The Big 12 faces a perception problem.

"Power Four” is used to describe the current hierarchy of college football, but the phrase is misleading. The SEC and Big Ten reign supreme. Those two conferences have the biggest brands and the most stroke. But even when compared to the ACC, the other Power Four conference, the Big 12 takes a backseat in perception because the ACC has power brands like Miami, Clemson, Florida State, and North Carolina. 

The first month of the season offers the Big 12 a chance to hit back.

The 16-team Big 12 plays in 14 crossover non-con games against the other three P4 over the first four weeks of the 2025 season - three games against the SEC, four versus the Big Ten, and seven against the ACC. Five of the 14 occur in Week 1, headlined by Baylor vs. Auburn and TCU at North Carolina. Week 2 features Baylor at SMU and Iowa State vs. Iowa. Week 3 is Pitt at West Virginia and Week 4 includes SMU at TCU. 

Big 12 teams are underdogs in three of the five P4 matchups in Week 1. Most models predict that the conference will be favorites in only five of the 14 contests against other P4 opponents. Those same predictive gambling lines say the Big 12 will be underdogs in five of the seven games against the ACC. Some of those will change based on Week 1 or Week 2 results, but the implications are undeniable. The Big 12 is the Rodney Dangerfield of conference football – fun, entertaining and enjoyable to watch, but receiving no respect.

The way to gain respect is to earn it on the field with victories. Not moral ones like what Arizona State notched in the CFP against Texas at the Peach Bowl. Real ones. A win by Baylor over Auburn on the first Friday night of the season would be massive. A victory by TCU on the road against Bill Belichick on a Monday night would be a direct statement against the ACC, as would Baylor and TCU finding a way to knock off SMU over the next couple of weeks. 

The Big 12 will never be seen as peers to the Big Ten and SEC. The goal is pull even with the ACC in the national consciousness because so much of college football – polls, playoff seeding, television slots and contracts – are a positive feedback loop that reinforces the biases. Only the five highest-rated conference champions are guaranteed an invitation to the 12-team CFP. The other eight spots – maybe 12 in a year or two when the tournament expands to 16 – are determined by a committee. One that sees the Big 12 as inferior to its P4 mates. 

A three-loss Alabama who had recently been crushed on the road against a .500 Oklahoma squad was ranked ahead of Big 12 champion Arizona State, a team with two losses, in the final CFP rankings. ASU received the bid because it was the fifth-highest rated champion. A two-loss BYU that beat SMU on the road was ranked behind three-loss Bama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina. More G6 teams (4) than Big 12 teams (3) finished the regular season in the CFP Top 25. 

The Big 12 and the ACC rebuffed a proposal of a 4-4-2-2 model that would guarantee two spots but would’ve simultaneously codified the SEC and Big Ten’s station as supreme rulers of college football. Even if the playoff was expanded to 16 teams last season, only Arizona State would’ve qualified. And they wouldn’t receive a bye because those four spots are now rewarded to the top four ranked teams, not the top four ranked conference champions.  

Standing up for the 5 +11 or 5 + 14 model was the right choice for the Big 12 even if it is counter intuitive. There might be years that the Big 12 doesn’t place two teams into the CFP and detractors will use that as proof that the 4-4-2-2 was a better option. But it wasn’t. That model would’ve eliminated the chance at upward mobility. 

We’re watching the top half of college football gain more parity because of revenue sharing and NIL. Look no further than Texas Tech, a team that was never considered a contender before but has now spent its way into the conversation. Why can’t TCU or Houston or Arizona State make the same jump in markets that are growing and prosperous? 

College football at its core is a game of resources. Always has been. Always will be. If new rules allow for new resources, there is nothing stopping the Big 12 from producing a handful of teams that can spend in the portal and in recruiting with traditional powers in states and cities without as much economic advantage. 

Unlocking the potential advantage of markets such as Fort Worth, Houston, and Tempe takes success. Wins against other name brand schools outside the conference. Whether in the regular season or the CFP, the Big 12 requires a proof of concept to change its national perception. We’ll know by the end of September whether those narratives are proven right or wrong.