Authors: John McGuire PhD.¹ Ali Forbes PhD.²

¹Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Oklahoma USA. ²University of Texas -Austin, Austin, Texas USA.

Corresponding Author:
John McGuire PhD.
206 Paul Miller, OSU
Stillwater OK 74078
[email protected]

John McGuire, PhD, is a Professor and Welch-Bridgewater Chair for Sports Media at Oklahoma State University. Dr. McGuire Is the author of Sportscasting in the Digital Age: More than the Game as well as co-editor for The ESPN Effect and ESPN and the Changing Sports Media Landscape.

Dr. Ali Forbes is a professor of practice in the Moody College of Communication at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Forbes has a bachelor’s degree from Brock University, an honors degree in communication from the University of Ottawa, a post-graduate diploma in sports journalism from Loyalist College, a master’s degree in sport and fitness management from Troy University, and a doctorate in journalism and mass communication from Arizona State University. Her professional background is in live broadcasting for sports

Breaking Up Is Not-So-Hard to Do: Image Repair in Conference Realignment

Realignment in college athletics in the United States has been a common theme of the 2000s, in nearly all conferences at all levels of competition. But there has never been a time like the early 21st century, where the financial stakes of realignment and sense of prestige for these institutions have ever been higher.

Some of the most shocking conference moves have occurred in the 2020s. In 2022, UCLA and USC announced their intentions to leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten conference starting in 2024. A year before in 2021, Texas and Oklahoma, the two football powerhouses in the Big 12, announced plans to leave for the Southeastern Conference no later than 2025 (they are actually making the move in 2024). In all of these cases, the schools that are leaving and the conferences losing teams, the need exists for image repair. This study employed Benoit’s Image Repair Theory (IRT) to show how the departing schools justified their decisions and the how the conferences tried to restore their images going forward. An analyses of statements to the media found that the departing schools and the commissioners of leagues that lost members depended on a combination of (a) Evading Responsibility; (b) Reducing Offensiveness; and (c) Corrective Action. The study also found neither the departing schools nor conference commissioners engaged in Mortification (i.e., seeking forgiveness for offensive actions) in such image repair.

Keywords: Sports media, television, athletic directors, NIL (name, image, likeness).

Breaking Up Is Not-So-Hard to Do: Image Repair in Conference Realignment

There is a long history of realignment when it comes to collegiate athletic conference membership in the United States. Individual colleges have come and gone from different conferences since people started keeping track of such things in the 1930s. Some conferences may have dropped a sport like football (e.g., The Big East) or even go entirely out of existence (e.g., the Southwest Conference in the 1990s) because of this constant maneuvering (1). But there’s never a been a time like the early 21st century where the financial stakes of realignment and sense of prestige for these institutions have ever been higher.

The 2020s has especially seen seismic changes. In 2022, the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) bolted the Pac-12 conference for membership in the Big Ten conference starting in 2024, even with the closest existing Big Ten member (the University of Nebraska-Lincoln) a mere 1,500 miles away. In leaving the Pac-12, the schools would cast aside an athletic history that dated back to the original “Conference of Champions” in the 1930s. Before that, in 2021, the Texas Longhorns (UT) and Oklahoma Sooners (OU) announced plans to leave the Big 12 and join the Southeastern Conference (SEC) no later than the start of the 2025 football season, if not sooner. Even smaller Division One conferences (American, Sun Belt) have experienced realignment in the 2020s.

The obvious driver in all these moves is money associated with a school’s affiliation with football conferences with television appeal. The SEC and Big Ten are perceived as having the most valuable programs, which create dream games for television viewers each season (e.g., Ohio-State-Michigan, Alabama-LSU). As the conferences add more powerhouses, the bigger the expected audience share, meaning the value of media rights soar in the process. Starting in 2026, every SEC school is likely to receive nearly $100 million each from new media deals with the ESPN/ABC networks. The Big Ten also agreed to contracts with FOX, NBC, and CBS starting in 2023 generating more than $1.1 billion annually, meaning the financial cut for each league school could reach $80-to-90 million in the deal’s first year (2).

