I swear I was going to do a basketball post first, but the Big 12 stuff has piled up and makes me laugh so much more.

For those keeping track at home, the Big 12 spent the last few years publicly saying that they have no interest at all in expanding beyond their current ten teams. The only exception being Oklahoma President Dave Boren’s quarterly outbursts about needing two more teams or complaining about how they should have taken Louisville when they had the chance.

Over the summer, just as everyone was really and truly ready to believe them this time, they publicly announced they were taking applications for two, possibly four new members.

Nothing appeared to have changed. It was the usual gang of leftovers — BYU, Cinci, UConn, USF, UCF, Memphis, Colorado State and Houston — being the choices. The only difference on the list was the growing prominence of Houston with their football success.

So what changed? As usual, money. The Big 12 has been getting nice steady payouts and could reasonably argue that their conference was making the third best payouts to their schools behind the Big 10 and SEC. Then the ACC announced their long-simmering deal with ESPN for a real ACC Network. The ACC will not match the other two in revenue, but they will at least be in the ballpark when it is all said and done.

Not so for the Big 12 which has no chance at its own cable spot with the Longhorn Network. So, what’s a conference to do? Grab that cash.

For now, no one is quite sure if the Big 12 knows either. Is expansion such a naked money grab—up to $800 million—that it threatens the conference’s relationships with FOX and ESPN after their television contract expires in 2024–25? “In my opinion,” said a television industry source, “you are basically saying eight years from now this is over, and we might as well take the money.”

The contracts the Big 12 has with FOX and ESPN stipulate $25 million per year per member. Regardless of the number of members. So, a 4-team expansion puts another $100 million each year in the Big 12 coffers and they can distribute it how they want — i.e., new members get a smaller cut and the present members get more.

We keep hearing about cord-cutting, digital platforms, subscription-based models and the always popular “rights fee bubble.” Yet the bidding for live sports continues to climb and climb as it remains the only thing on TV that people will overwhelmingly watch live. Which may be why the Big 12 is willing to piss off its rights holders by adding programs that clearly don’t increase the value of the conference.

Expansion also makes sense for members not named Texas and Oklahoma. Those two schools have expressed no interest in extending the Grant of Rights for media beyond the current contract. They will be actively courted and looking at other conferences, and no one knows if their respective state legislatures will still be forcing them to remain tethered to their in-state rival (Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, respectively). Better to have membership still at a minimum of eight if four schools bolt (again) to survive rather than be the one picked over.

This being the Big 12, nothing is ever that simple. After the last several years of seemingly leading the push for expanding the Big 12 — even talking of the Big 12 being “psychologically disadvantaged” in making the college football playoffs without a conference championship game and only 10 teams, Oklahoma President Boren tossed a spanner in the gears two weeks ago.

Boren left an Oklahoma board of regents meeting Wednesday, met with reporters, including representatives of The Oklahoman, Tulsa World and ESPN. Sound bites happened. Among Boren’s responses:

— “I’m not saying there won’t be expansion. But I’m not saying it can be automatically assumed that there will be expansion.”

— “I’m also listening to fans, not just to our coaches and AD and other people. How do they feel about it? Are they excited about the expansion pool?”

— “I’ve sometimes described the league moving at glacial speed in the past, but I think the main thing is for us to be thoughtful.”

Which led to trying to figure out what the hell was going on?

The immediate social media summation was Boren illustrating again why no conference knows dysfunction quite like the Big 12. After 20 preliminary interviews, 11 more detailed interviews and raised expectations, a conclusion without expansion would reinforce the Big 12’s image as the conference that can’t.

But Boren could also have been simply stating a fact – there is no guarantee of expansion. Even with interesting contenders like Cincinnati, Houston and BYU, no one yet seems to have the eight member votes necessary.

Boren could also have been speaking to OU fans and donors, many of whom seem skeptical about the Big 12 in general and expansion in particular.

He might have been extending an olive branch to broadcast partners ESPN and Fox, who have indicated they are against expansion and the pro rata payments to the Big 12 that would accompany it. “We do have a relationship to maintain, not only short term, but long term with the networks,” Boren told reporters.

