Simply add a CCG
The Big 12 is the only Power 5 conference (P5) without a CCG. Now, the conference could simply add a CCG on top of the round-robin schedule to get a 13th game (and the increased TV payout that comes with it). The problem is that this would guarantee a rematch from the regular season, and it could potentially be a rematch from the previous week (as OU and OSU would have done in 2015). The Big 12 could knock itself out of playoff discussion if the top seed loses, while the fans may not travel in droves if two teams play each other two weeks in a row. This means the CCG would need to be hosted by the top seed. On the flip side, a scenario like Baylor and TCU from 2014 would have likely boosted the winner into the College Football Playoff (CFP).From a TV contract standpoint, the Big 12 brings in an average of $20M per school from ESPN and FOX through the life of the contract. The inventory is as follows: 45 Big 12 Conference games and 30 out of conference games (OOC), with the networks getting to choose from any of the games in which a Big 12 school hosts, roughly 60 games per year. A CCG would be bid out to the networks, and it is expected that could bring in anywhere from $20M-$35M. With the potential for rematches, though, I believe it will be closer to $20M, and will use $2M per school as the guideline. That means Big 12 schools would bring in $22M each from Big 12 TV contracts.
The Big 12 also receives $91.75M in total from the Sugar Bowl and CFP contracts. Split only 10 ways in comparison to 12 or 14 from the other P5 conferences, that is $9.175M per school. Other bowls don't pay nearly as much, so they aren't as important for this comparison.
Before 3rd tier TV rights (anything that ESPN and FOX don't want) come into the equation, Big 12 schools would each bring in $31.175M per season. If the Big 12 was able to form its own network for these 3rd tier games, potentially using Texas' Longhorn Network as a platform, those revenues would approach, and likely surpass, $40M.
Expand
The reason I was so extensive above was because OU President David Boren is causing a ruckus, wanting the Big 12 to expand back to 12 teams and form a conference network. He feels the Big 12 is disadvantaged at 10 teams, and I can understand that. However, expansion is not as good of an idea as it may appear.First of all, the options aren't great. BYU, Cincinnati, UConn, Memphis, Central Florida, and South Florida are the only real options. Houston does not expand the conference footprint, while Boise St does not add much to a TV contract. BYU is a great school and has an excellent athletic program, but no Sunday play causes problems in non-football sports. Plus, the conference added West Virginia in 2012, so adding BYU would mean the conference would span 3 time zones. BYU just is not happening. Cincinnati has a wonderful athletic program in both football and basketball, expands the TV footprint, and bridges the gap to WVU. This school is the best of the available options. Finding a school to pair with them is an issue. UConn has great basketball, mediocre football, and would really stretch the conference to the north and east. Memphis has great basketball and a rising football program, but lacks a proven fan base. The Florida schools haven't ever been consistently great in football or basketball, but are in great markets; however they stretch the conference out pretty far as well.
Let's say the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Memphis and splits into 2 divisions. Will the TV networks pro-rate the existing payout to account for the addition of these two schools? How many conference games would the conference need to have? Those answers aren't out there for the public right now, but we can speculate.
If the Big 12 went back to 8 conference games per school, there would be 48 conference games and 48 OOC, creating an inventory of 72 games for ESPN and FOX to choose from. Then, the CCG would be added in. At 9 conference games per school, there would be 54 conference games, 36 OOC, and a CCG. Moving back to 8 conference games would put the Big 12 on equal footing as the SEC, ACC, and (for now) Big Ten, and make it much easier for every team in the conference to get bowl eligible. The problem is they'd be asking the networks to pay $40M more for just 3 extra conference games, even if the inventory would have more overall games. I believe that the Big 12 would need to promise the networks that at least half of the OOC games would be against P5 teams for this to work.
To tally that up, Big 12 schools would, at best, earn $20M per school in TV money, $2M per school from the CCG, and only $7.65M per school from the CFP and Sugar Bowl. $29.65M per school is down from $31.175 from not expanding, so they would need to make sure that a potential Big 12 Network could mask that loss and get over $40M per school. I just don't know if that is possible.
Stay at 10, but split into divisions
Lastly, we have the newest option. The legislation that was just passed called for 2 scenarios: stay at 10, keep the round-robin format, and have a CCG between the top 2 teams; OR split into equal divisions, with the champions facing off in the CCG. At first, that sounds like a bad idea. But go in depth a little more and this is actually the scenario that provides the most wiggle room.If the conference splits into 2 divisions, it would be pointless to keep playing 9 conference games, a round robin. So the Big 12 would have to field 8 conference games, right? Not at all. The Big 12 could choose to play only 7 games, which would be better in so many ways. Before I delve into those details, lets attempt to split the conference up into 2 divisions.
First of all, the two flagship schools, the big brands of OU and Texas must be separated. This leaves 2 sensible options: split back into North and South, or use the "zipper" method to split the teams up.