In this realignment chaos, higher education institutions that are either abandoning one conference for another or the conference being left in the lurch are engaged in various aspects of image repair. For a departing school like Oklahoma leaving the Big 12, image repair is necessary to justify why such a decision was made. For the remaining conference members, image repair is necessary for defending the conference’s athletic reputation and offering its fans reasons to be optimistic about the future. Using Benoit’s Image Repair Theory (IRT), this research will examine the rhetorical strategies employed in USC and UCLA’s departure from the Pac-12 as well as UT’s and OU’s departure from the Big 12. It will also examine how the Pac-12 and Big 12 commissioners engaged in image repair (3).

Literature Review

Studies of Conference Realignment  

There is a growing body of work examining conference realignment in major collegiate sports, particularly in the 21^st century. Such studies have ranged from investigating the competitive impact resulting from such realignment (4), fan views’ regarding the loss of long-standing rivalries (5), and how realignment was impacting fans’ desire to follow their team for road games (6). Watkins examined one of the earliest mass departures from one athletic conference and the reasons behind it. In examining the departure of 13 schools from the Southern Conference to create the SEC in 1932, Watkins found the move was driven by multiple factors, including (a) relaxed eligibility rules; (b) allowing scholarships for some players; and (c) allowing schools to broadcast their own games on radio (7). In the 21^st century, Tribou determined multiple primary factors driving conference realignment, including (a) increasing media exposure; (b) generating greater revenue; and (c) using such affiliation to as a stepping stone to compete for national titles (8).  

While there is a belief that jumping from one conference to another provides tangible financial windfalls for the athletic programs on the move, Hoffer and Pincin found such windfalls were short-lived (9). The researchers analyzed revenues and expenditures of schools moving and found that in cases where more media revenue was earned through realignment between 2006 and 2011, these schools also ended up with increasing costs almost equal to that of its new revenues. The researchers’ findings argued against claims that a school’s move to another conference will mean less pressure for seeking donor support for athletics.  

In the 2020s, another factor that has emerged influencing desired conference affiliations is helping secure NIL (name, image, likeness) money to its athletes. These NIL rights for players, adopted by the NCAA in 2021, meant the prestige of a conference like the SEC can positively influence the value of a student’s NIL deal versus being in a less prestigious conference (e.g., The Big West) (10).  Lifschitz et. al (11) and Kramer II (12) have argued that beyond additional revenue, the perceived status associated with moving to a stronger conference means greater national exposure for the institution. Past research has demonstrated that the desire for status among educational institutions is as important to these organizations as success in athletic competition (13). Administrators want to be associated with prestigious conferences that promote high academic standards and research that can help an institution’s ranking among its peers (14). Lifschitz et. al described that, over time, “college and universities have created elaborate formal systems for determining which schools will compete at football with each other” (15, p. 208). The researchers hypothesized that, as a result, conference realignment goes beyond competition on the field, but gaining academic prestige associated with its new league. Researchers examined data sets contrasting conference affiliation, winning percentage in past football seasons, as well as institutional academic performance and other organizational traits. The findings supported Lifschitz et. al’s hypothesis that schools within a particular conference had generally similar academic traits, suggesting realignment is more than establishing athletic associations.         Kramer II (16) employed a case study approach with three different institutions (never identified in the study) to better understand the reasoning behind their choice for conference realignment. Kramer’s findings suggested common discourse was used by all three institutions regarding its decision to change conferences. That included (a) greater financial benefit for athletics; (b) increasing institutional prestige and visibility; and (c) benefitting from that prestige and visibility, thereby increasing the institution’s financial support.   

This literature review suggests there are multiple factors behind an institution’s  

desire to realign conferences that goes beyond touchdown passes and blocked shots. While improving the quality of competition athletically and obtaining the financial wherewithal to support that college’s or university’s athletic endeavors. However, such moves are also seen as a positive statement about the institution, one that administrators hope will benefit the institution’s overall academic image. Kramer II’s research in particular supports the idea that statements attempting to justify such decisions are meant to deal with stakeholders unhappy with ending long-time rivalries and traditions (17). This study will focus in particular upon the rhetorical efforts in these situations where (a) institutions justify the decision to change conferences and (b) the responses from commissioners losing teams to another conference.   

