History of the Big 12 Conference

The Big 12 Conference is a ten-school collegiate athletic conference headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is a member of the NCAA's Division I for all sports; its football teams compete in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS; formerly Division I-A), the higher of two levels of NCAA Division I football competition. Member schools are located in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.

The Big 12 Conference is the second youngest of the major college athletic conferences in the United States, having formed in 1994 from a merger of one of the oldest conferences, the Big Eight, with four prominent colleges from Texas that had been members of the Southwest Conference. From its formation until 2011, its 12 members competed in two divisions. Two charter members left the conference in 2011, and in 2012, two more left, while another two joined from other conferences. In 2012, the Big 12 formed an alliance with the Southeastern Conference to host a joint post-season college bowl game between the champions of each conference, which would eventually become the Sugar Bowl.

Origins

College Football Association last days

On June 27, 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma that the NCAA could not punish its membership for selling their media content. As a result, individual schools and athletic conferences were freed to negotiate contracts on their own behalf.

The Big Ten and Pacific-10 conferences sold their rights to ABC. Most of the rest of the Division I-A football programs (what is now called the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision) chose to sell their rights together through an organization called the College Football Association to ABC and CBS. The primary function of the CFA was to negotiate television broadcast rights for its member conferences and independent colleges.

By 1990, the television landscape had changed and a number of the stronger programs saw opportunities for better deals outside of the CFA. Notre Dame left the CFA and sold their home game broadcast rights to NBC.^[1]

When the Southeastern Conference invited the University of Arkansas and the University of South Carolina to join in 1990, it created shockwaves across the CFA. The other CFA conferences correctly assumed the SEC made these additions to create a better TV product with the idea of leaving the CFA.

The SEC represented one of the more valuable CFA assets. It seemed likely that if the SEC departed, the other conferences could have difficulty securing good TV deals.

After Arkansas' departure from the Southwest Conference, the SWC and Big Eight Conference recognized they were in a poor position. The SEC, with about 18% of the nation's TV audience, had a very strong TV position. The Big 8 had an 8.1% share. The Texas based SWC had an even weaker hand with only 6.7%.^[2]

In February 1994, the Southeastern Conference announced that they would be leaving the CFA and negotiate independently for a television deal that covered SEC schools only. This led The Dallas Morning News to proclaim that "the College Football Association as a television entity is dead".^[3] In 1995, the SEC and the Big East broke from the CFA, signing a national deal with CBS. The SEC would earn a staggering $95 million from the deal. More significantly, this change in television contracts ultimately would lead to significant realignment of college conferences.

The Southwest Conference

For decades the Southwest Conference (SWC) was one of the most dominant football conferences in America. It was seen as a football peer to other elite conferences like the Pac-10, Big 10, SEC and Big Eight.^[2][4]

Then professional football came to Dallas and Houston. Attendance at Rice, SMU, TCU, and Baylor collapsed.^[2][4][5] For over two decades, the SWC membership struggled with the issue. In 1974 a lengthy article detailing the attendance decline at Rice, Baylor, SMU, and TCU and suggested the SWC was in trouble because the University of Texas felt like it was subsidizing the conference. The conference collapsed in 1994.^[4]

Though it was not the only conference engaging in recruitment violations, the SWC ranked as one of the worst. At one point, seven of the nine SWC schools were under some sort of NCAA sanction. SMU was given the death penalty for their rule violations.^[6]

By 1986, SWC schools' NCAA penalties and bowl game ineligibilities had begun compromise the SWC brand, driving top Texas talent out of state. Even top schools that had mostly stayed clear of trouble found their recruiting diminished. After years of SWC schools doing well in bowls, they suddenly could not compete with the elite schools of other conferences. A December 18, 1986 Dallas Morning News article stated:

"Recruiting experts say the allegations have chased Texas's home-grown talent to other conferences. And while other conferences raid the state, the SWC stays at home, making do with a shrinking talent pool. Earlier this month, seven of the Dallas area`s leading recruits—including running back Barry Foster of nearby Duncanville, Texas, The Dallas Morning News' Offensive Player of the Year—said they no longer were interested in the SWC, calling it 'shaky' or 'screwed-up.' Said Bennie Perry, a defensive back from Bryan Adams High School in Dallas: 'You couldn`t pay me to go to a Southwest Conference school, because they`re getting into too much trouble.'" ^[7]

