The domino effects of Colorado preparing to join the Big 12

With Colorado initiating the process to leave the Pac-12 and join the Big 12 for the 2024-25 season, it marks a significant ripple in college athletics as the next phase in realignment.

Here’s a look at the biggest questions for both leagues and what’s next on the landscape in the wake of Colorado’s looming departure.

Jump to: Next steps for the Pac-12

What’s next for the Big 12?

The league is now slated to have 13 teams for 2024-25, and it would make sense to add another in time for the 2024 football season. Where will that team come from? And could more than one be added?

The preference of the Big 12 would be one of the Pac-12’s other so-called Four Corner schools — Arizona, Arizona State or Utah. According to sources, Arizona has been the most engaged among those three schools. But virtually every school in the league has had some kind of contact with the Big 12, as the Pac-12 has spun its wheels on landing a television deal for nearly a year. It would be fiduciary negligence to not explore other options.

Arizona’s decision making will be made more through the prism of basketball than most power conference schools, which would make a move to the Big 12 more attractive. Pac-12 basketball has been significantly weakened with the loss of USC and UCLA, and the Big 12 has been the country’s top basketball conference in recent years. Arizona president Bobby Robbins has maintained publicly that no decisions will be made until there’s clarity on the Pac-12’s television deal. That will be put to the test after Colorado’s decision.

As for television payouts, Colorado is expected to join the Big 12 at a pro rata basis, which is an average of $31.7 million in television revenue over the course of the league’s new deal starting in 2025. Additional schools coming in at that rate would require some additional conversation, as Power 5 schools are expected to be pro rata — assuming Fox and ESPN agree on that. For schools such as UConn and San Diego State, the tenor of that television payout conversation is expected to be different.

The question for the other three corner schools is the same one Colorado faced. Do they wait and see what kind of television contract Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff can secure? Logic and traditionally conservative presidential leadership would dictate that. But the conversation could go in a new direction with Colorado’s decision.

Who else could join the Big 12?

The biggest variable for potential additions will be what the Pac-12 can come up with in its upcoming television deal.

It’s difficult to quantify how Colorado actually leaving — as opposed to months of speculation about leaving — will impact CEOs and boards around the Pac-12. The protracted process of landing a television deal becomes more complicated with the Buffaloes gone, as there’s a visceral power to making the move as opposed to discussing it.

Does this clear the way for others to follow? We’ll find out soon, as more treading water amid the television negotiations portends more anxiety and can only increase flight risk. No matter what these presidents say publicly, they are committed until they are not. That’s the undefeated truism of realignment.

University leadership is generally risk averse, which is why Colorado leaving before full clarity on the Pac-12’s television deal emerged is striking as antithetical to how schools typically operate. Have they opened the door for others? It’s the biggest question looming over the landscape in college sports right now.

The other Big 12 target that has undergone serious vetting is Connecticut. There’s been significant conversation between the sides, and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark’s steadfast belief in the market, the donor support and college basketball being undervalued would align with the Huskies coming aboard. There’s also a belief UConn football has turned the corner under Jim Mora after a 6-7 bowl season in 2022.

It’s uncertain, however, where the internal support among Big 12 membership to invite UConn to join a league that’s anchored by football-forward schools in the Texas footprint stretching north. (Some of which happen to play elite basketball.) For UConn, the monetary difference, even at a reduced rate initially, would appear to be too much to resist. The 11 Big East schools get in the neighborhood of $4 million annually in television money.

San Diego State is believed to be wedged in the Mountain West for the next two years, as they’d owe a $34 million exit fee to leave before then. There’s been modest contact between SDSU and the Big 12, but not to the level of UConn. Neither SDSU nor the Big 12 has shown much interest in each other so far. Could that change?

The Big 12’s best strategy may be patience. If the Pac-12 rallies and keeps things intact, they could wait to see how the ACC shakes out in the upcoming seasons with Florida State and Clemson sending smoke signals of their unhappiness. That could prompt other ACC schools to peek west to the Big 12 if the ACC has a major shakeup.

There’s a significant leverage advantage that Yormark has gained with Colorado coming the Big 12’s way. They are operating from a position of strength.

What will the Pac-12 do?

It’s too early to say how much urgency it will show to add a 10th member. The conventional wisdom is it would quickly add San Diego State, as that’s long been the internal assumption within the league. But the timing on that potential move is in flux after SDSU’s muddled attempt to put off the exit fee increase via an extension at the June 30 deadline.

If SDSU wanted to leave for the Pac-12 and play there in 2024, it would cost $34 million in exit fees. That’s giant money for a school in its budget range, and there’s no guarantee it would get a full share of whatever the Pac-12 media deal becomes. So the Aztecs may have to wait an extra year until 2025 if the Pac-12 extends an invitation, as the other Pac-12 schools wouldn’t be eager to cover that tab.

Kliavkoff reiterated at Pac-12 media day that the preference has always been to get a media deal first, then expand. Does Colorado’s move change that batting order?

The good news for the Pac-12 is Colorado’s actual value isn’t drastically different than a school like San Diego State. No television partner is going to pull out of a deal starting in 2024 because of the loss of Colorado, even with Deion Sanders making the Buffaloes the country’s buzziest team. SDSU’s market and potential are plenty attractive, and they add some basketball juice in the wake of an NCAA men’s title game appearance. That matters with the loss of UCLA and USC.