Image Repair Theory

There are often times when organizations or individuals are pressed to justify certain  

actions or decisions. For sports organizations, this involves addressing its fan base. But in cases of higher education institutions where the decision is made to drop affiliation with one conference for another, there is a broader audience to address. That audience includes university alumni and other stakeholders, including the student-athletes themselves.  

Elements of Image Repair Theory

The primary purpose of the rhetor is to restore or protect the image of the rhetor (18). Benoit’s IRT has been applied widely to analyze image repair attempts, typically with individuals, but also examining organizations (19) (20 (21). 

Benoit developed his theory of image repair based on the assumption that such utterances are goal-oriented, seeking rehabilitation of the communicator’s image or reputation. Researchers use the theory to: (a) establish the communicator’s goals; (b) identify methods of image repair; and (c) evaluate how effective the communicator was in the effort (22).  

Use of Image Repair by Sports Organizations

Benoit’s typology has been gaining in application to sports organizations. Fortunato analyzed Duke University’s lacrosse scandal where three players were alleged to have sexually assaulted a female dancer hired for a party that several team members attended. He argued the university employed mortification, bolstering (of the university), and corrective action to deal with the crisis (23). Benoit examined the so-called “Bountygate” scandal that engulfed the NFL’s New Orleans Saints in 2012, when members of the Saints’ coaching staff offered cash incentives for knocking opposing players out of games. Benoit’s examination found the head coach and general manager (a) expressed mortification at the behavior; and (b) promised corrective action while also utilizing denial of allegation against them. Benoit’s evaluation was these efforts went lacking because of the seriousness of the offense (24). Armfield et al. examined the controversy that engulfed the New England Patriots after the American Football Conference championship game and resulting “Deflategate” scandal. Head Coach Bill Belichick held multiple briefings with the media, where such sessions were filled with questions about the alleged cheating (i.e., using deflated footballs in a bad weather playoff game, allowing quarterback Tom Brady to have a better grip). At first, Coach Belichick’s statements while the scandal was unfolding involved simple denial and pledging corrective action. As questions mounted, Coach Belichick shifted to rhetorical strategies of evading responsibility and defeasibility (25). 

While existing IRT literature tends to focus on the individual athlete like a Mark McGwire in baseball., organizations in team sports are more and more becoming embroiled in controversies such as fair play, both on and off the field. In the case of conference realignment, both the universities leaving and the conferences being left behind would benefit from repairing their image with some portion of the sports world.  

Methodology

For schools engaging in conference realignment, image repair becomes important in helping stake out justifications for abandoning long-time partnerships. In the case of USC and UCLA, these relationships dated back nearly a century with some other conference schools like Stanford and California. For the University of Oklahoma, its football rivalry with in-state rival Oklahoma State University, referred to as “Bedlam,” dated back to the 1910s, about the time Oklahoma actually became a U.S. state.  At the same time, the two conferences losing members that were among college football’s elite created the potential loss of prestige and the ability to command big money for upcoming media rights negotiations.  As a result, these conference commissioners found it necessary to engage in their own image repair on behalf of its members. The primary research question for this study is identifying the different strategies employed by the different entities involved. 

First, the researchers examined four of the initial statements given by USC, UCLA and by the Pac-12 commissioner (July-August 2022). In each of these circumstances, the parties involved had control over the message (written and spoken) being delivered about the impact of realignment decisions. Second, the researchers examine statements given by Oklahoma University president Joseph Harroz, University of Texas-Austin president Jay Hartzell, and Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby. While Harroz read a statement in a controlled setting in July of 2021, Hartzell and Bowlsby presented their statements before a special Texas legislative committee in August 2021, created to examine what impact UT’s departure would have on fellow state schools like Texas Tech. As a result, each man’s testimony took on a  “he said, he said” battle, creating different conditions, and as a result, different IRT strategies. 