As sanctions began to sap the quality of play at the top of the conference, The big three began to actively look at other conferences. In attempts to appease the conference powers, the other members made financial rule changes, eventually including allowing home teams to keep their gate revenue (Gate revenue was a much larger portion of operating funds at that time).^[5] These efforts fell short of satisfying the bigger issues UT and Texas A&M had with the SWC, but would appear to have played a role in UT's position going forward on revenue sharing.

Eventually, Arkansas departed for the Southeastern Conference. The SEC comprised primarily rural public schools that drew well and the conference had a much larger share of the nation's TV markets. As game day attendance and TV revenue drove athletic budgets, The SEC represented a much more financially sound organization.

UT Athletic director DeLoss Dodds reflected on the importance of Arkansas' departure saying, “What had to happen, [was] there had to be a crisis for change.” ^[8]

Arkansas' athletic director Frank Broyles said that he was encouraged to leave by UT's and Texas A&M's leaders, because it would destabilize the conference, allowing them to do the same. The leaderships at UT and Texas A&M believed they would never be allowed to leave first.^[8] (In the summer of 1990, word would leak of Texas and Texas A&M thinking of following Arkansas into the SEC. Reaction in Texas would be very negative, with politicians threatening both schools' funding before the idea was tabled.^[9])

The Southwest Conference could not find a replacement its membership would agree upon. The private schools were in denial of the depth of problems facing the conference. They suggested simply replacing Arkansas, a public school, with private schools BYU or Tulane. With four private schools and four public schools already in the SWC, adding either choice could potentially give the private schools a voting majority.

Private or not, UT and Texas A&M were dead set against replacing Arkansas. The NCAA sanctions and Arkansas' departure made the conference appear broken to fans in Texas. Texas and Texas A&M's leaderships felt the conference was inherently flawed, with too many mouths to feed off too few TVs. Adding a single school was not going to change that dynamic,^[8] it would only create the public perception of a healed conference and prolong UT and Texas A&M's suffering.

"Predatory" conferences

Missouri showed interest in Big Ten membership after Penn State joined.^[10] Around 1993, the Big Ten explored adding Kansas, Missouri and Rutgers, or other potential schools, to create a 14-team league with two divisions.^[11]

In the early 1990s, Texas had discussions with the Pac-10, a conference with similar academic views. An affiliation with the Pac-10 appealed to UT leaders. Former UT president Robert Berdahl told Mark Wagrin of the San Antonio Express-News “Texas wanted desperately the academic patina that the Pac 10 yielded... To be associated with UCLA, Stanford and Cal in academics was very desirable.” ^[8] The Pac-10 wanted to add UT and the University of Colorado. For some reason, an offer didn't come until after the formation of the Big 12.^[12]

Some reports state the Stanford refused to vote to admit UT in an effort to protect the Cardinal's conference dominance in non-revenue sports.^[8] (The Pac-10 required unanimous votes for expansion.)

(At the end of 1994, UT's Athletic Director Deloss Dodds, as he was turning down the Pac-10, stated that the Pac-10 leadership informed UT they would have a standing invitation for the Longhorns. What is unclear, is when the Pacific-10 made that offer, although Dodds did use the word "always" in describing the offer.)^[13]

One report stated that the offer was changed to UT and Texas A&M. UT reportedly tried to carry Texas A&M with them into the Pac-10.^[9] No evidence confirms Pac-10 support for that idea. This change allegedly upset the leadership at Colorado and drove them to take a more active role in protecting the Big Eight. (Colorado's Chancellor James Corbridge was also the Big Eight chairman. He was very involved with the TV negotiations for the new conference and the integration of the Texas schools.^[14])

UT then approached the Big 10, but was turned down, because the conference had recently instituted a moratorium on expansion.^[8]

