If Big 12 Expands, Which Teams Should Be Added?

And here we go. Again. 

About two weeks removed from the five-year anniversary of realignment-palooza, Oklahoma president David Boren took a match to the college football offseason and lit the whole thing on fire.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday following a meeting of the board of regents, Boren reiterated that the Big 12 should "strive" for 12 teams, as noted by Ryan Aber of the Oklahoman:

"

I think it’s something we should strive for while we have the time, stability, all of that to look and be choosy. (We) can be very selective about who we want to add. It would have to add value to the conference. I think we should.

How many years can this go on? Finally, it just gets to be really debilitating. I worry about that. That’s something I just worry about long-term about the conference, not short-term.

"

Just like that, college football Twitter went nuts. 

This isn't new, though. Getting back to 12 teams has been Boren's stance before, and it's not going to change. But, OK, it's nearing July, and college football is in hibernation mode, so we'll play along. 

If the Big 12 was to expand—more later on why this is a complicated matter—who would it target?

This is tricky. By Boren's own admission, extending invites to other schools has to be done "scientifically—not emotionally" with a focus on "the right partners," per Guerin Emig of the Tulsa World.

Who are those "right partners"?

This isn't 2011, when the Big 12 was on the verge of collapse thanks to the departures of Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC (ironically enough, as Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated noted, "Boren’s flirtation with the Pac-12" played a role in those departures). 

Adding teams now is about ensuring stability as much as it is about growing either the brand or geographical/television footprint (or both). It's not about having 12 teams for the sake of 12 teams, as David Ubben of Fox Sports Southwest wrote about the matter last December. 

"You don't add teams to a conference so you can hold a championship game," Ubben wrote. "You do it if it makes fiscal sense and doesn't water down your product on the field."

Here's what matters in expansion: television money. That's it. Not academics, which is the biggest lie in realignment, and not anything else.

Here's what has to be asked: Does adding teams help the bottom line so that existing members aren't taking a pay cut? Boren claims the conference's media rights deal prevents this, but there's bowl money involved as well. 

The problem is pickings are slim. The window to pluck Clemson and Florida State from the ACC, for example, has passed. Realignment among power conferences is likely done for the time being with so many leagues in the middle of multi-billion-dollar television contracts with grant-of-rights agreements. 

That leaves few realistic options: Boise State, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Memphis. With apologies to the respective fanbases, none of those are great options. 

Boise State has a great following. As far as Group of Five teams go, the Broncos are easily the most recognizable. But expanding north into smaller TV markets is counterintuitive to what realignment has been about lately. 

BYU is the best pure fit. As Staples noted, "BYU is to Mormons what Notre Dame is to Catholics. Of all the remaining expansion candidates, the Cougars probably are the most viable from a brand-name standpoint." It's no secret either that the Cougars are desperate to join the Power Five ranks. However, refusing to play on Sunday is a roadblock.

Central Florida is a great up-and-coming program. Baylor knows all about what the Knights can do after losing to them in the Fiesta Bowl in 2014. It's a huge school, too—about 60,000 students—which will pay off in alumni interest down the road. 

Cincinnati has been a steady program over the past several years in a nice TV market. The problem is the Bearcats aren't a huge draw. 

Memphis has experienced a recent surge in football under head coach Justin Fuente. The program is also investing in facilities and opening up a new footprint. Additionally, for selfish reasons, the city has great barbecue.

(Note: This won't be taken into consideration, but maybe it should be. For that matter, why aren't we discussing programs in destination cities? Add Miami, Tulane and San Diego State, and enjoy the annual trips.) 

Of all the options, BYU and Central Florida make a lot of sense, especially if expansion isn't imminent. Chances are both will be exactly where they are in three, five or 10 years from now.

The thing about expansion/realignment, though, is that it seems like it's one step away from happening all over again. 

The Big 12 has held firm that it has no plans to expand. In response to Boren's comments, conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby told Chuck Carlton of the Dallas Morning News that he's not under "the indication that the majority of our presidents feel that way." 

What causes the friction—public, private, imagined, real or otherwise—is that Boren supposedly speaks with the Big 12's collective brain trust in mind, as noted by Jake Trotter of ESPN.com: 

Of course, Boren's comments could reflect what the Big 12 secretly wants to do know but knows it can't. Either way, it only pushes the narrative that it's nothing short of a miracle that the Big 12 can put one foot in front of the other without tripping. Couple that disconnect with Boren's quote about the Longhorn Network, which he referred to as "the elephant in the room... that has struggled," and there could be conference network discussions driving things in the next decade. 

Will the Big 12 expand again? Perhaps; no one is ever sure when the landscape will change again, but no decisions have to be made tomorrow, either. The Big 12 can be more diligent about this. Since there aren't any great options, it's unlikely that anything is imminent. 

The more interesting question, frankly, is whether the Big 12's deep-rooted dysfunction will come back into play in the next 10 years or so, regardless of whether it's a 10-member conference or a 12-member one. That seems more likely to affect the league's future. 

Ben Kercheval is a lead writer for college football. All quotes cited unless obtained firsthand.