The Big 12 BOD on Friday voted "unanimously to bring back the title game in football," according to Chuck Carlton of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. The conference's last title game was in '10, when the conference "still had 12 teams." The game could generate $27-28M per year in revenue, making it "an easy decision for Big 12 presidents." Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said that the conference "would probably look at neutral sites." AT&T Stadium "hosted the last title games and would be an obvious choice again with its seating capacity and location." The vote came after "presentations from Navigate Research on the impact of a title game on the College Football Playoff and TV consultants Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures on what the conference could earn." Bowlsby: "It positions us in a very good place" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 6/4). Oklahoma President and Big 12 BOD Chair David Boren said, "I was really undecided about a championship game. But when you look at the data, the data is really compelling." But ESPN.com's Adam Rittenberg wrote the data is "less compelling, at least right now, for expanding the membership." It also is not "compelling enough for a conference television network, which the presidents effectively killed Friday, noting market changes and the increase in new technologies for content distribution." There are still "very real questions about the Big 12's long-term viability, given the financial projections." Expansion is "less obvious and, seemingly, nowhere near unanimous right now" (ESPN.com, 6/3).
IS TITLE GAME BEST MOVE? Iowa State AD Jamie Pollard said, "It was unanimous among athletics directors to add a championship game, to address one of the areas we perceived to be a disadvantage. It’s only been two years, but perception became reality for us" (DES MOINES REGISTER, 6/4). In Oklahoma City, Berry Tramel writes under the headline "Big 12 Championship Game Comes With Problems." A title game "in a 10-team league is going to be clunky." Tramel: "There is no getting around it. There is no good way to produce two title teams from a 10-team league." A Big 12 championship game "is a Band-Aid, not a cure, to the conference's problems." Tramel: "There really is only one solution to the problem. Expansion" (OKLAHOMAN, 6/6).
MONEY TALKS: YAHOO SPORTS' Pat Forde wrote the annual meeting ended "in a state of flux, which is also the way it started." The championship game is a "good idea for two reasons: It will make money (of course) and it will theoretically strengthen the College Football Playoff résumé of the champion." The Big 12 is "opting to rearrange the deck chairs and add some money." The estimated $27M-$28M in revenue for the conference title game is "by no means chump change, but it likely doesn't erase the annual gap between what Big Ten and SEC schools are getting." The Big 12 "remains a vulnerable and conflicted conference" and the "most likely league to be raided." There also "isn't enough quality inventory out there for the Big 12 to raid to solidify itself" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 6/3). In Oklahoma City, Ryan Aber notes the Big 12 "announced its members would split" $304M in revenue for '15-16, "an increase of around" $50M from a year ago. Bowlsby said that the numbers "put the league behind the SEC and the Big Ten but ahead of the ACC and the Pac-12." Boren said, "That shows the strength of the conference. We're not in any area at this point in time where we're in any kind of crisis because of a revenue differential." Texas received $15M annually "for The Longhorn Network while Oklahoma, believed to be second in the league in third-tier revenue, makes more than" $5M for the Sooner Sports Network (OKLAHOMAN, 6/6).
TV FUNHOUSE: CBSSPORTS.com's Dennis Dodd wrote the question now is "how bad-ass the Big 12 wants to be." Dodd: "Suddenly, Conference Conflict has swagger and leverage." The Big 12 "suddenly holds the near-term outlook of Fox, ESPN and the Big Ten in its hands." Fox and ESPN have to pay the Big 12 as much as $1B "if it expands by as many as four teams." The nets "theoretically won't have" that cash "at the same time the Big Ten goes to market to finalize the second half of its deal" (CBSSPORTS.com, 6/3). In Houston, Joseph Duarte wrote by deciding against starting its own TV network, the Big 12 "eliminated the importance of TV market size, which was believed to be a key component in the expansion decision" (HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 6/5). Boren said of forgoing a conference network at this time: "I'd just say the marketplace has changed. It's a moot issue now. The marketplace simply isn't interested in a traditional network. I can be for it or against it, but the important thing is, is there a market for it? Is there a willing partner right now for a network for anybody?” The OKLAHOMAN's Aber notes the conference's TV contracts, which run through '24-25, already provide "for the determination of broadcast for the conference championship football game" that will be added in '17. Fox "will broadcast games in odd years," beginning with the '17 game, while ESPN will "have the rights for even years" (OKLAHOMAN, 6/6).
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS: In Austin, Kirk Bohls noted Texas "was a clear winner" at the spring meetings. The school no longer "has to worry about Big 12 demands that it abandon LHN in favor of a Big 12 Network, and for just its television rights alone will realize a paycheck" of $45M before it "sells a single ticket or soft drink or beer." Boren either "capitulated, decided Texas would be unbending, or truly embraced the notion that the Big 12 is a viable and strong conference as is." Bohls: "The Big 12 is here to stay" (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 6/3).