Texas then turned to the SEC, and negotiations reach an advanced stage. UT abruptly withdrew after concluding that the SEC had no interest in strengthening academics. Berdahl said, “We were quite interested in raising academic standards... And the Southeastern Conference had absolutely no interest in that.”^[8]

Texas A&M had flirted with the SEC since the late 1980s. In 1993, it had approached the conferencce about joining, partnered with the University of Houston. UT had given up on the SEC and Texas A&M's leadership didn't want to try leaving the SWC on their own. The SEC moved expansion plans to the backburner.^[8]

Then UT's interests turned to the Big Eight. Texas and Oklahoma's leaders both looked favorably on the idea of being in the same conference, but both schools had other options. Former Kansas State University president Jon Wefald voiced fears that if UT had joined the Pac-10, there would be no way for the Big Eight to ramp up their TV payouts in order to keep Oklahoma from joining the SEC for more lucrative TV payouts.^[15]

Negotiations with Texas and other schools

The Big Eight had been in pursuit of some kind of alliance with the Southwest Conference since Arkansas's departure destabilized that historic conference.

The Big Eight and SWC members saw the potential financial benefits from an alliance to negotiate television deals, but a true alliance of 16 teams which would retain the seven other SWC schools was not viewed as optimal by UT. Dodds and the Longhorn leadership viewed proposals of this sort as continuing business as usual in the SWC. Arkansas's departure allowed UT and Texas A&M to clear four or more less profitable dates from their football schedules and eight or more from their basketball schedules.

For years the Big Eight could not interest UT in a merger. Without Texas to ensure the retention of Oklahoma, the Big Eight was not interested.^[15]

Reports at the end of 1993 disclosed the discussions of the Big Eight about adding BYU and half of the SWC, with SMU, TCU, Rice and Houston "priced out" of the new conference.^[2][16]

The Big Eight began negotiations with ABC and ESPN for a new conference that would feature football powers Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Texas.

Texas politicians ban

After the SEC announced their intent to leave the CFA, the Big 8 and SWC members re-opened discussions to sell their rights together. "The Baylor Project" by Barry G. Hankins and Donald D. Schmeltekoff (page 68) states that on February 11, 1994, SWC member schools' leaders met a few Big 8 leaders in Dallas to discuss potentially selling both leagues' media content in a package deal. Discussions broke down on February 16, reportedly over UT's interest in the Pac-10. The Big Eight began negotiating a deal that would not include the full SWC as a partner and Texas A&M approached the SEC.^[17]

In Texas, word leaked out that UT & Texas A&M were close to leaving the SWC; UT to the Pac-10^[17] or Big Eight and eventually Texas A&M to the SEC. Texas state senator David Sibley, a Baylor alumnus and member of the very powerful Senate Finance Committee, approached UT Chancellor Bill Cunningham and asked him pointedly whether UT planned to leave the SWC on its own for the Big Eight. Cunningham tried to change the subject. Ultimately he did not deny it.^[8]

Sibley approached LT Governor Bob Bullock, a Texas Tech and Baylor alumnus. Texas state senator John Montford of Lubbock was equally motivated to protect Texas Tech's path to the Big 12. The trio put together a group of legislators who worked to threaten Texas and Texas A&M's access to the state of Texas's Permanent University Fund.^[8]

Bullock called together a meeting of supportive legislators as well as UT's and Texas A&M's leaders on February 20, 1994.^[18] UT Chancellor William Cunningham admitted that Texas planned to join the Big Eight^[8] and A&M's leadership still targeted the SEC.^[8]

A deal was worked out where all four schools would go together to the Big 12. A&M was convinced not to pursue SEC membership (LSU was prepared to sponsor the Aggies) in return for Bullock finding the votes to approve the construction of Reed Arena. Baylor and Texas Tech would join the Aggies in coming with UT into the new version of the Big Eight.^[8]

Texas's Governor Ann Richards, a Baylor and UT alumna, is often credited with getting Baylor included, but, was absent from the February 20 meeting^[8] and no investigative reports confirm her active involvement. The Baylor Report claimed that she presented herself as neutral. Richards' former Chief of Staff, John Fainter, is on record saying "She just was not involved to any great degree in working that out...I'd have to say she was informed, but she wasn't pounding the table or anything like that." Richards was aware of the public perception of her involvement and the thought amused her.^[19])

