John Hoover

John E. Hoover: What if all this Big 12 expansion talk is really just a clever ruse?

John E. Hoover: What if all this Big 12 expansion talk is really just a clever ruse?

IMG_3565Big 12 Conference leadership has been talking tough lately.

But what if the league has an ulterior motive?

It seems the Big 12 intends to hold ESPN and Fox to the letter of that cumbersome pro rata clause in their contract, the one that continues to pay each Big 12 member the same $20 million or so whether the league has 10 teams or 14.

But what if the bold statements by commissioner Bob Bowlsby and board chairman David Boren are really more of a power play?

What if all this talk of Big 12 expansion is just subterfuge?

How else to account for the Big 12’s sudden change of heart?

At the league’s annual spring business meetings back on June 3, Boren and Bowlsby said television partners assured them there was no market for a new conference network — certainly not one that stretches from the coal hills of West Virginia to the dusty plains of West Texas.

“When the consultants tell you and the marketplace tells you, ‘Look, everything’s changed,’ ” Boren said, “if you were the CEO of ESPN or Fox or one of the traditional networks right now, with all this change and disruptive technology, would you be want to put millions of dollars into a partnership with a new traditional network? I think you’d say, ‘Not now.’ ”

Then, just ahead of Big 12 media days two weeks ago, it was revealed that ESPN and the ACC had come to terms on an ACC Network, a deal that has been estimated will bring in as much as $200 million a year, though it’s probably closer to $100 million.

See, no market for a new network and $100 million for a new network — that’s two different things.

IMG_3566

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby

Back in June, remember, Boren practically pounded his fist to emphasize the league’s stance on expansion.

“It does give some marginal gain,” Boren said. “But you have weight that against reputational impacts. In other words, our fans want to see our teams play against great teams. They don’t want to see them play mediocre teams.”

That’s a pretty strong argument against expansion.

But just six weeks later, there sat Boren and Bowlsby, talking to national media on a conference call, about the virtues of expansion.

That, too, is incongruent.

Let’s revisit that conference call on July 19.

In the context of TV networks flagging financially as consumers cut cords, adding a Big 12 championship game for upwards of $30 million a year and the forthcoming compensation to the ACC, the question was asked: what money is going to be left without antagonizing those (TV) partners to expand?

Bowlsby figuratively rolled up his sleeves and clenched his fists.

“Well, you know, we have provisions in our existing contracts that were negotiated along with the 12-year agreements that we made,” Bowlsby said. “And those stipulations were put in the contracts in anticipation of the possibility of fluctuations. … So the contract was anticipatory of the change that is present in college athletics.

“ … So we expect to exercise the full prerogatives of what we negotiated.”

Translation: They’ll pay us what the contract says they’ll pay us.

“The provisions, of course, as you know, do protect us so that current member shares will not be diluted if we were to add two or four more teams,” Boren added. “There’s a contractual obligation to pay that additional amount pro rata that we’re already receiving if there is an expansion, a hypothetical expansion of the conference. It’s already covered in our contracts, does not require additional negotiation of the contracts.”

Yeah, but aren’t you concerned that holding their feet to the fire will agitate TV execs when it comes time to renegotiate in 2024?

“In both the case of the championship game and in the case of the pro rata adjustments, you know, we’re in complete compliance with the contract,” Bowlsby said. “And it’s a mutually binding contract that we put in place 4 ½ years ago. So I don’t think we have to make apologies for activating around stipulations that we both agreed to.”

Full prerogatives and protective provisions and contractual obligations — oh my.

Maybe all this tough talk about expansion and television contract pro rata adjustments is really just a smokescreen for what the Big 12 really wants: a league television network.

Yes, the Big 12 is the only Power 5 conference with 10 teams. But now, the Big 12 is also the only Power 5 conference without a television network.

Ten members actually is a workable model, so long as it’s stable. The Big 12 nearly had two teams in the inaugural College Football Playoff, and last year the Big 12 landed both a playoff football team and a Final Four basketball team. As Bowlsby and Boren reminded us so frequently leading up to July, that indicates a position of strength, not weakness.

But now, being the only Power 5 conference without a TV network, that is a sign of weakness.

Working through federal tax returns, it’s been estimated that the first full year of the SEC Network produced just over $100 million, or about $7 million per school. The Big 12, with only 10 members, might command that kind of cash, but having a network does open up future earning potential. It also tells recruits, ‘Hey, we’re legit.’

Think about it. Does the Big 12 really want to add Cincinnati or Houston or Memphis or Colorado State at the risk of jeopardizing its relationships (and future negotiating leverage) with ESPN and Fox?

Maybe the Big 12’s sudden, unexpected interest in expansion and its unusually hardline stance on pro rata adjustments is really just a big negotiating chip to force ESPN and Fox to give the Big 12 what it really wants: a television network.

And now perhaps the ball is in ESPN and Fox’s court.

Do they want to pay the Big 12 what Sports Business Journal reported as an additional $80 million a year for an inventory that includes Central Florida and Connecticut?

Or would they rather pay the Big 12 something like $80 million a year for a network — and pass the cost onto cable and satellite subscribers?

John Hoover

Hoover wrote for the Tulsa World for 24 years before joining The Franchise, where he's now co-host of "Further Review" on The Franchise Tulsa (weekdays 12-3, fm107.9/am1270) . In his time at the World, Hoover won numerous writing and reporting awards, including in 2011 National Beat Writer of the Year from the Associated Press Sports Editors for his work covering the Oklahoma Sooners. Hoover also covered Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Oral Roberts and the NFL as a beat writer. From 2012 to 2016, Hoover was the World's lead sports columnist. As a columnist, Hoover won national awards in 2012 and 2014 from the National Athletic Trainers Association for reporting on sports medicine and in 2015 won first place in sports columns from the Oklahoma Society of Professional Journalists. After receiving a journalism degree from East Central University, Hoover worked at newspapers in Ada, Okmulgee, Tahlequah and Waynesville, Mo. He played football at Ada High School and grew up in North Pole, Alaska. Hoover and his family live in Broken Arrow.

More in John Hoover

PODCAST: Jenks coach Allan Trimble joins Further Review

John E. HooverMay 17, 2017

John E. Hoover: David Boren’s words on conference realignment don’t exactly assuage Big 12 fans’ fears

John E. HooverMay 15, 2017

PODCAST: NFL official and Jenks HS basketball coach Clay Martin stops by Further Review

John E. HooverMay 12, 2017

John E. Hoover: Rewarding Lincoln Riley is a wise look to the future for Sooners

John E. HooverMay 11, 2017

John E. Hoover: Finally, college football recruiting, redshirt rules get a meaningful makeover

John E. HooverMay 10, 2017

The Franchise