Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
In our last visit, we discussed the current state of three major athletics conferences (ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12). Last week, those three conferences met to discuss (perhaps) how to divvy-up the remainder of the Big 12 Conference teams or whether they had other things in mind.
What do you think they were discussing? I think it comes down to two possibilities.
The first, and most likely, was to come up with a “friendly” agreement as to the best way for these three major athletics conferences to split-up all (or some) of the remaining Big 12 Conference teams.
After Texas and Oklahoma hit the road for the SEC a few weeks ago, that left eight Big 12 schools in that conference. The Big 12 Conference might not be ready to go down without a fight, though. They could try to add a few new members such as the University of Houston, SMU, Cincinnati, Memphis or Boise State in an effort to rebuild their conference once again.
If you’re one of the surviving eight Big 12 schools, you would be wise to hold-off on any ideas of a possible Big 12 “expansion” plan until your remaining members see if they are being courted by one of the four remaining major conferences first. The annual television payday they might receive from joining one of the remaining major conferences will be significantly higher than a newly patched-up Big 12 Conference will be able to snag.
Remember, we are fully into a “Bigger is Better” feeding frenzy in major college athletics right now. I don’t particularly like all of these changes for money’s sake, but let’s play the cards we are being dealt right now.
Let’s assume that last week’s work session (which I dubbed “The conference room of Conferences“) was a friendly gathering to gauge interest in each of the remaining Big 12 members. Let’s also assume that each of the three athletics conferences in attendance will expand to 16 teams soon (just like the SEC).
As we discuss these eight Big 12 schools, keep in mind that the number of television eyeballs brought-in by these schools will, indeed, matter! You can have a huge alumni base (like Texas Tech) but, if you’re unable to prove where your alumni reside in large numbers, you might be out of luck soon. Let’s now discuss each of the eight Big 12 schools.
West Virginia – The Mountaineers could land in the ACC (where there are currently 15 member institutions) or the Big Ten (where there are 14 current members). I think the ACC makes the most sense for the West Virginia as it sets-up rivalries with Virginia Tech, Virginia, and Pitt.
Oklahoma State – I discussed the Cowboys’ plight in depth earlier this month (https://swampswami.com/2021/08/03/is-oklahoma-state-poked-into-a-corner/). The Pokes are most likely coveted by the Big Ten so that the conference can expand their footprint into the Oklahoma City (#43) and Tulsa (#58) television markets. I cannot see the Pokes heading west into the Pac-12 unless they were to join along with TCU, Texas Tech and others.
Kansas – this one is a head scratcher. Though KU’s basketball program is, arguably, a top five national program, the football team has been historically bad in recent decades. I can see the Big Ten (holding their noses) taking KU purely to claim the #32 television market in Kansas City.
Kansas State – Unless the Pac-12 throws a lifeline to the Wildcats, they might be toast.
Iowa State – Sorry Cyclone fans, but I think you’re in the same boat as K-State soon.
Texas Tech – Texas Tech has well over 30,000 students on campus and a rabid alumni following for the school’s athletics programs. Alas, the Lubbock TV market ranks a paltry #142 so the Red Raiders have to “sell” themselves as a national brand. That’s going to be hard to do unless they can package themselves with…
TCU – The Horned Frogs are based in Fort Worth (TV market #5). Though this private Christian school is not on equal footing with Texas Tech in overall athletics prowess, TCU can claim to deliver the coveted Dallas-Fort Worth television market to the Pac-12. TCU has the easiest “sell” to get into the Pac-12.
Baylor – See Texas Tech’s dilemma. Baylor has extremely competitive football and basketball programs, but the Waco TV market ranks #82 nationally. The Pac-12 might go for a package of up to four Big 12 teams (since four more teams would bring them to 16). Baylor must hope that they can pair with TCU if they hope to get into an expanded Pac-12 Conference.
Big 12 summary – Oklahoma State, TCU, West Virginia, and Kansas appear to be in the best positions to be picked-up by another major conference. Texas Tech, Baylor, K-State, and Iowa State need to do a lot of “marketing” if they want to continue playing on the biggest stage.
Now let’s turn our attention to what else might have been considered by the representatives of last week’s big pow-wow of ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 Conferences.
First, let’s assume that these three college athletics conferences have already selected their preferred Big 12 “leftovers” and have become 16-team conferences (just like the SEC). That would mean that the ACC would add one new team, the Big Ten would add two, and the Pac-12 would add four teams so that each major conference would soon be comprised of 16 teams apiece.
This means there would be 64 colleges are participating in the four major athletics conferences. Is it time to trot-out the idea of forming a special football-only “Super” conference?
Here’s my idea on how to do it. The SEC, ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 schools will make a pact to create a 32-team football “Super” division from within their 64-member institutions. With 32 teams in the mix, that also leaves 32 teams on the outside looking in. In the initial year, each conference will nominate their top eight teams based on the prior year’s BCS rankings (or other ratings methodology which might be in vogue at the time).
The remaining 32 schools will participate in a separate lower division (much like professional golf’s mini-tour) with the top four teams at the end of the season being automatically promoted up into the “Super” football division in the following year. Likewise, the bottom four teams of the “Super” football division will be sent down to the lower division for the following year. Any ties (which will happen) will be broken based on the five-year won/loss percentage of each football team.
This method will assure that competition remains high to stay within the upper “Super” football division as well motivate the 32 lower division schools who are trying to move-up every year, too. The television money for the 32 teams participating in the “Super” football division will be quite a bit higher than those schools languishing in the 32-team lower group.
For example, Florida State would have been a “lock” for the top football group ten years ago, but their football team should not be part of the top group today based on recent performance. If Florida State should turn around their football fortunes and win big in the new 32-team lower tier group, they would automatically gain admission to the top-tier of football schools the following season based on this annual qualifying methodology. Teams will stay in the upper tier as long as their on-field performance warrants.
This method will assure teams competing in the “Super” football division that, despite a much more difficult competition level, they have an 28/32 (87.5%) chance that their team will not fall out of the upper tier simply for having a relatively mediocre record in one football season. Only the four worst performing teams from the previous year will be dropped in favor of the best four performing teams from the lower division. Again, any ties will be broken based on each team’s 5-year won/loss percentage on the gridiron.
The television networks (who are driving this plan anyway, right?) will likely insist that my idea should be modified to contain a guarantee that each conference has a minimum number of participants every year. They might prefer a minimum of four teams from each conference play in the new “Super” football division in order to achieve a better geographic (and national advertising) balance.
Personally, I believe that competition on the field should serve as the primary determining factor rather than coddling to any underperforming conference (yes, I’m talking to you right now, Pac-12!).
In summary, my new “SwampSwami.com Plan”™ gives the four major conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12) a chance to feature their best football teams in a 32-team “Super” football division and another 32-team “play-in” football division with the annual rotation of four teams out of each division assured based on team performance in the previous season.