UT officials informed the Big Eight leadership that the Austin school was now receptive to an invitation and the Big Eight issued invitations to Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech. All four schools quickly accepted.^[17]

At the time of the deal, Texas politicians denied any coercion took place. Over the years, investigative reporters challenged that notion. The idea that Bullock and the state government coerced A&M to join and forced UT to take Tech and Baylor to the Big 12 has constantly been downplayed by Cunningham,^[19] but former UT president Robert Berdahl claimed that UT was threatened. “As I recall, it wasn't a very veiled threat to cut budgets if Tech was left behind.”^[8]

Baylor President Herb Reynolds thanked Bullock and the other politicians for helping Baylor get into the conference. Despite Baylor's strong credentials, clearly Reynolds felt the politicians played a key role in getting the Bears and Texas Tech into the new conference.^[20] The minutes of the February 23, 1994 meeting of the Baylor Board of Regents where the Big 12's invitation was accepted state, "Baylor University owes a strong debt of gratitude to Lt. Governor Bob Bullock, Senator David Sibley, Senator John Montford, Representative Rob Junell, and other legislators for their invaluable assistance during the deliberations leading to the acceptance of the invitations."^[21]

Formation

On February 25, 1994, it was announced that a new conference would be formed from the members of the Big Eight and four of the Texas member colleges of the Southwest Conference.^[17][22][23] Though the name would not be made official for several months, newspaper accounts immediately dubbed the new entity the "Big 12".^[24] Charter members of the Big 12 included: Baylor University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, Kansas State University, the University of Missouri, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University.

Three months after formation, the schools of the new conference officially announced the conference's name: the Big 12 Conference.^[23] Conference competition commenced on August 31, 1996.

Seven cities were considered for the conference's headquarters including: Colorado Springs, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City (the former headquarters of the Big Eight), Lubbock, Texas, Oklahoma City, and Omaha, Nebraska before Dallas suburb Irving, Texas was chosen.^[25] This decision was the beginning of the decline of the Big 12 Conference.

From the conference's formation until the 2010–11 season, the Big 12 was split into two divisions for football. The Oklahoma and Texas schools formed the South Division, while the six northernmost schools formed the North Division.

The Pacific-10 Conference unanimously voted to offer memberships to UT and Colorado at the end of 1994, but UT declined,^[13] and the CU Regents also rejected the offer in a 6-3 vote,^[14][26] opting to stay in the new Big 12.

Future expansion

The four Southwest Conference schools were not the only candidates the Big Eight considered. After the Big 12 was founded, leaks in 1994 claimed that the conference also had a plan for a 14 team membership in order to secure a larger TV share than the SEC, something some of the conference leadership felt might be vital for its future TV negotiations.^[27]

Reports confirmed that Brigham Young University and the University of New Mexico, then in the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), were actively considered for Big 12 membership and if the conference should then decide to go to 16 schools, the University of Louisville and the University of Memphis would be favorites to fill those slots.^[27] In anticipation of the possibility of expansion to 14 by 1996, the new conference trademarked both "Big 12" and "Big 14".^[28] The idea was that BYU and New Mexico would raise the conference footprint to 20% of the nation's TV households while also giving the northern division another football powerhouse in BYU. Articles of the day suggested support for the idea was not uniform among Big 12 schools^[27] and many quotes suggested such an expansion discounted the possibility.

UNM's athletic director Rudy Davalos, former athletic director at the University of Houston, questioned the logic of the Big 12 adding UNM. Davalos publicly expressed a commitment to the WAC.^[27] Former Baylor President Herbert H. Reynolds speaks of making the case to his board that much of the value of the Big 12 for Baylor arose from the Waco university being the only private school in the conference.^[29]

TCU's AD at the time, Frank Windegger was told by colleagues that TCU was discussed as a package deal with BYU, with the idea even going to a vote --- but the expansion vote was narrowly defeated.^[30]

Ultimately the conference chose to stay at 12 members. BYU's athletic director Clayne Jensen told the press that while the addition of BYU could likely pay for the Cougars' admission as the conference's 13th member, it appeared no other candidate school made financial sense to allow to become the 14th member.^[28]

The greater influence held by the schools in the southern division would later be cited repeatedly as a key component in Nebraska's eventual decision to leave.

