Big 12 outlook a matter of perspective

By AL PICKETT/Sports Editor

Perception is a funny thing.

One needs to look no farther than the recent elections or the O.J. Simpson trial to see how two people can look at the same thing at the same time and have entirely opposite perceptions of it.

The same thing seems to be happening in the new Big 12 Conference, where perceptions seem to vary on each side of the Red River.

Long-time readers of this column know that I grew up in Big Eight country and graduated from a Big Eight school, although I've spent nearly 20 years - almost all of my adult life - in Southwest Conference country. Because of that, I have a unique perspective on the new superconference.

Listening to fans in this part of the country, most have lamented the demise of the tradition-rich SWC but have conceded the new conference should be a tremendous powerhouse (in spite of the struggles of the South division this fall).

Fans of former Big Eight schools agree that the new conference will be tremendous in all sports. But I was surprised to learn - on trips back to Kansas and Nebraska this summer and earlier this fall - of a much different perception on the new league which I hadn't heard in Texas.

Fans there were upset that the Texas schools seem to be railroading all the major decisions in the Big 12. They cited the fact that SWC commissioner Steve Hatchell was chosen the new Big 12 commissioner, rather than Kansas athletic director Bob Frederick who was favored by most of the former Big Eight schools, and that Dallas was chosen as the site for the new Big 12 office instead of Kansas City.

They were also upset that the Texas schools had forced a compromise agreement in the number of non-qualifiers (athletes who did not meet the core curriculum grade point average or test score requirements) that schools could sign (the SWC couldn't sign non-qualifiers previously but the Big Eight could although the athletes were ineligible as freshmen).

Regardless of whether the perception that the Texas schools are receiving preferential treatment is real or imagined, fuel is being added to that fire this weekend. ABC opted to make its regional 2:30 p.m. telecast on Saturday unranked Texas A&M versus Baylor instead of nationally ranked Kansas State versus Kansas. The Fox Sports Southwest regional game Saturday night is the Texas Tech-Texas game, meaning no games involving North division teams are being televised this weekend.

Kansas State and Kansas officials were upset by that.

The reason? Money.

The Big 12 formula guarantees each conference team $750,000 per year in football television revenue. Beyond that, schools split $142,000 for each appearance on ABC and $72,000 for playing in regionally televised games.

K-State athletic director Max Urick was quoted in an Associated Press story last week that an ABC representative told him the KSU-KU game was "too regional."

That's defined as 21/2 million population in Kansas and 17 million population in Texas.

Because the SWC was limited to one state and the Big Eight existed in sparsely populated states, all 12 schools need each other to be a major player in the big bucks television business that is critical to college athletics today.

But the Big 12 is like a pre-arranged marriage based on money, rather than love. So, obviously, the first fights in the new marriage will be about money - specifically the Big 12 formula for revenue sharing.

Every school comes into the fray with its own hidden agenda of how it benefits from the distribution of gate receipts and TV revenues. Hatchell and the Big 12 presidents have an unenviable task ahead of them to make the 12 schools work together for the benefit of all.

Changing perceptions of fans on each side of the Red River may take a whole lot longer, however.