Rouse: Big 12 has work to do
Charles Rouse III, Sports Editor
DAN BEEBE KEPT THE BIG 12 TOGETHER; NOW REAL WORK BEGINS. By Charles Rouse
KANSAS CITY – Many people want to believe that the worst of the Big 12 breakup saga is now behind us, and now everything can get back to normal again. Wouldn’t life be grand if that, in fact, were the case. The hard, cold reality is, the superconference recruiting strike that churned up such a sensational storm all across Big 12 country just a few short weeks ago and spawned more tales and speculation than an old-fashioned mystery yarn is the new normal in the college sports world. The recent raid on the Big 12 Conference by the Big Ten and Pac 10 conferences was successful in getting the University of Nebraska and the University of Colorado to vacate their longtime allegiance to the Big 12 and its predecessor conference(s).
And although Texas and four other schools out of the Big 12’s South Division reportedly were seriously considering opportunities to take their allegiance elsewhere, as well, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe somehow managed to avert any further dismemberment and keep the 10 remaining member institutions in the fold. But that’s all old news now. The problem is, the story is not complete. Keeping the conference together, albeit in its soon-to-be-reduced form, is a significant victory, for sure. It is only a temporary success, however, and should be recognized for what it really is: a single step along a path where some sizeable obstacles remain. In other words, the remade Big 12 is far from a completed work. It’s merely a work in process.
So what we have now are 10 member schools who for various reasons have decided to stay together and publicly renew their vows and commitment to the ongoing viability of the Big 12 Conference. Aside from this, nothing has really changed concerning the divisive issues that came crashing together and very nearly led to the total collapse of one of the country’s best college conferences. For example, although it was widely reported after the Big 12 survival announcement that the 10 remaining schools had each signed an agreement to stay in the conference (both Kansas athletic director Lew Perkins and his Kansas State counterpart, John Currie, were quoted as confirming this), Brady Deaton, chancellor of the University of Missouri and Big 12 board chairman, told Sam Mellinger of The Kansas City Star that no such agreement, signed or otherwise, exists.
Deaton acknowledged that more severe penalties for leaving the conference undoubtedly will be discussed and considered, but there is no movement at the moment to change what already exists. This is a frightening development, because according to the man who is in the true power seat in the conference, there is nothing really to prevent this nightmarish situation from happening all over again when the next conference that decides to get bigger comes calling. This brings up something else that bothers and frustrates me. I can’t understand why the Big 12 has been the prey and not one of the predators in this whole conference expansion discussion.
If the movement is toward the establishment of fewer but larger superconference structures across the college sports landscape, why shouldn’t the Big 12 be part of that future rather than a victim of it? The most divisive and difficult issue among Big 12 schools has involved money – doesn’t it always come down to that? – specifically the amount of income received by each school from the conference’s television contracts, as well as unequal method by which that compensation is distributed. The biggest bargaining chip that, for now at least, is holding the conference together is the projection of more lucrative TV deals with Fox Sports Net and ESPN when the current contracts expire, resulting in higher payouts to each school that are more in line with what schools in the other major conferences are now receiving.
It was earlier reported that minimum payment guarantees were made to Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M If true – and there is no reason to believe otherwise knowing that these are the schools with the most options and the highest leverage under the existing conditions – then what does that say about the other conference schools, like Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri, and the projected increased income they are anticipating from the conference. Moreover, none of this has happened yet. All we have now are promises and projections. The current contracts the conference has with the TV networks are still in place. Insofar as the Big 12’s uneven revenue distribution policy, don’t look for that to change anytime soon.
There’s also the less-pressing but still important issue of what to call the newly structured group of 10 teams once Nebraska and Colorado leave the ranks for good. Or whether to continue with the same brand, as the Big Ten did after adding Penn State and, most likely, will continue to do with Nebraska in the fold? There are too many unresolved issues and unanswered questions for us to get too comfortable just yet about what the Big 12 has learned from where it has been and what the future looks like. What we do know is that the real work is just beginning.
The optimist in me says that conference and school officials have experienced enough of a scare, or gained sufficient information to conclude what life might be like on the other side of the fence, that they are willing to commit themselves to actually doing, not just saying, the things necessary to truly achieve a stronger, better future together. If not, we can view the actions of a couple weeks ago as merely a temporary stay of execution for the once-great Big 12 Conference.
Charles (Chip) F. Rouse III, the Kansas City Sports Examiner, has spent over 40 years working in and with the news media. Rouse, a journalist by training and a graduate of the University of Kansas, has served in the role of newspaper reporter; in addition to radio and television. To view Chip’s sports articles, including this one, on Examiner.com, please click here. He welcomes your comments at crouse@massappealnews.com.