What’s going on in the Big 12 and beyond? I expand and explain every Sunday in Postscripts at Heartland College Sports, your home for independent Big 12 coverage.
This week, the Big 12 was in Orlando for its annual meetings this week (hey, where was our invite, Big 12? Not even a heads up?). Anyway, a lot happened. Let’s dig in.
A FIGHT THE BIG 12 MIGHT ACTUALLY … WIN?
For the past few months all we’ve written about is the 4-4-2-2-1 model for the College Football Playoff. It’s the model that the Big Ten and the SEC seem to prefer because it gives each four automatic bids because they’re the Big Ten and the SEC and the rest of us aren’t. Last week’s vote to allow for straight seeding off the CFP final rankings only seemed to further solidify it.
This week in Orlando the Big 12, in partnership with the ACC, revealed an alternative model — 5+11. The top five conference champions and the next 11 highest-seeded teams would be at-large berths. On the face of it the format is as fair as we might get.
“I’m about fairness,” Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark said to reporters this week. “There’s a lot of conversations about AQs. We want to earn it on the field. I think 5+11 format does that. It’s fair. It’s what our fans want. They don’t want an invitational. They want a true playoff system and we have that right now.”
Per Brett McMurphy at Action Network, this isn’t the first time it’s been proposed. This also came after SEC commissioner Greg Sankey’s “I don’t need lectures” rant to start the SEC meetings.
By the way, here was Yormark’s comment on that.
As one might expect, the SEC HATED the 5+11. Wait, hang on, I’m being told at least one audience was listening.
“… At the coaching level, the question is, why wouldn’t that be fine? Why wouldn’t we do that?” Sankey told ESPN earlier in the week.
Then, there was this nugget from Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger.
Now, Sankey could certainly be posturing or playing the long game. A change in selection criteria could be good, but not if it favors a particular league. By the way, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti hasn’t said a peep this week while his bestest buddy in the SEC has taken all kinds of shots. So Sankey credit for taking the shrapnel this week.
But a system where conference champions are rewarded and the best 11 teams get in based on merit sounds like the fairest system we’re going to get.
Which means, of course, it probably won’t happen. But give Yormark some credit for pushing back and getting some traction, even though I’m 50/50 that it leads to where he’s hoping for.
PRIVATE EQUITY, WE HARDLY KNEW YE
A year ago, the Big 12 appeared to be on the verge of an infusion of cash through private equity. Now, it’s dead.
Front Office Sports reported the development in a one-on-one conversation with Yormark, who noted that the Big 12’s board of directors isn’t ready for it yet.
“We’ve explored all that,” he said. “We did it probably for the better part of the year. We’re not ready to go in that direction, but we know what the options are out there. We’ve been educated at the highest levels.”
Given that the financial disparity the power four conferences is only going to get larger, I would expect this to be revisited at some point.
Is this a failure on Yormark’s part? Well, he can take the horse to water, but he can’t make it drink, you know? Plus, a private equity argument with a single sports team is a much different animal than a 16-team conference.
But, if another power conference goes this direction before the Big 12, he and the league’s board will look like they swung and missed. And believe me — other leagues are looking. If Yormark had a vision for this, the league’s board didn’t buy into it.
So, more of the blame has to fall to the board. The variable is the actual financials, and without that nugget of information it’s impossible to say if the deal would have been good for the league or not.
Yormark says there are other avenues of revenue to explore. It should be interesting to see how that develops because I don’t think an expanded arrangement with pro wrestling is gonna cover it.
CAN WE JUST STOP WITH THE NCAA TOURNAMENT?
NCAA president Charlie Baker was in Orlando touting an expanded NCAA basketball tournament. Yormark has been on the record for a while in favor. The Big 12 coaches that were in attendance were down with it, too.
It doesn’t matter how many rallies CBS Sports’ Jon Rothstein has in Central Park, we’re now closer to an expanded March Madness than ever before — even though I have a hard time finding a fan in favor of altering the best postseason tournament in sports.
This may be something we just have to choke down like that overcooked turkey at your mother-in-law’s house on Thanksgiving.
NO SCHEDULING PARTNERSHIPS
Yormark was asked by FOS if the Big 12 needed a football scheduling partnership. His answer?
“No. We’re fine,” he said. “We love our out-of-conference schedule. We don’t necessarily have an alliance with any particular conference. We play them all.”
So, here’s the thing. If the SEC goes to nine league games and creates a scheduling agreement with the Big Ten — something LSU coach Brian Kelly touted this week — the Big 12 is not playing an SEC or Big Ten team in non-conference because that only leaves those teams two remaining games and they need their cupcakes.
So, the Big 12 may not “need” a scheduling agreement with the ACC, but if that happens that’s what they’ll end up with, whether they like it or not. It will be their only option. May as well codify one.
THE SEC IS AWESOME
Don’t take my word for it. Ask them — or their research staff.
Man, you really don’t want to play that ninth conference game, do you?
You can find Matthew Postins on Twitter @PostinsPostcard.