Coding of Texts

Researchers coded each of the six texts separately and came to an agreement in identifying types of image repair strategies. Five major strategies are associated with Benoit’s IRT, including: (a) Denial; (b) Evading Responsibility; (c) Reducing Offensiveness; (d) Corrective Action; and (e) Mortification (26).  First, Denial is described as a communicator’s rejection of the claims being made. Second, Evading Responsibility is the communicator offering alternative explanations as to why something has happened. Examples of this include: (a) provocation; (b) defeasibility; (c) accident; or (d) good intentions. Third, Reducing Offensiveness suggests the communicator accepts some measure of responsibility, but offers reasons that would lessen the impact on their reputation. Examples of this strategy include: (a) bolstering the communicator’s image to lessen the impact of the harmful action; (b) minimization of the incident; (c) differentiation contrasting the specific act with more serious transgressions; (d) transcendence, in which the specific act is placed in a separate light; (e) attacking the accuser; and (f) offering some form of compensation for the perceived harm caused by the communicator’s actions. Fourth, Corrective Action can be described as the communicator promising steps to resolve the problem. Fifth, Mortification is where the communicator expresses disappointment in his or her own actions or thoughts and seeks forgiveness. A typical post-review step in such IRT studies involves judging whether the image repair was successful, typically through scientific polling results measuring changes in attitudes among the public (27). In this instance, no scientific polls could be found asking about the moves by the four schools involved. 

Analyses

There was one commonality with all of the texts examined: An absence of mortification as a repair strategy. The parties instead focused on (a) reducing offensiveness or (b) evading responsibility. For the universities changing conferences, the image repair dealt with abandoning long-time geographic rivals for the promise of more lucrative media revenue payouts. In the case of the Big-12 and Pac-12 commissioners, similar strategies sought to maintain their conferences’ reputations and reassuring remaining fan bases that there was a path forward. In the case where the Big 12 commissioner and University of Texas President appeared at the same event, the use of denial became an additional image repair device.  

2022: The Pac-12

UCLA.  The UCLA statement from Chancellor Gene Block and Athletic Director Martin Jarmond utilized strategies of defeasibility (Evading Responsibility) and bolstering, minimization, and compensation (Reducing Offensiveness) in discussing the university’s move to the Big Ten conference. The UCLA statement started with “For the past century, decisions about UCLA Athletics have always been guided by what is best for our student-athletes, first and foremost, and our fans.” In the same paragraph, the statement declared that “…seismic changes in collegiate athletics have made us evaluate how best to support our student-athletes as we move forward.” These sentences indicate the use of defeasibility, rhetorically placing UCLA’s student-athletes at the heart of the institution’s decision in changing conferences, without directly mentioning the huge financial payout that awaited from joining the Big Ten (28). Yet despite this stated concern for its student-athletes, UCLA’s athletic department statement also engaged in minimization (Reducing Offensiveness) regarding the added travel its student-athletes would be facing in the future: “…although this move increases travel distances for teams, the resources offered by Big Ten membership may allow for more efficient transportation options.” The UCLA statement made no mention of what travel “resources” could be employed for future games at Maryland or Rutgers on the east coast (29).  Another part of the UCLA statement addressed another the student-athlete equation: “Specifically, this move will enhance Name, Image and Likeness opportunities through greater exposure for our student-athletes and offer new partnerships with entities across the country” (30). Addressing the importance of NIL and the opportunities afforded student-athletes by a move to the Big Ten conference demonstrated the use of bolstering (Reducing Offensiveness).  It bolsters the university’s choice to abandon its remaining partners in the Pac-12 because of uncertainty (e.g., future media revenues).  

The statement further employed bolstering and compensation to soothe UCLA supporters angered at the loss of decades of Pac-12 conference traditions. Bolstering was used when the statement declared  UCLA’s goals “…to preserve our traditional regional rivalries,” while also noting the USC rivalry would continue into the new conference. The administrators also employed the strategy of compensation toward its fans, stating “…Big Ten membership equates to better television time slots for our road games, but the same number of home games either at the Rose Bowl, in Pauley Pavilion or other UCLA venues.” In both of these statements, UCLA seemingly promised to keep playing universities they had faced going back to the days of the Pac-10 and even the Pac-8, with many of those games in Los Angeles.   

