The moment we all feared finally arrived yesterday, as commissioner Mike Slive essentially made Texas A&M’s entrance into the SEC fait accompli.
Everyone has been banking on A&M heading east, so the news itself doesn’t change too much in the realignment drama. However, we have acquired some new information since the last time we tried to break down this latest round of conference-swapping. Seeing as A&M’s Big 12 defection is widely considered to be a key trigger in the latest round of conference-swapping, now seems as good a time as any to get all game theory on that ass.
Note that I’m going to continue to adhere to the majority of my previous assumptions in evaluating this courtship between the Pac-12 Conference and teams from the Big 12.
Oklahoma
First, last night’s report from Pete Thamel of The New York Times on the Pac-12 having misgivings about the Oklahoma schools definitely merits some consideration.
Per usual with conference realignment stories, Thamel’s article is light on on-the-record sources. But let’s assume it accurately reflects the concerns of at least some of the members of the Pac-12.
Which schools would the Pac-12 go after instead? Geography isn’t the conference’s favor. Like it or not, when it comes to expansion, the conference has limited options.
Well, who says the Pac-12 has to expand, right? Absolutely – standing pat is an option.
Yet, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has expressed on multiple occasions that he believes conference “consolidation” is inevitable. If A&M’s move sets off the dominoes, he and the rest of the league will have to decide if they can afford to not be proactive. With the other major conferences kicking into expansion mode, that sounds kinda risky.
Texas
Whispers that Texas has had back channel talks with the Big Ten have provided nice grist for the message board rumor mills as well. The theory is that the Big Ten would allow Texas to keep the Longhorn Network in its current form, but shut UT out from the Big Ten Network profits. For argument’s sake, let’s assume there are some kernels of truth here. (At this point, hopefully, nothing should surprise you.)
Would Texas really want to be the only school in its region competing in a conference? Much like independence, that’s a logistical nightmare. A track meet in Ann Arbor in March isn’t exactly a luxury cruise, either.
Maybe UT really does value its TV network that much. On the other hand, if the Big Ten isn’t realistic, what does UT have to gain from stringing it along?
For one thing, it’s always better to have options than to not have them. More importantly, by showing interest in the Big Ten, Texas could possibly gain concessions from Larry Scott and the Pac-12. Maybe that means preserving the LHN as is. More likely, Texas and ESPN could fetch a higher price to sell the LHN and the attending media rights to the Pac-12 as part of its membership agreement.
None of this is to say that Texas doesn’t have legitimate interest in the B1G. However, even if DeLoss Dodds could convince Jim Delaney to let UT keep its TV toy, the reality of life in the B1G might not be as rosy as Texas fans imagine.
Conclusion
I see Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech ending up in the Pac-12. I still can’t imagine any conference worth its salt allowing Texas to keep the LHN as it is now. Once, the UT brass have exhausted all options in an effort to keep the LHN, the Pac-12 will probably offer the best package for the ‘Horns.
Follow Allen Kenney on Twitter @BlatantHomerism
