appeared to be on board with Group of 6 upward mobility. But that was their price for being allowed the option to strip the Big 12 and ACC for parts.
The more this bill gets amended, the less there is for the Big 12 to like when it comes to its future survival.