USC.  Southern Cal President Carol Folt issued a written statement on June 30, 2022, the same day as UCLA’s announcement. Like her counterparts at their crosstown rival, Folt’s statement employed the image repair strategies of Evading Responsibility (defeasibility) and Reducing Offensiveness (bolstering, minimization) in offering a rationale for its decision. Holt said the change was something that was forced upon USC: “Our move to the Big Ten positions USC for long-term success and stability amidst the rapidly changing sports media and collegiate athletic landscapes.” Unlike UCLA’s statement, Holt used bolstering while noting the non-athletic aspects of the move: “We know the Big Ten shares our commitment to prioritizing student-athlete’s well-being and academic demands….” Much like the UCLA statement, President Holt sought to minimize the impact of increased travel for its student-athletes: “We are committed to devoting the necessary resources to ensure our student-athletes can continue to thrive in their coursework with minimal travel disruption.” Holt later clarified that meant working with the Big Ten on travel and scheduling plans before the move in 2024 (31). 

Holt joined her UCLA counterpart in bolstering USC’s intention to maintain at least some rivalries: “As we begin to plan for our move, please know we will do everything we can to preserve the wonderful traditions and rivalries we have built in the Pac-12 that our students, alumni and fans have enjoyed for decades.” That included maintaining its long-standing football series with Notre Dame (32).  

Pac-12 Commissioner.  The Pac-12 conference office issued a short and relatively positive statement the same day that UCLA and USC announced its move to the Big Ten. While expressing disappointment with the pending departure of two flagship institutions, the statement used bolstering and transcendence (forms of Reducing Offensiveness) to (a) highlight the conference’s long-standing excellence in men’s and women’s athletics; (b) future initiatives serving the remaining Pac-12 schools; and (c) indicating a search for new conference members sometime in the future. Although acknowledging USC and UCLA’s decision to leave the Pac-12, the conference statement contained no direct attacks against those programs (33).  

A few weeks later, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff addressed the UCLA-USC departures in greater detail during the start of the league’s football media day. Klavikoff utilized similar strategies as the conference’s original statement. Kliavkoff employed bolstering and transcendence (Reducing Offensiveness) to highlight the remaining assets the conference possessed, claiming the remaining national brands (e.g., Stanford) kept the conference in an enviable position, despite losing schools located in the nation’s number-two media market. Kliavkoff announced the conference would develop new events to attract media partners and advertisers (bolstering). Kliavkoff’s statement also employed transcendence when stating the Pac-12 was still stronger than other conferences like the Big 12 and the Atlantic Coast Conference regarding television viewership. Future expansion was also highlighted as a way to grow even stronger, even though the Pac-12’s options were limited (e.g., Boise State) (34). 

2021: The Big-12 Conference  

Oklahoma.  After news broke in mid-July 2021 about Oklahoma and Texas wanting to move to the SEC, Oklahoma’s Board of Regents approved the move in a matter of weeks. OU President Joseph Harroz read a prepared statement at the Regents’ meeting explaining the University’s decision rather than just putting out a printed statement. For a portion of the state of Oklahoma, the primary sore spot about the move was OU’s abandoning its long-time rivalry with Oklahoma State. Harroz used a combination of strategies that involved both Evading Responsibility (e.g., good intentions and defeasibility) and Reducing Offensiveness (bolstering and minimization) to address the divide his institution created in the state. President Harroz explained that OU leaders had examined different alternatives: “We looked for solutions [to stay with OSU] but that simply is not what the market we’re pursuing allows.” Here we see Harroz expressing good intentions in trying to bring along Oklahoma State, but that the SEC members were not interested in the Stillwater institution. Later, Harroz was blunt about the SEC’s wished, as he stated that OU was “vying for a limited number of positions in the SEC.” Here we see Harroz engaging in defeasibility, noting that OU had to be concerned about its own future first, and that a choice had to be made between joining the SEC or remaining attached to Oklahoma State in the Big 12 and losing its opportunity to join a stronger football conference in a stronger financial position (35). President Harroz, in trying to reduce perceived offensiveness, used minimization, noting OU would continue playing OSU on a regular basis in men’s and women’s athletics as often as possible, including football. He also pledged support to continuing partnerships with Oklahoma State in academic and research efforts.  