Or he could have been sending a message that the road to expansion goes through Oklahoma in the board room.

The growing consent is that Oklahoma’s Board of Regents along with the fanbase are the ones fiercely opposing expansion despite Boren’s own desire for it. And that Boren may be bowing to their will.

There is also the possibility that Oklahoma and the entire Big 12 remained eminently delusional. As this mouthpiece-esque story inadvertently conveys while trying to spin the Oklahoma view.

Boren has not reversed his stance on expansion. He periodically wavers in his enthusiasm, one way or the other, and sometimes he does feel a longing for 12 members in a league that has 12 in its name.

But the truth is, Boren and every other cautious Big 12 administrator would embrace expansion, if two good candidates presented themselves.

“From Day One, expanding was OK if we replaced the teams we lost with teams of equal stature,” said an OU administrator Tuesday. “They are not out there.”

…

“The teams we need have left,” another Big 12 administrator said Tuesday. “Whoever you add out there really devalues the whole conference. They don’t add anything. Just to get 12? What’s sacred about a number? Does that make you stable?”

When did that change? It’s been like that since the dust settled on the last round of expansiopocolypse in 2010-11.

It seems clearer to me every day that the Bob Bowlsby/Boren announcement in July that the Big 12 would investigate expansion was a poker play. Scare the television networks  — which by contract would owe the Big 12 an extra $25 million per added school per year if the league expanded — into renegotiating the media deals. In effect, pay the Big 12 not to expand.

Perhaps, but considering how loudly Boren was leading that charge before hand, I’m not buying this latest spin from Oklahoma sources.

The Big 12 held out hope into July that it might eventually entice Florida State and Clemson to leave the ACC. Then came word that the ACC was forming a conference network, leaving the Big 12 as the only Power-5 league without such a marketing force, and that the ACC schools were signing away their media rights to the conference into 2037.

Bye-bye pipe dream of Florida State and Clemson. So the Big 12 pushed back.

Delusional. Delusional is the only word to describe the idea that FSU and Clemson were willing to leave the ACC at some point in the near future. In this, the year of 2016. That or it is complete and utter bullshit in an attempt to spin the reversal by Boren and Oklahoma.

You would think that with 8 votes needed to expand, that the other schools would be consolidating around 2 candidates just to be safe. They have no shot at going to one of the other 4 conferences on their own. The problem is, does OSU and Texas Tech really want to risk alienating OU and Texas? Can they trust them? At most there are 6 votes definitely supporting expansion, with OSU and TTU in the middle.

Somewhat related to Oklahoma State, T. Boone Pickens, unplugged.

T. Boone Pickens said he likes the current 10-team Big 12 configuration the way it is and would prefer adding Houston and SMU if the league grows, but that’s “probably unlikely.” The Oklahoma State benefactor said on our “On Second Thought” podcast that Oklahoma president David Boren has been wishy-washy about expansion and that “maybe it’s time for David to retire.” Some outlets reported Tuesday that the mercurial Boren is saying he’s decided against expansion, but Boren clarified his stance, saying “Oklahoma has not yet taken a position on expansion.” Pickens, who has given $500 million to his alma mater, said, “I’ve known David forever. He likes to talk. He gets a little bit confused sometimes.” Pickens said he and Cowboys coach Mike Gundy aren’t talking. “I don’t have any conversations with Gundy,” he said. Is there a rift? “I don’t know, but Mike doesn’t handle people relationships very well. And he gets mad about things. I’ve heard he’s written some notes about me that weren’t very complimentary.”

Fascinating. Okay, it really doesn’t have much to do with what I’ve been writing, but it was too amusing not to toss in somewhere.

I’m coming to the opinion that Oklahoma and Texas are playing a long con on the rest of the Big 12 — and especially Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Just as Texas seemed to be warming to the idea of some expansion — with home-based political pressure to support Houston — Oklahoma starts pulling back. Keep the rest of the Big 12 from settling on expansion while the clock ticks to 2025 and then be free to depart.

Play up the dysfunction and issues of the Big 12 so strong by then, that the state powers don’t want to risk damage to the primary flagship schools even if it means letting them leave for another conference without their in-state conference mate.

It makes as much sense as anything else.