K-State Q&A: Chris Klieman’s third year, football recruiting and Big 12 realignment
A few weeks ago, I wrote a story about some of the wildest and craziest realignment proposals that had been floated to me by readers. My Twitter mentions lit up like a Christmas tree. My inbox was filled with unique ideas. They were mighty entertaining.
Today, I can say I have a zany thought of my own.
Before I share it, let me say that if you want to read serious analysis of where conference realignment might be headed, you should check out the recent round-table discussion Drew Davison, Blair Kerkhoff and myself had on the topic. But if you would rather read about a pie-in-the-sky idea, you’re already in the right place.
OK, here’s my zany idea: If the Big 12 truly wants to continue standing tall as a power conference, it should do everything it can to poach the most valuable schools in the Pac-12. I’m talking Oregon, UCLA, USC and Washington.
Why in the world would any of those schools leave the Pac-12 for the Big 12 right now? Good question. It wouldn’t be an easy sell, even under my plan. Keep in mind, I already described it as “zany.” But stay with me.
In the past, the Big 12’s eight remaining schools have offered extra conference revenue to schools like Oklahoma and Texas in exchange for them remaining in the conference. The idea was once again floated after the Houston Chronicle first reported the Longhorns and Sooners were looking at the SEC. Would those schools stay in the Big 12 if their conference partners took less money and funneled more to them?
In that scenario, perhaps eight Big 12 teams would agree to take a $5 million cut in yearly revenue and gift Oklahoma and Texas with an extra $20 million a piece. That would mean both flagship programs would earn around $60 million in yearly conference revenue, which would exceed the money they can currently make in either the Big Ten or SEC.
A $5 million pay cut is less than ideal for the other schools, but, hey, it beats joining the Mountain West.
A version of that plan worked when Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M promised to stay in the Big 12 a decade ago. Not so much this time.
Maybe Oregon, UCLA, USC and Washington would go for it.
The Pac-12 ($32 million per school in 2019) lags well behind the Big Ten ($55 million) and SEC ($45 million) in revenue distribution. It’s behind the Big 12 ($37.7 million), too. Would some of those schools on West Coast say no to an extra $10-20 million per year if the remaining Big 12 teams promised it to them?
Well, yes, they probably would turn down such an offer. Or they might use it as leverage to join the Big Ten. But maybe it would convince the entire Pac-12 to seriously consider a conference merger.
In any case, Oregon, UCLA, USC and Washington would have to think about it, right? An extra $20 million per year would transform them into some of the richest schools around.
None of the Big 12 schools are a geographical fit, but they collectively offer just as much value (if not more) than Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah and Washington State. The flagship Pac-12 schools would essentially be trading eight old conference rivals without tons of realignment upside for new conference rivals without tons of realignment upside. But instead of offering easy travel, their Big 12 conference mates would offer more money and TV slots that span four time zones.
The Big 12 would also obviously benefit from adding a handful of flagship schools to replace the big brands they lost in Oklahoma and Texas.
Things could get tricky bringing in four teams to replace two. Schools waving goodbye to $5 million a year is one thing and $10 million a year is another. The Big 12 would also continue dealing with problems that come from putting valuing some members over others. Still, it’s a better deal than dropping out of the Power Five. Besides, with a good negotiator, maybe the Big 12 could add those teams and sign a new media rights deal that would allow its remaining eight teams to send new profits to incoming Pac-12 teams without first taking a pay cut.
Or maybe the Big 12 could use exit fees from Oklahoma and Texas to help make the numbers work.
I understand the odds of this happening are about as good as Lloyd Christmas marrying Mary Swanson at the end of “Dumb and Dumber.” But hopefully at least someone will read this and say, “so you’re telling me there’s a chance.”
Now, let’s dive into your K-State football questions. Thanks, as always, for providing them.
A three-part question deserves a three-part answer.
1. How should Chris Klieman define success this season?
Wins and losses. I don’t have anything else for you on that one. In his first year, success was in the eye of the beholder. Klieman was inheriting a roster without much talent that was coming off a losing season. No one would have put him on the hot seat for missing out on a bowl. Improvement was the main key. Then he smashed expectations out of the park by winning eight games. Last year was a disappointment, but I think most fans are willing to give him a pass because of Skylar Thompson’s injury and COVID-19. Thompson is healthy now and the virus shouldn’t be nearly the concern it was last year. Another 8-4 regular season would be viewed as terrific by most. The majority of fans would probably be OK with 7-5, but not all. Six wins would be very “meh.” Another losing season would leave some wondering if he’s the right man for the job.