One of the other arguments Harroz came back to several times in his statement was that OU athletics had to at least break even on its athletic finances, as no state funding went into supporting their sports programs: “…we’ve got to be in a structure where students…and state are not subsidizing athletics.” We classify this as bolstering, as President Harroz was touting the continuation of a long-held policy (36). He also used transcendence to place Oklahoma’s goals in a broader picture, saying first that the move was of “critical importance” to helping OU fulfill its strategic plans and then later noting that a move to the SEC would help fulfill an institutional goal of becoming affiliated with the American Association of Universities (AAU), a prestigious academic group. Harroz also utilizes compensation by stating the jump to the SEC “benefits the entire state of Oklahoma,” through new research and educational opportunities (37).  

Tete-a-tete in the Texas Legislature 

As noted above, the texts used by the researchers for statements by University of Texas-Austin President Jay Hartzell and Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby resulted from testimony given before a special Texas legislative committee considering potential fallout from UT’s move to the SEC. The setting created an atmosphere where there was less control compared to UCLA or USC’s written statements. This was also a setting where both individuals felt like they had to speak to the other (although not directly), challenging previous statements.  

Texas.  UT President Hartzell depended heavily on Evading Responsibility and Reducing Offensiveness in justifying his University’s decision to the legislature. Hartzell used defeasibility to point to a lack of control UT had over its circumstances, including the financial impact of the 2020 Covid pandemic: “While many agree that tectonic change is already underway, few will deny that the events of the last year have accelerated these disruptions and increased uncertainty over the future of college sports.” That same lack of control was the basis for Hartzell’s use of provocation: that the Big 12’s inability to guarantee a significant increase in its media rights deals forced Texas’s hand: “these trends and changes that are outside of our control led our leadership team to consider how best to protect and position our athletic programs….” Transcendence (a form of Reducing Offensiveness) was also used in regard to this argument, as Hartzell argued that “…SEC might be a home for the university, providing us with greater certainty and less risk.”  In this case, Hartzell seemingly suggested that in this era of conference realignment, the Big 12 itself was in a position to fall by the wayside as other conferences had in the past (37). Hartzell also made use of specific strategies (bolstering, minimization, and compensation) in trying to reduce the perceived offensiveness of leaving other Texas-schools behind. For example, Hartzell used bolstering in stating “Our friendships in the [Big 12] and their schools and their leaders are rich.” This utterance was meant to at least suggest that Texas, while not a member of the Big 12, would be open to continuing competition with their long-time conference foes. Hartzell employed minimization about the move by noting the football rivalry with Oklahoma would continue in the SEC (the teams play each October at Dallas’s Cotton Bowl during the Texas State Fair). And Hartzell noted that the move would result in what many football fans wanted: Resumption of the long-time rivalry with Texas A&M (38).  

Hartzell’s final form of image repair involved a simple denial of charges leveled against his institution regarding its behavior and treatment of its other Big 12 partners. Hartzell used simple denial when stating “We have honored all agreements. We have not violated any Big 12 bylaws [related to the announced move].” Hartzell also used minimization, noting Texas’s announcement gave the conference four seasons to prepare for what was to come (39). 

Big 12 Commissioner.  Unlike his counterpart in the Pac-12, Bob Bowlsby did not tout the future of his conference or the search for new conference members. Instead, Bowlsby told the Texas legislative committee that Texas and Oklahoma had acted in bad faith in dealing with the Big 12, even well before word leaked out in mid-July 2021 about the SEC move. Bowlsby ignored past events (i.e., the Big 12’s media partners refusing to start negotiations on a new deal), instead focusing on the actions of the two departing schools: “These two that are leaving…have done so without notification to us and no accounting for their reasons.” Bowlsby is attempting to use a form of Denial (shift blame) (40). Instead of acknowledging perceived issues the two schools cited with the future of the Big 12, Bowlsby attacked Texas and Oklahoma about the way they had acted, raising doubts about their continued commitment through the life of the current membership agreement: “One can understand our skepticism about the sincerity of their now stated intentions to play…through ’24-’25.” The limited nature of Bowlsby’s image repair and not addressing the remaining eight conference schools (including the Texas-based schools, the reason why the hearing was taking place) may have come off baffling not only to committee members, but to the programs Bowlsby claimed to represent (41).  

Conclusions

As noted above, one significant finding in this story is the lack of Mortification in any of the image repairs attempted by the schools moving conferences or league commissioners.

