This is a follow up on my May negotiation predictions:  I was right on some of it. Much of what has happened thus far followed my analysis. The issue that I was wrong about was timing because the decision was broken into several smaller decisions, with a decision to explore expansion (done) rather than a decision to expand and name the teams (not done yet). Breaking the situation into two separate decisions created two different negotiation strategies. Thus, the BIG12 made a little decision and punted on the big decision. Below is the original May post in regular font with an update in bold font. Point 4 probably has the most going on if you want to skip ahead.
...

I recently gave a presentation on negotiation strategies for attorneys at my state bar. It is fascinating to see how closely the Big12 seems to be following the pattern I discussed.  This is a negotiation being played out in public (at least in part), which is unique. Additionally, some parties have been on different stages but are starting to meet now. For example, Oklahoma has been far ahead of everyone else for some time (on stage 4), whereas Texas just now seems to be getting there.  With that said, take a quick look:

1. Preparation Stage: General recognition of change needed. The meeting last year wherein they decided to conduct a study could fit in here. Done.

2. Preliminary Stage: This is the stage where the parties get to know each other and decide to work on a resolution. This is an important but overlooked stage. If this stage is skipped, it hurts negotiation. I believe that many Big12 members felt that Oklahoma (and specifically Boren) had skipped steps in the process and that is why they demanded the short lived "gag order" that Boren quickly disregarded. Done.  

3. Information Stage: The BIG12 did the analysis so that everyone has a similar set of facts from which to work. Behind these generalized facts are the analysis for each of the schools that they have been preparing as to how expansion impacts them. Thus, part of the preparation is transparent and part is not. I think we are just coming out of this phase. Done, although the BIG12 had not fully analyzed the teams as expected. Instead, they basically did an open tryout. The addition of the LGBT letters was unique because it was a third party input into a process that was largely being controlled by the BIG12.

4. Competitive/Distributive Stage: This is the competitive stage whereby parties claim value for their own position. This is the beginning of setting negotiation lines and values with the strategic view of making "principled consessions."  For example, when Texas says,  “we would get the same money, but lose our branding and having our own channel? Not very compelling. If we get rid of LHN, it will be to change conferences, in my opinion”, this type of statement is a classic value statement setting them up to receive value back if they concede on this point. In this stage, some will use logical argument (Oklahoma and Boren demonstrating that the numbers favor expansion), while others will use threats and warnings (Texas and Oklahoma subtly threatening to leave). This is the stage where it gets a little dirty. We will likely be in this stage for the next month.  To keep your sanity, remember that the various parties will be framing the debate in a way that increases their leverage for future concesssions. Texas has something the others want to take away, so Texas will frame the debate in a way that skews towards them and appear to be against the deal. The harder line Texas draws over the next month, the better deal they can get. Oklahoma on the other hand, has its nuclear option of leaving, which they will subtly play over and over again. They won't say it outright, but they will hint at it depending on how hard of a line Texas draws. I believe both are bluffing. However, the schools they are trying to persuade are the other 8 schools. Thus, it becomes a question of what will the non-UT schools concede to UT to get the concession of the LHN. Be patient and don't jump off the cliff based on the uses of threats and warnings.

Here we are now. The BIG12 did vote to explore expansion. However, likely due to the fact that the numbers did not favor a TV deal, the rhetoric of people coming out of the meeting was that the new members could not be dilutive (i.e. the new variable was competitiveness for ratings purposes rather than TV market). Now, with the change in focus various parties are jockeying to get what they want. Texas and Oklahoma want to stay in the BIG12 but don't want to cede power to each other (Houston). They want to stay because they like being the big dogs, and they know that if expansion occurs, it increases the BIG12 odds of getting into the playoff (and they know that if a BIG12 team qualifies, it is likely to be either Texas or Oklahoma).  Both are using the GOR and the LHN as bargaining and leverage points (although the LHN is now a minor point after the data showed that maintaining its own network was not feasible). The other 8 schools are now trying to negotiate with what little they have--votes. They are now stating they will vote against expansion to try to put pressure on Texas and Oklahoma because they know that Texas and Oklahoma need expansion to (1) increase their chances for playoff teams and (2) allow them to stay as the big dogs in the conference (as opposed to changing conferences and relevance). Of course, the big schools know that the small schools are bluffing because they know that if the conference breaks up, many of the small schools might lose their P5 affiliation. Essentially, everyone is playing the same bluff (i.e. no expansion), despite the fact that everyone knows that expansion would help them individually (big schools as stated above and small schools with stability for future P5 status, all schools for increased TV revenue).  Thus, we see that everyone is simultaneously playing a transparent bluff that everyone else also knows about. Add in the TV partners, and we have a big fat clusterbluff (made that word up just now). 

Despite the transparent bluff, there is risk to expansion because sometimes, bluffs get called, and people will stubbornly play a positional bluff until the end. However, generally, a transparent bluff is a precursor to a deal/compromise. It can also be a misdirection. I'm not sure I give the BIG12 this much credit, but after the LGBT stuff, BYU may be a much more palatable expansion choice as a "compromise" to break a logjam on expansion rather than as a "first choice of everyone" candidate. They could also blame the addition of BYU as a TV network requirement.  At this point, the analysis makes me feel like the Vizzini on Princess Bride with the cup challenge.

The main point here, is that we are still in this competitive stage and it is ugly. However, this stage is almost always ugly, so don't get too worked up about every little thing. The second point here, is to look at the power wielded verses the cost/benefit of the result. Keeping those factors in mind typically helps to see through the posturing and into the reasons behind the posturing. I still believe expansion is likely because that is what everyone wants. Who they choose as the teams for expansion is the bigger question. That said, I probably would need to write a different post to consider that.  

5. Closing Stage: This is when parties realize an agreement is likely to occur and psychologically commit to the agreement. This is the point where 70%-80% of concessions are actually made.  This is the scary part of the equation for BYU. This is when parties make quick decisions because they are anxious about the deal getting done. A patient party can get concessions that an overly anxious opponent would not typically give becuase of the psychological commitment. Hopefully those favoring BYU are the more patient party. If not, you end up with a decision like Cinci and UCONN, which is unsupported by the data. This stage is likely to occur at the end of this month. This stage occured with regards to the mini vote to explore expansion on July 19th. The remaining will hopefully occur in a couple weeks. However, I've been burned before by the BIG12 and their tendency to kick the can down the road.  The BIG12 showed in the last meeting that they can surprise people with a unanimous vote. It will take some skill to close. However, I think it is possible as long as everyone that goes to that meeting has final authority to make decisions within the meeting.   

6. Cooperative Stage: Once the settlement is achieved, the parties start to try to maximize the deal, particularly when they will be maintaining an ongoing relationship. Let's imagine they decide to expand and list their candidates in order of preference. At that point, they work together to make onerous conditions for joining. I imagine they will ask for multiple years without revenue, disadvantageous scheduling, etc.  Additionally, they will try to manipulate things to get a better media deal. Not a lot to add here. It will depend on when they make a decision and what that decision is. If they decide not to expand, it will likely involve an increase in revenue from TV partners to avoid having to pay the pro rata amounts. If they do decide to expand, the points previously discussed would all be on the table, if not already decided.  

There is a lot more that could be said in this analysis and I don't pretend to know what will happen in stages 5-6. But, I'm fairly confident about what has been happening (Stages 1-4). Let's hope that stage 5 breaks our way, and if it does, let's hope we can live with stage 6 conditions. Same thoughts today.