Conference realignment

During the 2010–13 NCAA conference realignment, the Big 12 was one of the more heavily impacted. Persistent rumors of the Pac-10 and Big Ten targeting key members created unease and suspicion. Questions about TV contracts and dissatisfaction with the Big 12's policy of unequal revenue sharing created more conflict. This erosion of trust allowed other conferences to raid the Big 12.

The Big 12 lost four members between 2010 and 2013, replaced by two others. Remaining below 12 members would end the Big 12's divisional format, as the NCAA only allows football championship games in conferences with at least twelve teams.

Following these departures, the Conference chose to retain the "Big 12" name and logo despite dropping to ten schools,^[31] a marketing decision similar to the Big Ten Conference's choice to keep its name after its membership increased to 11 in 1990 with the addition of Penn State (its membership now stands at 14 with the later additions of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers). This decision by the Big 12 reminded fans of the near collapse of the conference in the realignment period and to suggest the limited expansion options facing the conference.

2010

Destabilization

In May 2010, reports speculated that the Big 12 Conference was on the verge of dissolution. In February, reports stated the desire by the Pac-10 to expand the conference. The article said that the only school that "moved the needle" financially for the Pac-10 was Texas.^[32]

In March, the Big Ten received the initial report from consultants hired to investigate five potential expansion candidates, including Missouri. The initial report supported the expansion.^[33]

On April 20^[34] and May 3,^[35] Sports Illustrated predicted that the Big Ten would ultimately add Nebraska.

Later in May the Big Ten Conference reportedly issued "initial offers" to Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Rutgers.^[36] On May 12, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany emailed conference officials, denying that any offers had been made. The league planned to take no action until the league Presidents met in June.^[37]

During the Big 12 meetings in June, the Pac-10 was rumored to be on the verge of inviting Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State to join them, a proposal that was dubbed Pac-16.^[38]

The Pac-10 had tried to land Texas and Colorado in 1994. This new offer acknowledged that Texas was unlikely to leave the Big 12 without Oklahoma due to the Red River Rivalry' importance to UT's athletic budget. Both schools had in-state rival schools that needed to be included.

Although The Pac-10's attempt bears a number of similarities to the Big 8's raid of the SWC, fans of the targeted Texas schools were resistant. This suggested that the Pac-10 leadership did a poor job of selling the benefits of Pac-10 membership. The Pac-12 was considered too distant for many fans. In contrast, Big 12 concerns about travel distance tended to originate from Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston, cities whose schools were to be excluded.

Rumors that the Big Ten was interested in Texas also emerged.^[39] Texas Athletic Director Deloss Dodds openly talked about both rumors in the media. On June 3, Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne said that the Aggies might consider joining the SEC, should the Big 12 collapse.^[40]

Texas and Texas A&M held veto power over each other that would keep them in the same conference.^[41] UT was struggling to hold the Big 12 together, contrary to public perception. The Big 10 was rumored to be considering adding Missouri and leaving Nebraska stranded in the remains of the Big 12, while the state of Texas reportedly might allow Texas A&M to go the SEC, but that UT would likely not play the Aggies should they leave.^[42]

Unequal revenue

One point of contention in the Big 12 was the unequal distribution of TV revenue, as was common in most other top conferences. Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma objected to equal sharing, according to former Commissioner Dan Beebe. Four votes gave them the ability to block revenue sharing votes. After his 2011 firing, Beebe said that Oklahoma, Nebraska, and even Texas A&M were interested in "developing their own distribution systems" for sports programs.^[43]

Raids begin

On June 5, a movement was reportedly building in Texas to force the Pac-10 to invite Baylor instead of Colorado. This would give Texas a solid voting block of 4 Texas schools and two strongly aligned Oklahoma schools.^[44] The Pac-10 quickly eliminated that possibility by modifying their original offer (a package deal for all six schools) to be a standalone offer for Colorado and a package deal for the other five.^[45]

