Create Your Own Future

INTRODUCING CREATE YOUR OWN FUTURE ©Jeffrey B. Pownell Mockingbird Sports, Inc. [email protected] Jeff Pownell, mockingbird sports Big Southwest Conference 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Moonshot Goals 2 I. Conference Formation: Hurdles & Constraints 4 Regulatory Constraints Contractual/Economic Constraints Political Constraints II. Present at the Creation: Big Southwest Conference 6 BSW Schools BSW-Sponsored Sports Non-Sponsored Sports and NCAA requirements III. Value Propositions 8 The Southwest footprint LHN, ESPN, and the Win-Win-Win Conference HQ/Bowl Game in Austin Bundling Sponsorship/Advertising Southwest Academic Research Alliance IV. Action Plan: Making It Happen 10 Rice Should Lead Plan A: The Race to Eight and Ten for the Win Plans B,C,D,E: All Aboard the Big Southwest Express V. Remaining C-USA and Sun Belt Schools 12 Conclusion: ¡Viva La Big Southwest! 13 Jeff Pownell, mockingbird sports Big Southwest Conference 1 THE BIG SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE create YOUR OWN FUTURE “THE BEST WAY TO PREDICT YOUR FUTURE IS TO CREATE IT.” Abraham Lincoln (apocryphal)1 INTRODUCTION AND MOONSHOT GOALS WHEN IT COMES TO COLLEGE SPORTS, CONFERENCE AFFILIATION MATTERS. It’s more than just additional or lesser revenues, which can be substantial.2 From the sandbox to the gridiron, court, field, or pitch, who we choose to play with sends powerful messages about how others perceive us and how we perceive ourselves. For better or worse, richer or poorer, a university’s conference affiliation forms an important part of its identity. GEOGRAPHY ALSO MATTERS, OR AT LEAST IT SHOULD. Most of us view college sports through the prism of our local community, state, and region. We root, root, root for the home team, and root even more when the opponent is a neighbor down the road. Conference schools in proximity to each other enhance regional rivalries, increase revenues, reduce costs and student-athlete travel time, strengthen regional and community ties, and create an identity for the conference and its member schools. THE ACADEMIC MISSION ALSO MATTERS, PERHAPS MOST OF ALL. As part of the social contract, schools pledge (expressly or impliedly) to provide student- athletes the opportunity to obtain a college education that has meaningful long-term value in 1 Though widely attributed to him, President Lincoln likely did not utter these words, but Honest Abe did say “If we never try, we shall never succeed,” which is in the rhetorical neighborhood. 2 It’s been estimated that since the split of the Southwest Conference in 1996, former SWC schools included in the Big 12 Conference have received $400 million more in media revenues than the SWC schools left out. Jeff Pownell, mockingbird sports Big Southwest Conference 2 economic and non-economic ways. At the same time, student-athletes agree (expressly or impliedly) to adhere to academic and behavioral standards in such a way that their participation in college sports adds reputational value to the school. Though it may seem counter-intuitive, ofen the most effective way for universities to enhance their academic standing is to improve their athletic programs and traditions. This is because “pull” incentives that attract students to a university are ofen more effective than “push” incentives such as price or access. When a school’s athletic program is properly aligned with its academic mission, the university experience is more meaningful for students, faculty, and alumni, and its athletic program benefits the entire community and region. THIS PROPOSAL HAS TWO MOONSHOT GOALS First is to create a Division I–FBS conference – the “Big Southwest Athletic Conference” (Big Southwest Conference or BSW) – composed of like-minded universities in the Southwest region, with a sustainable cost/revenue model that allows its member schools to be nationally competitive in all sponsored sports. Second is for its schools to form a collaborative research consortium – the “Southwest Academic Research Alliance” (SARA) modeled afer the Big Ten Academic Alliance – to work together to enhance their academic enterprises, so that by decade’s end each school has reached (1) “R1" Doctoral University status in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (a widely-used objective metric), and (2) “Top 100 National Public Universities” in the U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges rankings (a widely-used subjective metric). The R1/Top 100 goal is aspirational, not exclusionary; not every school may get there, but every Big Southwest Conference school will have a plan to get there. LET’S GET STARTED. LONG LIVE THE BIG SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE! Jeff Pownell, mockingbird sports Big Southwest Conference 3 I. CONFERENCE FORMATION: HURDLES & CONSTRAINTS IF THIS IS SUCH A GREAT IDEA, WHY HASN'T IT ALREADY HAPPENED? It’s not that easy. To form a new DI–FBS conference, there are three primary constraints: (1) regulatory (NCAA requirements); (2) contractual and economic (conference notice requirements and forfeiture of associated conference revenues); and (3) political. 