Stories about Big 12 exodus movements shall be heard regularly from now until it happens. Here's one back to suggesting UT, TTU, OU, and oSu hooking up with the PAC12:http://thebiglead.com/2016/10/18/big-12 ... to-pac-12/
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
While I buy the logic that if Texas and Oklahoma aren't free to move by themselves that the Pac 12 is only conference willing to take Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, OSU if they chose to move together, it doesn't explain why they would choose to take less money by moving to the Pac 12! The Pac 12 Network is not paying much out, and while adding Texas and Oklahoma would help it build interest (if Texas doesn't bring LHN along) that doesn't guarantee a solution to its distribution problems. Those are mostly due to the fact the conference has no partner for its network, so they have no negotiating leverage with big providers such as Directv, like Fox and ESPN do.
But who says Texas and Oklahoma would want to move together. They might test the waters as a package deal, but that's probably not their best option. If Oklahoma is tied to OSU, the SEC is still probably an option. If Texas is tied to Texas Tech the SEC probably isn't an option (they already have A&M and don't need three schools in Texas) but the ACC would be, though the problem there is that as with the Pac 12 Texas would make less money in the ACC than with the Big Ten or SEC.
Rather than be forced to bring little brother along for the ride to a conference that pays them less than they could make if they weren't saddled with him, here's another option. Texas and Oklahoma go to the rest of the Big 12 schools with an ultimatum: If we both leave, the Big 12 will no longer considered a power conference. Networks will offer far less money. So give us each a double share, or we walk.
(i.e. 8 teams get 1/12th of the revenue each, Texas and Oklahoma each get 2/12ths of the revenue) The other teams won't like it, but none of them other than possibly Kansas would have options to move to another power conference, so they would be forced to accept it. Then Texas and Oklahoma make more money than they'd make as an equal partner in any other power conference, and stay in a conference where they don't have to fight Alabama or Ohio State to get a playoff berth.
Slice1900, since your brought this sec03 post back, I decided to imply since there is not much going to change over the next few years and probably not much to discuss with the power league realignment of membership for over the next five years.
First up, it is mind boggling the Big 12 drove expansion out so long and Oklahoma desperation is at the root of this issue. Most leagues make any decision before July 1 of any year because the physical year ends and starts with this date. All past or most expansions occurred before this date. When the Big 12 went beyond this date it was a wow factor they are actually going to expand.
The other date that usually stops expansion discussion unit the off season is the start of football season. This is when everyone have a fresh new feeling and regardless of the league being power or group of five have optimisms of the upcoming season, the Big 12 continued past this date. Once again its was a wow factor that maybe the Big 12 is going to expand.
Oklahoma has been at the root of this issue since the now infamous quote of Boren on "psychological disadvantage" of not playing a CCG and having 12 schools.
Oklahoma is tied more than ever to Texas and "psychological disadvantage" was always referring to the lack of a conference network. The other power leagues including the soon to be ACC and Texas have one and the simple fact is Oklahoma does not.
Oklahoma is not as desired by power leagues as most would like to believe. The school tried to persuade the Pac 12 to expand with the Pac 14 and take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The Pac 12 wanted not part of Oklahoma without Texas.
I see the same issue for the Big Ten and the SEC. Oklahoma is not that large of start for cable subscribers and the SEC does not need to bring in another school that will take more Texas recruits from the advantage of having Texas A&M in the league.
Oklahoma continued to have hope resting on BYU to have any chance of a normal type Big 12 cable network until there were just no votes for BYU with all the baggage. BYU credibility as valuable expansion candidate started and ended with Oklahoma and so did the argument of "psychological disadvantage" .
I am not sure Oklahoma being a injured animal so to speak of will continue to plague the Big 12, however, Texas is going to be fine with the LHN until 2024/2025.
Assuming Oklahoma has no place to go without Texas which is my prediction and Texas can continue to make enough Tier 1 and Tier 2 revenue off future Big 12 new contract, Texas will remain in the Big 12 and thus forcing Oklahoma to remain as well.
If Texas needs greener pastures in 2024, all bets are off for the Big 12 as we know it because Oklahoma would be able to ride on Texas back to another league.
Finally I do agree with this article the Big 12 will remain around regardless because the league can pouch schools from the AAC and MWC to create if nothing else the best non power league out there if it comes down to that decision.
I am not sure it will because Texas has and will always be the school that controls the destiny of the Big 12.