On June 10, Colorado joined the Pac-10, to be effective in 2012, but later advanced to July 1, 2011.^[46] Colorado reportedly accepted quickly for fear that Baylor would force its way in, leaving Colorado in a dissolving conference. On June 11, Nebraska applied for and was accepted into the Big Ten, effective July 1, 2011.^[47]

The departures of the Texas teams to the Pac-10 was reportedly imminent, including a possibility that Texas A&M might instead choose the SEC.^[48]

June 14 agreement

On June 14, the Big 12 announced a deal to save the conference.^[49] Lobbying by Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri, supported by pressure from other programs who did not want elite conferences to become 16-team "superconferences". The deal required a restructured revenue sharing agreement that guaranteed Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M $20 million each per year (the other schools would split the rest) and an unexpectedly lucrative television deal if the conference stayed together.^[50]

With the big three securing payments that more or less matched what they would have received in a Pac-16 and Texas committing to the conference, Oklahoma stayed and Texas A&M's exit was temporarily obscured.

In the 2010 round of realignment, UT had secured a better conference TV deal and a bigger share of that deal and gained what Dodds considered an easier path to the national title game. It also was permitted its own network (the Longhorn Network) and had gotten Nebraska out of the conference.^[51] However, the $20 million payouts did not soothe hard feelings at Texas A&M and Oklahoma.

Texas A&M and Oklahoma ended contact with the Southeastern Conference, which had been pursuing both schools as potential candidates if their conference decided to expand past 12 members.^[51][52]

On June 16, 2010, Houston state lawmakers Garnet Coleman and Bill Callegari co-wrote a letter asking Big 12 officials to consider adding the University of Houston (a Conference USA member) to the Big 12.^[53]

2011

Grant of Rights agreement

Following the near disaster in 2010, the other five pushed for a spring vote on a "Grant of Rights" deal that would grant all sports media rights of member schools to the conference. This would make it very difficult for a key school to leave. The proposal needed a 75% majority, but was defeated by Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M.^[54]

Longhorn Network

ESPN planned to launch the Longhorn Network and to include Texas High School football games. Oklahoma and Texas A&M objected that doing so would create a recruiting advantage for the Longhorns. Texas A&M went so far as to accuse Texas of violating NCAA rules.^[55]

Oklahoma and Texas A&M had agreed to allow the Longhorn Network in exchange for the $20 million guarantees in 2010, but in 2011, the reality of the network proved unacceptable. Texas A&M wanted to convince the state that Dodds and Texas were unfaithful conference partners. They created animosity between Texas and Texas A&M fans and sympathy with the unaffiliated Texas masses to allow the Aggies to escape the Big 12 for their long-preferred home, the SEC.

In addition to a non-conference game each season, ESPN wanted a Big 12 Conference game on the Longhorn Network. At the same Big 12 meeting discussing high school football broadcasts, it was agreed that a conference game would be acceptable as long as both schools and the conference office approved the broadcast.^[56]

It was reported that ESPN asked Texas Tech for permission to broadcast their November 5 game against the Longhorns on the network. ESPN told the university that the game would most likely not be carried on an ESPN network, leaving LHN as the only option. In return, ESPN promised to televise two non-conference football games over the next four seasons, broadcast some other non-football programming, $5 million cash and help from the network to try to arrange a home-and-home series against a top BCS conference school. Texas Tech passed on the offer, explaining, "I don't want a Tech fan to have to give one dime to the Longhorn Network".^[57]

ESPN then contacted Oklahoma State, without success.^[57] Texas Athletics eventually announced that the Kansas Jayhawks had agreed to let their game against the Longhorns on October 29 be shown on the network (KU's third tier media rights are also managed by LHN co-owner IMG College). The agreement allowed the Longhorn Network to be the national carrier of the game except in Kansas markets, where the game was shown on local network affiliates.^[58]