1. REGULATORY NCAA bylaw 20.02.6 provides: 20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conference-sponsored sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball. A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular- season and/or championship opportunities are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identified by the applicable NCAA sports committee for automatic qualification. NCAA bylaw 20.9.9.1 also requires that a DI-FBS school sponsor at least sixteen sports. Thus, absent waiver from the NCAA, a new DI-FBS conference requires (1) eight existing DI-FBS schools, that (2) compete and hold conference championships in six men’s and eight women’s conference sports, that (3) must include football and men’s and women’s basketball and at least two other women’s team sports (and each school must sponsor at least sixteen sports). This means that absent a waiver, DI-FCS schools (like Sam Houston State) and potential DI- FBS “football-only” schools (like Army) cannot be used to form a new DI-FBS conference. 2. CONTRACTUAL AND ECONOMIC Existing DI-FBS conferences typically contain withdrawal provisions that require a member school to provide 12-24 months written notice, at which point future conference revenues are forfeited. Conference revenues derive primarily from (1) media rights, (2) NCAA tournament Jeff Pownell, mockingbird sports Big Southwest Conference 4 unit distributions (accumulated over six years), and (3) college football bowl/playoff distributions. Form 990 tax returns for C-USA, the Sun Belt Conference, and the WAC indicate that conference revenue distributions for C-USA and Sun Belt schools are $3-4 million/year per school, and for WAC schools $1-2 million/year per school.3 Thus, to form a new DI-FBS conference, each school will forego $6-12 million (depending on the school and conference), resulting from (a) loss of conference revenues during the withdrawal period, and (b) less NCAA tournament distributions from the new conference (that will gradually increase over six years as it accumulates NCAA tournament units).4 3. POLITICAL IN DIVISION I COLLEGE SPORTS, POLITICS ISN'T EVERYTHING; IT'S THE ONLY THING. Three interrelated political constraints bear note. First is the politics of exclusion. For various reasons, UTSA may wish to exclude Texas State from a new conference; UTEP may wish to exclude NMSU; Louisiana Tech may wish to exclude Louisiana-Lafayette; and so on. These views are short-sighted. So long as the market is large enough to support both schools, regional rivalries enhance the athletic traditions of each school. A rising tide lifts all BSW boats. Second is the inherent tension between Texas schools and non-Texas schools. Some friction is inevitable, but this can be managed with conference legislation (e.g., bylaws that require the vote of at least one non-Texas school for matters requiring a majority and two non-Texas schools for matters requiring a super-majority). Finally, many of the proposition values for the new conference, discussed below, depend in large measure on support from the University of Texas at Austin. It is only politically feasible to obtain its support with a proposal that includes the UT system schools that could benefit. UT-Arlington and UTRGV are thus included in the Big Southwest Conference as non-football schools now, rather than considered as potential expansion schools later. Why would the Longhorns want to help the Big Southwest Conference succeed? It’s in UT-Austin’s economic and political self-interest to do so. By and large, UT-Austin doesn’t compete with Big Southwest Conference schools for student-athletes in most sports, at least not in the same way it competes with Big 12 Conference schools or other P5 conference schools. Under the right circumstances, supporting the Big Southwest Conference makes UT-Austin the good guy politically, and it can also help itself economically. It’s a potential win-win for the Longhorns and Big Southwest Conference schools. 3 The American Athletic Conference (AAC) and Mountain West Conference (MWC) recently inked new media rights deals that will generate $7 million (AAC) and $4 million (MWC) per year for each member school in media revenues, so AAC and MWC schools are not considered as candidates for the Big Southwest Conference. 4 In economic terms, the COVID-19 pandemic lowers the economic cost of a school’s withdrawal from its existing conference (because its revenues are less), but also reduces the amount of revenues the new conference generates.

Load more