2. Is Skylar Thompson a NFL quarterback?
I don’t think he has much of a NFL future. But former Klieman quarterbacks Carson Wentz, Easton Stick and Trey Lance are all currently on NFL rosters. Maybe he can follow in their footsteps if he has a big senior year. He is a smart and capable passer who is already running a pro-style system. It coud happen for him. Even then, I doubt he would be more than a late-round pick or undrafted free agent.
3. What player are we not talking about enough?
I’m starting to think juco transfer Tyrone Howell is going to make some big plays at receiver this season. He may not totally know what he’s doing yet in K-State’s offensive system, but he’s a playmaker.
The offensive line strikes me as a position where K-State could lose a player or two to injury (nothing serious, I hope) and still play at a high level on Saturday.
My theory may get tested early on, seeing as how Taylor Poitier and Talor Warner were no shows at practice on Thursday. But K-State coaches really like their front five and have said many times they would feel comfortable going 10 players deep. That means they have a backup for all five spots, which is a great sign of depth.
Conversely, I don’t think the Wildcats have much depth, or overall talent, at linebacker. Defensive coordinator Joe Klanderman said Thursday that Wayne Jones and Ryan Henington are currently the team’s backup linebackers. That’s not a great sign from the outside looking in. Jones is a converted safety and Henington used to play quarterback. I don’t see either of them shining this season.
If Daniel Green or Cody Fletcher miss time at linebacker (knock on wood they don’t) that position could be a real adventure.
K-State football is not off to a promising start during the 2022 recruiting cycle.
Both 247Sports and Rivals currently rank the Wildcats eighth in the Big 12, ahead of just Kansas and Texas Tech. They are currently No. 75 nationally, per Rivals.
That’s obviously not great. Ideally K-State should be closer to the middle of the pack in the Big 12 recruiting rankings. The Wildcats are never going to land five-star prospects or beat Oklahoma and Texas for many players, but they should be on an even playing field with the rest of their peers.
But it’s too early to give Chris Klieman a grade for this recruiting class. It’s still early and the Wildcats tend to make a great impression on players they host on football weekends. Perhaps we will see a spike in commitments once the season begins.
It’s also unfair to judge K-State recruiting at the moment, because of Big 12 realignment. Recruits want to know what conference they are going to play in once they become college players. Unfortunately, things are uncertain in that department right now.
I don’t think there is any coincidence that Charles Nimrod backed off K-State as soon as Oklahoma and Texas announced plans to leave for the SEC. I also think that hurt K-State’s chances with Jaren Kanak, even though he has always been a Clemson lean. The Wildcats also recently lost Jaden Hamm, a 2023 tight end out of Eudora, to Arkansas out of the blue.
Do the Wildcats need to recruit better? Yes. But that is easier said than done at the moment.
Main course: Any kind of barbecue. Brisket, pulled pork, ribs, sausage ... I will gladly eat it all.
Sides: Cole slaw, corn on the cob or macaroni and cheese.
Dessert: Is it too early to say pecan pie?
Weather: Afternoon games in October usually have the best weather, but hot is always better than cold. Give me September over November.
The biggest difference I can see is that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren’t governed by the same board of regents, but KU and K-State answer to the exact same group of people.
In other words, Oklahoma’s board of regents were allowed to vote in favor of the Sooners leaving for the SEC without any outside interference from Oklahoma State’s board of regents.
Things wouldn’t work so seamlessly if KU or K-State tried to leave for a different conference without taking its in-state rival along. The same board of regents oversees both colleges.
So, theoretically, the subject of KU and K-State playing in different conferences could be a hotly contested debate.
It’s not currently an issue. But I suppose it could be if the ACC, Big Ten or Pac-12 express interest in one (but not both) schools.
Not sure what would happen in that scenario. Let’s save that topic for another day, shall we?
The state board of regents has already issued a statement saying that either school must first notify board members before engaging in formal talks with any other conference. So the odds of either school moving in complete secrecy are lower in the Sunflower State than they were in Oklahoma.
According to my Facebook memories, my 12th anniversary on the K-State beat happened earlier this week.
I mention that here, because during that time I have not seen a better pure big man play for the K-State men’s basketball team than Curtis Kelly.
Dean Wade was more of a stretch four, D.J. Johnson battled injuries and Makol Mawien was a liability on offense. Davion Bradford might end up being even better than Kelly, but he is only a sophomore.
Anyway, having a player like Kelly around in any capacity is a good thing.
Here’s guessing he will practice against K-State’s current big men and help make them better in a hands-on way.
This story was originally published August 20, 2021 at 8:17 AM with the headline "K-State Q&A: Chris Klieman’s third year, football recruiting and Big 12 realignment."