North - South
OU - Texas
OSU - TTU
KU - BU
KSU - TCU
ISU - WVU
For North and South, the North would consist of OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and ISU, while the South would consist of Texas, TTU, TCU, BU, and WVU. This is the easiest split, as the former Big Eight schools stay together and the Texas schools play WVU, but the South is notably tougher than the North. This brings me to the "zipper" method (actually a modified zipper since OU and OSU won't be split up), where every school is paired up with their designated rival, then split down the middle like a zipper.
Division A - Division B
Texas - OU
TTU - OSU
BU - TCU
KU - KSU
WVU - ISU
I think the zipper would balance the division more fairly, so that is the one I would suggest, but both would work.
For scheduling with 8 conference games, each school would play 4 divisional opponents, their designated rival, and 3 of the 4 remaining teams from the opposite division. For 7 conference games, everything would stay the same except for playing 2 of the 4 remaining teams from the opposite division. From an inventory standpoint, 8 game schedules would yield 40 Big 12 games and 40 OOC games, for a total inventory of at least 60 games. At 7 games, the inventory would have 35 Big 12 games and 50 OOC games, for a total inventory of at least 60 games, but likely more than 70.
So if we don't expect TV networks to pay $40M for 3 extra conference games, why should they pay the same amount as they currently do for 5-10 LESS games? At face value, the networks likely wouldn't go for that. But what if the Big 12 gave the networks a scheduling commitment? The Big 12 recently created a scheduling commitment to have at least 1 P5 school on the schedule per team, per season. That totals out to each school guaranteeing playing 10 P5 schools a season, with an average of 50 in the ESPN/FOX inventory. At 7 conference games, if the Big 12 mandated that each school play 3 P5 teams per season, that would total out at 30 P5 games in OOC and at least 15 of those in the Big 12 inventory, bumping the total inventory of P5 games up to 50. There would be no change from the current outlook from a standpoint of offering the networks quality games. Similarly, going back to 8 conference games would yield the same result if the Big 12 mandated each school to play 2 P5 schools per season.
Financially, what does this offer the Big 12? Each school would keep making $20M from ESPN/FOX. The CCG would bring in at least $2M per school, but certainly more than what a guaranteed rematch and potential back-to-back CCG would offer, so I could safely assume it would be $3M per school. The CFP and Sugar Bowl would continue paying $9.175M per school. The total conference payout bumps up to $32.175M. There would be 10-20 games left in the total home game inventory for a potential Big 12 Network to use, assuming ESPN/FOX picks up all of the others. The Big 12 Network should not have a problem clearing $40M per school each year.
What would be best for the Big 12?
There are many things to factor in to this answer. First of all, staying at 10 teams will clearly pay each school the more money than expanding will. Both of the next options offer similar pay, but guaranteeing a rematch at the end of the season is not ideal and I truly believe it would bring in less than having 2 division champions meet up.An important thing to look at is the Big 12's current perception among the Power 5. Big 12 schools currently play 9 conference games, which equates to only 3 OOC games. That means the Big 12 as a whole is guaranteed 5 extra losses than it would have using an 8-game scheduling format, and 10 more losses compared to a 7-game schedule. That means the Big 12 is guaranteed collectively finishing no better than 75-45 (.625) compared to 80-40 (.667) and 85-35 (.708), all if the Big 12 goes undefeated in OOC games.
SEC, ACC, and, currently, Big Ten schools play 8 conference games. At 14 members each, the best each conference can finish is 112-56 (.667). With 9 conference games, that number would dip down to 105-63 (.625). The Pac-12 currently has the toughest schedule of the others, playing 9 conference games.
The most obvious thing to look at is CFP participation. Is it a coincidence that the 2 conferences that play the most games within the conference are also the 2 that have each been left out of the CFP once in the past 2 seasons? Next, you can look at 10 win teams (which usually all finish the season ranked in the top 25), as it is statistically impossible for the Big 12 to match the number of 10-win teams as it is for other conferences. Also, some metrics go by how many bowl teams a given team has played. Playing 4 OOC games gives the opportunity to only need 2 conference wins to reach a bowl, but for the Big 12, that number is 3. That's why the SEC and ACC perennially send so many teams to bowl games, while the Big 12 can't always fill all of its bowls with teams. At the end of the season, when comparing strength of schedule, people usually mention 10-win teams and bowl teams, but never do you hear about the teams affected by those 5 extra, guaranteed losses. By shifting to 8 or, even better, 7 conference games, the Big 12 would put itself at a perfectly legal advantage.
Also, with 7 conference games, think about some of the rivalries college football could get back. Texas-Texas A&M, Oklahoma-Nebraska, West Virginia-Pitt, Kansas-Missouri, Texas-Arkansas. There would finally be plenty of room for these games to come back on a permanent basis, while still allowing room for a variety of other games to be worked in.
With that said, the Big 12 needs to divide back into 2 divisions, go to 7 conference games, and add a CCG to both earn more money and put itself in a better position among the Power 5. Finding a way to turn LHN into the Big 12 Network would be icing on the cake.
No comments:
Post a Comment