Texas A&M

In August 2011, A&M announced plans to apply to join an unspecified conference.^[59] Its desire to leave the Big 12 was presented as concerns about conference stability and the Longhorn Network.^[60]

On September 2, David Boren, president of the University of Oklahoma, announced that his school was actively re-evaulating its conference membership.^[61][62] Having moved on from its SEC flirtation over concerns of a booster-led backslide into recruiting violations, Oklahoma began pursuing Pac-12 membership in a package deal with Oklahoma State, due to its frustration with the Big 12.^[63] Dodds and UT president William Powers attempted to convince OU to stay, but they were unsuccessful.^[64] OU reportedly liked the potential of upgrading their academic and research reputation in an effort to earn AAU status in addition to their football coaching staff's desire to expand recruiting efforts into California.

Having just expanded to 12 and landed a very lucrative TV deal, the Pac-12 leaders were not actively looking to expand again. They opted to wait until the SEC added Texas A&M before inviting the Oklahoma schools.^[65]

In mid-September, the SEC accepted Texas A&M as its thirteenth member,^[66] conditional upon a reaffirmation that the Big 12 would not pursue legal action.^[67] The SEC later reported that they had been assured that the Big 12 would waive its rights to legal action. However, Baylor rejected that they had waived their school's rights to pursue legal action for tortious interference. Several other Big 12 schools adopted Baylor's position.^[61][68]

The SEC leadership were angry and embarrassed about being misled. On September 25, the SEC announced that Texas A&M was being accepted unconditionally—regardless of legal threats. Texas A&M announced the school would officially join the SEC on July 1, 2012.^[69] As part of Texas A&M's settlement for their exit, the Big 12 Conference withheld $12.4 million of Big 12 revenue otherwise due to Texas A&M.^[70]

Media rights and expansion

The Big 12 said it would form a committee to replace Texas A&M with at least one other school.^[59][71] The Oklahoma schools, eager for a long-term home, were reportedly still considering applying to the Pac-12,^[72][73][74] while the other five schools entered talks with the Big East.^[75]

Further realignment was temporarily halted on September 20, when the Pac-12 reiterated its desire to remain a twelve-school conference,^[76] as Texas would not compromise on the Longhorn Network or commit to equal revenue sharing. The Pac-12 also publicly confirmed the lack of support for adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.^[77] After Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's path to the Pac-12 crumbled, an Oklahoma source leaked to the media that Oklahoma was just attempting to use the threat of departure to reform the Big 12.^[78]

With no prospect of Pac-12 membership, Oklahoma and Texas's positions changed dramatically and preserving the Big 12 became those schools' primary goal. Missouri and Oklahoma in particular would play a leadership role in stabilizing the Big 12. On September 23, Missouri Chancellor Brady Deaton, the Chairman of the Big 12 Board of Directors, announced that the conference presidents agreed in principle to pursue granting member school media rights to the conference. Oklahoma's President David Boren called the agreement "'essential' for the league’s future".^[54] UT's Deloss Dodds had opposed the idea saying, "UT officials 'don’t want to sign over' any TV rights to the league", the day before all the league's presidents (including UT's) endorsed the idea.^[54]

The same day, the Big 12 announced the departure of Commissioner Dan Beebe, who was seen as dominated by Texas, replaced by Interim commissioner Chuck Neinas, a former Big Eight commissioner.^[79] Neinas took over on October 3.^[80]

Broadcast revenue

On October 5 the Big 12 agreed to equally distribute Tier I and II television revenues. Dodds had long been firmly against equal sharing of TV revenue, but UT blessed the deal to stabilize the conference.^[81]

On October 6, the Big 12 Conference Board of Directors, acting upon a unanimous recommendation of the expansion committee, authorized negotiations with Texas Christian University (TCU) to become a member. TCU had recently agreed to join the Big East Conference.^[82] but their fans had wanted to be in the Big 12 since the SWC crashed. On October 10, Texas Christian University's Board of Trustees voted to accept the invitation, joining on July 1, 2012.