Amid the year of contractual deadlines and delays, Kliavkoff has positioned the Sanders hiring as a positive, saying Sanders “absolutely adds value” to the television deal. It will be interesting to see how he views that notion now.

The biggest damage here so far is perception, as it magnifies the fragility of the league moving forward.

As for what the league needs to do and who the league will add, it’s important to follow a simple line of logic: What would Oregon and Washington want?

The Pac-12 is veering toward a precarious place where other leagues in flux over the past generation have been — the ambitions of the league’s clear bell cows colliding with what would work best for the league as a whole in the long-term.

The simple solution for the Pac-12 would be to add San Diego State and then explore a few other brands to plant seeds and grow as a 12-team conference. SMU has been visited by the league and has indicated it would open its wallet as an incentive. But even if SMU came for a giant discount for a few years, is that really in the best short-term interest of Oregon and Washington?

The Dallas area isn’t a top-tier recruiting priority, and there’s the travel expense of shipping teams — especially in non-revenue sports — that far away. The priority of Oregon and Washington will be to make as much money as possible, and adding teams usually means the pie being sliced more ways. It’s no secret Oregon and Washington harbor ambitions of getting to the Big Ten, where the payouts for full-share members are nearly double what the Pac-12 will bring in.

What could hold up Pac-12 expansion?

There’s a lot of precedent for a league following the wishes of its strongest members. Oklahoma and Texas were cool on adding members to the Big 12 when they were the titans of that league after Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M left. Even if expansion was in the best long-term interest of the league.

Same for USC and UCLA after OU and Texas left the Big 12 and teams from that league were begging to join the Pac-12. Heck, the same thing happened in the old Big East as it fell apart as a football league. Schools like Pittsburgh were waiting for their call to the ACC and didn’t want the short-term financial sacrifice to bring in schools to grow. It’s a timeless push-pull scenario.

It’s uncertain when the eyes of the Big Ten could turn to Oregon and Washington. They’d likely go for a partial share, but the Big Ten presidents and athletic directors weren’t eager to add them when former commissioner Kevin Warren made a late push to get an additional television deal via a streaming partner last year. It’s likely they’ll end up there eventually, but the tricky variable is when that would happen.

USC also made it known upon joining the Big Ten they didn’t want to share the Los Angeles recruiting market with anyone else on the West Coast. Why give up the biggest competitive advantages of joining the Big Ten — the vastly superior finances being flexed to the rich Southern California recruiting base. Why pay more foxes to come to the hen house?

So Washington and Oregon have to keep winning and waiting, as eventually there will be another round of realignment. Since USC and UCLA joined, there’s already a new Big Ten commissioner, Tony Petitti, and USC’s athletic director, Mike Bohn, resigned.

For the long haul, it would make sense for the Pac-12 to add San Diego State and SMU and perhaps a growth property like UNLV, Colorado State or Fresno State for their markets or Boise State for their consistent football success and strong brand. Bigger is safer, but that’s going to clash with the short-term goals of Oregon and Washington.

A nine-team league would appear vulnerable. But any strategy that alienates Oregon and Washington wouldn’t make sense either.

Where does this leave Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff?

This is the third big strike of Kliavkoff’s tenure. The first was joining the ill-fated Alliance with the Big Ten and ACC. The second came with the departure of USC and UCLA, which he didn’t court hard enough at a different financial price point. Then he lost them to a league he was allegedly in an alliance with. The sputtering process for a television deal has now led to a solid member leaving, which can only be viewed as another significant misstep.

The losses are buttressed by no significant wins since being hired in May 2021. There’s empathy for the mess he inherited, but at some juncture there need to be tangible signs of progress, too. Kliavkoff needs a win fast by keeping things together with a financially viable television deal with enough exposure to keep his members happy.

The Colorado departure, in many ways, can be viewed as a vote of no confidence by that school in both Kliavkoff and the future of the league, especially because it didn’t wait for the conference to come up with a concrete television deal. Colorado’s frustrations with the Pac-12 predate Kliavkoff’s hire, but there have been few signs that stability is imminent.

There’s still a clear path to short-term survival. Get a television deal that satisfies the incumbent nine, lure a new school or perhaps roll at nine teams for the short team. Circle the wagons and keep everyone together.

After USC and UCLA left, Kliavkoff chased political angles for months to try and lure UCLA back. Instead of carving a clear and concise path forward, there were months of reminders of what was lost and little time accumulating any gains. And when the Bruins weren’t forced to stay, his strategy proved a giant waste of time.

When Yormark maneuvered to open up the Big 12’s negotiations early with Fox and ESPN — jumping the line a year early as the Big 12 deal wasn’t expiring until after 2024 — he recognized the value of stability and visibility. That’s allowed the Big 12 to push forward and grow, as they’ve closed in on a data deal, announced a strategy in Mexico and generally pushed forward in the wake of Oklahoma and Texas leaving.

More importantly, Yormark’s move condensed the market for both television windows and available money at a bearish time in media. That’s a maneuver that could ultimately be viewed as a pivot point in the college landscape, with this Colorado move being the first tangible sign of its significance.