Topic: Renowned OK writer urges Big XII merger, not expansion

[_sturt_]

http://newsok.com/article/5513732 (video included)

Big 12 survival mode continues. Add a championship game. Expand by two or four or 17. Extort the networks, who heretofore were blood brothers.

None great ideas. None guaranteed bonanzas. None are the ideal.

The ideal is in the past. The ideal is an Oklahoma-Nebraska conference championship game. The ideal is Texas A&M-Texas on Thanksgiving. The ideal is Missouri basketball in Kansas City for the tournament or Lawrence in the Phog.

Since the departures of bedrock members, the Big 12 has no ideal. Some would say no idea, either, but the real problem has been no ideal. All the options are poor.

Individual schools can fathom good times ahead. OU in the SEC (fans) or Big Ten/Pac-12 (academicians). OSU with OU in any conference. Kansas in the Big Ten, getting the last laugh since that's where Mizzou really wanted to be. Texas anywhere that it can bring along Bevo TV.

But the Big 12 itself? No ideal. No Promised Land. Just a constant state of trying to stay alive.

Except twice in the last six months, prime decision-makers in our state, independent of each other, have floated an idea to me. An influential person at OU, then the same from OSU.

Merger. Merge with preferably the SEC, but if not, the Pac-12. Not a split. Not six schools heading west, like was discussed in 2010. A merger. Ten Big 12 schools join the SEC to form a 24-team conference, or join the Pac-12 to form a 22-team conference.

Seems like a longshot. Why would the U.S. annex Mexico? Why would an enterprise that everyone is trying to enter take on an enterprise that everyone is trying to exit?

And it is a longshot. But it's not impossible. There is logic behind the absurdity. Financial logic, which is even better.

For years, television consultants have been telling college football decision-makers that their negotiation model is lax. Six major organizations — the five power conferences, plus Notre Dame — fracture the bounty by brokering separate deals with ESPN and Fox and NBC and CBS.

The NFL model is much better. All 32 teams, both conferences, unite to hammer out a deal,

and all the zeroes to the left of the decimal point declare the success of such tactics. Heck, look at college basketball, the most splintered of sports, which comes together and negotiates NCAA Tournament rights so lucrative that literally the entire NCAA is funded more than adequately.

Go back to 2010, when the Big 12 seemed on the brink of disintegration but was kept alive when the networks rode to the rescue with the promise of paying the same total for a 10-team league that it paid for a 12-team league. That was not some kind of benevolent act. ESPN was not bucking for a humanitarian award.

The networks knew that the more viable leagues, the better for the networks. They wanted OU and Texas in their own conference, not a league with Alabama and Florida, or Southern Cal and Oregon.

Consultants say that the real bounty for big-time college football is if all 65 schools (Power-5, plus Notre Dame) joined together for negotiations.

That seems unlikely anytime soon. For one, anti-trust issues would arise, with the mid-majors screaming foul. But most anti-trust arguments are bogus. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act really gets down to one simple question. Is the consumer — in this case college football fans — hurt by the action?

I don't know what a 65-school contract would look like, but it's hard to imagine the consumer being injured. I don't see fewer football games being televised. I see more.

But independent of legal issues, you've got social barriers. We're talking about powerful and proud entities. Notre Dame. The SEC. Texas. The Big Ten. Talk about a United Nations.

Getting all 65 schools, getting all five conferences to cooperate and unite, appears to be a mighty mission. College football tried something similar with the College Football Association 35 years ago, with some success, though the CFA gradually divided, with each conference working its own deal.

So why not a gradual return to solidarity? Before 65 can get together, perhaps 24 can get together.

If the SEC took its product to the marketplace and had the likes of Oklahoma and Texas to offer up, too, then the money would grow exponentially.

Why not just OU and Texas and forget the rest of the Big 12? That's where the Sooners and Longhorns have some chips. It's clear that neither wants to join the SEC solo or in a small group. Both would prefer Big 12 survival, maintaining regional rivalries. Both would prefer playing the majority of their road games in the Southwest, not in the Deep South. It just makes sense.

Plus, the Big 12 and SEC already are partners to some degree, jointly owning the Sugar Bowl and exerting much power over the bowl and playoff system.

Of course, the SEC is riding high competitively and financially and perceptionally. It doesn't have much impetus to merge.

But the Pac-12 does. The Pac-12's network hasn't been the cash cow for which it hoped. The Pac-12's negotiating power isn't as great, despite lots of eyeballs in its markets, because of culture. We care more about college football in this part of the country than they do out West, and the networks know it.

So the Pac could use a partner.

A merger of the Big 12 and SEC would create a 24-team league and probably would necessitate 12-team divisions. That would require a couple of schools moving, almost surely two from the pool of Missouri, Arkansas and Texas A&M, all expatriates from the Big Eight or Southwest Conference or Big 12. Scheduling options are many; the networks would drool at the prospect.

Of course, a Big 12 expansion now would make an SEC merger less tidy and less likely. If the SEC ever agreed to take on the likes of Iowa State, it would be harder-pressed to take on the likes of Cincinnati.

A Big 12 expansion to 12 now would make for a cohesive fit with the Pac-12, though that depends on which two. Brigham Young and Boise State, for instance, have non-starters with the Pac, because of social (BYU) and academic (Boise State) reasons.

But the Pac needs more shine, the Big 12 needs more stability. That's how the Reese's made it big.

Of course, expansion in general only hurts the Big 12 cause for the ideal of a united football nation. Expansion raises the number from 65 to 67 or 69 with power-conference status. The bigger the number, the less bounty for all.

The Big 12 really doesn't want that number to rise. Neither do the Big 12's fellow conferences, unless they see it as a sure sign the Big 12 will implode, and they can pick up some meaty refugees.

If the Big 12 wants the ideal, it will not expand. It will seek a merger that gives the schools in this part of the country their only chance at two things they desire: stability and staying together.

Berry Tramel: Berry can be reached at (405) 760-8080 or at btramel@oklahoman.com. He can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including FM-98.1. You can also view his personality page at newsok.com/berrytramel.