A Big 12 official named Brigham Young University and the University of Louisville as other expansion candidates.^[83] It would later leak that the Big 12's television partners were unenthusiastic about BYU.^[84]

With the loss of Texas A&M and its Aggie fan base, the conference thought there was now a need/opening for another Texas school. While the TCU fan base was significantly smaller, TCU was in a good location. With the SEC now having a significant Texas presence, adding Dallas/Fort Worth-based TCU made sense in terms of protecting the other Texas and Oklahoma schools' access to DFW-area recruiting.

TCU had long rivalries with several Big 12 schools, notably with Baylor, dating back to 1899.^[85]

Missouri leaves

By rushing the addition of the Aggies, the SEC had created a two division, 13 team conference for 2012. They needed an acceptable 14th team immediately to ease the scheduling issues created by the Aggies. The Big 12 had plenty of strong candidates and was still unstable.

Despite the work of the Missouri Chancellor to evolve the Big 12, on October 4, Missouri's Board of Curators authorized the school's president to explore applying to other conferences.^[86]

A year earlier, speculation grew that Missouri was interested in becoming the Big Ten's twelfth member and was the favorite, but instead Nebraska became the choice.

On October 6, the day after the revenue sharing change, the Big 12 Board of Directors voted 8-0 to formally grant their media rights to the conference. On advice of the Missouri legal counsel, Missouri opted not to vote.^[87]

On October 11, Neinas stated that Missouri would remain for the 2012 season.^[88] In spite of Neinas's statement, on October 21 its Board of Curators authorized Chancellor Deaton to move the school out of the Big 12 Conference should that be in the school's best interest.^[89] The Big 12 began looking for a suitable replacement school that could start play in 2012.

On November 6, Missouri officially announced that it would join the Southeastern Conference effective July 1, 2012.^[90] As compensation for the departure, the Big 12 withheld $12.4 million of the revenue it would have shared with Missouri; additionally, they announced that Missouri would not share the revenue from a newly signed contract between the Big 12 Conference and Fox Sports. Missouri also agreed to pay the Big 12 Conference for its share of officiating costs of its final year in the conference, as it had done in prior years (an estimated payment of $500,000).^[70]

West Virginia replaces Missouri

On October 25, word leaked that West Virginia would replace Missouri.^[91] The next day the New York Times reported the Big 12 had backed off their verbal commitment to West Virginia and was now split between Louisville and West Virginia after some Big 12 leaders were lobbied by U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell.^[92] West Virginia cancelled plans for a press conference. The conference requested that West Virginia supply it with more information.^[93]

On October 28, WVU officially joined the Big 12 and committed to begin play in the 2012 season.^[94]

The Mountaineers' former conference, the Big East Conference, required 27 months of notice prior to withdrawal, as drafted by West Virginia's legal team. Big East Commissioner John Marinatto said that West Virginia would not be allowed to leave before July 1, 2014.^[95]

In response, West Virginia filed a lawsuit to declare invalid the withdrawal-notice requirement stipulated in the Big East's bylaws.^[96] The lawsuit alleged that the Big East breached its fiduciary duty by allowing several football-playing members to depart, causing the conference to no longer be a major football conference and jeopardizing its continued existence.^[97] Because of this, West Virginia alleged, its continued performance under the contract had become unreasonably burdensome and its original purpose in entering into the contract had been eliminated.^[98]

West Virginia stated its belief that its notice to withdraw in 2012 was indeed accepted, when the Big East Conference accepted its payment of half the $5 million withdrawal penalty.^[98] Marinatto denied the allegations.^[99]

The Big East countersued.^[100] West Virginia's request to dismiss the suit was denied. The Big East Conference's lawsuit was scheduled to begin arguments in April 2012,^[101] but on February 14, 2012, West Virginia announced that it had settled.^[102]

This cleared the final hurdle for West Virginia.^[103] While terms of the settlement were confidential, West Virginia's athletic director said that the settlement would be paid only from private donations and money the athletes raised.^[103] According to an anonymous source, the Big East would be paid $20 million, including $11 million from West Virginia and $9 million by the Big 12.^[104] The agreement apparently stipulated that WVU's $2.5 million exit fee and revenue-sharing money would be applied towards the settlement.^[105]

References