Unlike the situation that faced the New Orleans Saints (e.g. putting out cash bounties for injuring opposing players), neither USC, UCLA, OU, or Texas saw no need for expressing regret, as they believed they were forced into these decisions by the current environment in college athletics (42). The conference commissioners, meanwhile, did not wish to dig a deeper publicity hole for their leagues than what had already been created. The focus instead were on strategies of (a) Evading Responsibility; (b) Reducing Offensiveness; and (c) Corrective Action. Denial was only used when the Big 12 commissioner and UT President traded charges before the Texas Legislature. The researchers also found that only Kliavkoff made use of Corrective Action, the last of Benoit’s five major image repair strategies.

A second finding from the analyses is that all four academic institutions cited the financial stakes involved in their motives for seeking membership in new conferences. Historically, money has always been at the heart of collegiate athletic realignment, dating back to the creation of the SEC in the 1930s (43). Tribou’s research on conference realignment basically correlated with the utterances of the university leaders in the early 2020s: (a) a declaration for the need (and certainty) of more money for athletics, (b) increased media exposure in their new conferences and (c) creating the opportunities to stay competitive for athletic titles (44). In particular, the two conferences getting new members (UT and OU joining the SEC; UCLA and USC joining the Big Ten) had reached new media rights deals guaranteeing more revenue and extensive national media exposure for the respective athletic programs joining the two leagues.

A third finding from the analyses suggested only partial support for the idea that conference realignment was spurred on by an institution’s desire for greater prestige (academics as well as athletics) (45). Only the administrators representing USC and Oklahoma even touched briefly upon the academic benefits of joining a new conference. This especially applied to Oklahoma, where President Harroz noted the importance of his University joining the American Association of Universities as part of the SEC. It should also be noted that the USC and UCLA statements generally failed to deal with one of the major controversies involving the two Los Angeles-based schools moving to the Big Ten: the travel distance between the two west coast campuses and teams as far east as New Brunswick, New Jersey (Rutgers). It should be noted again USC and UCLA administrators tried to minimize concerns over student-athletes and travel, offering vague assurances that it would somehow be resolved in the future.

The fourth finding of this study was the notable lack of discussion by these institutions and commissioners about the elephant in the room: NIL (name, image, and likeness) for student- athletes and its impact on these decisions. Of all the texts examined, only administrators from UCLA addressed student financial compensation, who touted their Big Ten move as giving their student-athletes “a broader national media platform…to compete and showcase their talents.” This statement suggested that UCLA would become a popular destination for recruits because of the university being part of a conference that now went coast-to-coast. As Magnusen and Todd noted, offering athletes a “bigger stage” or “brighter lights,” will pay off in future recruiting (46). It is surprising, therefore, that NIL was not a bigger part of what other administrators from Texas and Oklahoma could tout as a positive as part of their SEC conference move. But NIL is certain to be a factor well into the future, not only for biggest athletic conferences, but so called “group of 5” conferences like the American (AAC) and the Mid-American (MAC) that face potentially losing some of their best athletes seeking that “bigger stage” as well.

CONCLUSION

The ultimate result of the major college realignment that began in 2021 was that one conference (the Big 12) found a way to survive and another (the Pac-12) faced extinction. Bob Bowlsby and the Big 12 got four new members in 2023 (Central Florida, Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU). Then new Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark reached a financial settlement allowing Texas and Oklahoma to leave for the SEC in 2024 while getting a new Big 12 television deal from FOX and ESPN running through 2031. But the Pac-12 fell apart on 1 September 2023, having failed to land a new media contract. Oregon and Washington announced that morning they were leaving for the Big Ten with USC and UCLA in 2024. Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah all announced moves to the Big-12 in 2024 later that day. Stanford and Cal-Berkeley agreed to join the Atlantic Coast Conference the next year. Like a high stakes game of “Musical Chairs,” Oregon State and Washington State were left standing in what amounted to the “Pac-2.”

There are likely future realignment earthquakes ahead for college and university athletic programs angling for even bigger shares of the financial pie generated by sports media. And these schools will likely use the same rhetorical devices to defend their actions.

REFERENCES