The sudden about-face from the Big 12 regarding conference expansion was surprising, but not because of the prospects of adding 2 to 4 more programs. Instead, it may be a signal of things to come, which may include invitations as well as departures. I’ll get to that in a bit. The conference is at a point of marginal returns. I previously wrote about the Big 12 adding a conference championship game and how much of a no-brainer that was, but that is likely the conference’s last chip in the game. The reason I say that is because the game is to keep Texas and Oklahoma in the conference, however, beyond adding the championship game to increase revenue, there is little more the conference can do to persuade either program to stay, long-term.

I’ll be clear, Texas and Oklahoma shoulder the load for the league, they are the league’s ‘anchor’, if you will. Also, I don’t have to tell any readers on the Texas or Oklahoma sides that much of the blame for the initial turmoil the conference experienced is squarely placed on Texas. That is fine, as I’d have a hard time believing anyone who would have decided different, if tasked with looking out for their institution’s best interests. The partnership with ESPN and subsequent formation of the Longhorn Network was an easy call, as ESPN shouldered ALL the risk and Texas guaranteed itself a novel and large revenue stream simply by marketing it’s brand. Unfortunately times change ever more rapidly in the information age and ESPN also finds itself at a crossroads, as it’s future appears less rosy than it seemed when they inked the Network deal. Believe you me, Texas is paying close attention to these developments.

With regard to the other members of the conference, they don’t have a collective stack big enough to prevent Texas or Oklahoma from looking to greener pastures. As far as the about-face and my ‘invitations as well as departures’ comments go, I think Ian Boyd of Inside Texas put it best, “If the Big 12 is expanding to 14 teams, they’re basically just recruiting teams to replace OU and Texas.” This makes sense and may be THE signal that indicates the departures of the two anchor programs that remain in the faltering conference. So, what might this mean for the conference, Texas, and Oklahoma?

The Big 12 must play their last chip in a way that simultaneously prepares the conference for life without Texas and OU, while also giving the conference the slightest of chances to keep both schools. There are many schools being mentioned for invitation and the league has laid out 6 factors including strength of athletic department, fan base size, media market, school’s reputation, and academic strength. In my opinion, only BYU fits the above criteria and brings with it a level of prestige none of the other candidates possess. Then you have other candidates, namely Cincinnati, Memphis, Central Florida, Southern Florida, and Tulane to name a handful. Of those, only ‘Nati and Memphis have some pedigree with regard to their respective athletic departments (think basketball). I’m not here to delve into specific attributes, but it suffices to say, none of the above are extremely tantalizing options.

Where do Texas and Oklahoma go from here? They could choose to split their ‘partnership’ or stick together when looking to leverage their brands. I happen to think the latter is the better option, though I’m certain there’ll be detractors. If they choose to go their separate ways, the prospective conferences would need to consider inviting another, on top of a Texas or Oklahoma. That could get messy, as that would likely mean more departures for the Big 12. Also, a separate move may jeopardize the Red River Whatever it’s called now going forward, doubt either institution wants that, but I could be wrong. Whether they decide to separate or stick together, it’s a bit ironic that the same 6 factors the Big 12 is using can also be applied to potential suitors for the Texas and Oklahoma brands. I’m going ahead and simply eliminating the ACC and SEC, the former already comprised of 16 teams and the latter for reason it already sits at the top with regard to revenue and competitive advantage. That leaves the Big 10 and the PAC 12. Of these two, the PAC 12 is the more ‘desperate’ of the two, as they sit at 12 teams, don’t more than 1 to 2 anchor programs, and have an underperforming network. The PAC 12 is the most likely to roll the red carpet out and throw the most money at the respective programs, but that doesn’t make it the best choice. The way I look at it, Texas and Oklahoma have THE option to help themselves and other programs consolidate power and establish another of the seemingly inevitable ‘super conferences’. For this reason, the highest upside for each is the Big 10. Why?

It’s my opinion that the next move must be as close to ultimate and total as possible. Currently, the king of college football is the SEC, in case you needed reminding. Joining the PAC 12 would be good, but that would still leave the league at 14 teams. The uncertainty as to where the last 2 teams come from is enough to cause concern for me. There is simply no way of knowing who might be available during the next round of realignment, especially considering that the SEC would be adding 2 as well. If the Big 10 were to extend an offer to both schools, neither would need to worry about future realignment, as the league would be made whole. More importantly, if Texas and Oklahoma were to join the Big 10, it’d be hard to argue the the move wouldn’t make the Big 10 THE premiere conference in America and the envy of all college football. The question remains, would the Big 10 do it? Would you do it?