So how long does the PAC wait on the Texhoma 4 for before grabbing some top MWC schools like they did with Utah?
Maybe someone can explain to me...
Why would Texas, OU, Texas Tech, and OSU give up a 40% share of the Big 12(10 schools) for a 25% share of the PAC 16? And these four schools wouldn't even be controlling the conference in the PAC, they would be the second tier. Not to mention conference games half way across the country.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Would you rather own 40% of a sailboat, or 25% of a yacht?
Just a few short years back.
TCU was making 2 million a year
WVU was making 5 million a year
ISU/Baylor/K State were making less than 10 million a year.
UT/OU were making 20mil+ (along with A&M/Neb) & OSU/Tech/KU were just under 20mil (along with Mizzou/Colorado)
The TX/OK quad and Kansas (bball) are the only school truely bringing in eyeballs/dollars to the conference.
Now all the schools make ~20million (due to increase in contract but also distribution of UT/OU/A&M/Neb/MU/CU's money).
Do all the schools deserve 20 million? Obviously not, 1/2 the conference is being subsidized.
Now thake the PAC12
The PAC12 makes the same money (actually slightly more), and will make even more once their channel is up and running (which is just a matter of time) and eventually even more than the Big Ten network as they have a better ownership of the P12N than the Big Ten has in the BTN as well as the addition regional channels.
Most of their schools deserve what they get, but about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the conference is being subsidized (with obvious exceptions for Utah/WSU and depending on the year Cal/OSU/AZ).
Texas/OU and company could increase the payout for their primary/secondary TV contract as those 4+bball account for 80% of the TV revenues (even when Baylor/KSU/WVU/TCU are good nobody watches unless its against one of the TX/OK quad...ratings prove it just look at the top rated Big 12 games over the last 2 years, the only exception is the Baylor upset of #1 KSU which only got its ratings in the 2nd half).
Using that math UT/OU and co. could bring in over 160million but that just scratches the surface, the added bonus of getting regular matchups between Oregon/Oklahoma St, USC/Texas, Standford/Oklahoma, TxTech/ASU, or any other combo with UCLA/Arizona/Washington will add value to the overall contract boosting its value well over 200 million and the PAC12 Networks inventory would be excellent and that doesn't even mention the bonus of adding an entirely new A.M. time slot to their contract.
Adding the quad would easily increase the TV payout (on 1st/2nd tier) by at least 8 million a school giving the PAC12 a boost over anything the Big Ten could hope for w/o ND and would make their network's value skyrocket and the payout of those rights would be near 10 million each (meaning that even UT would make ~3million more by getting rid of the LHN).
The race would just be between the PAC16 and the SEC.
Right now the Big 12 w/o TX/OK quad has 2 AAU tier 1 schools (KU/ISU), and 2 tier 2 schools (KSU/BU) and 2 tier 3 schools (TCU/WVU).
TCU/BU do nothing to help the conference's academic goal as they are not great reseach institutions.
KSU does only A&M type reasearch which is beneficial to Tech/OSU but not OU/UT.
And WVU does nothing of note.
Meanwhile, the PAC12 has 10 tier 1 institutions, 8 of which are AAU (w/ Utah on deck), and 2 tier 2 schools (WSU/OrSU) which like KSU can work with TxTech/OkSU for the A&M type research.
As far as travel is concerned, the pods were the primary option being considered by the PAC12 meaning Texas would only have to 2 Pacific games a year, and 1 Mountain game a year in fb.
The Mountain games (CU/Utah/AZ/ASU) shouldn't really even be considered as their distance is neglible as most of our (meaning UT who is really in the drivers seat on the move) teams fly everywhere now except BU/TCU and the cost/time in flight is negligible.
The Pacific games are some cause for concern however those are the most entertaining teams/locations and all have easy travel partner to make it as easy as possible meaning (in basketball) Texas would only have to fly once a year to California (playing either LA teams or Bay Area teams on midweek/weekend then fly home) and once a year to the Northwest and the women's team would also fly in the same planes as to further decrease costs (playing midweek/Friday).
And that's not to mention that UT is already playing WVU and if the Big 12 expand likely another school or two as not in our time zone, plus if they were to join either the Big Ten the travel would be basically the same, and while the SEC may be technically less air travel but the lack of major metro airports in the SEC would also come with additional bussing that may increases cost/time.
So the only valid point is giving up control, however no other conference has a controlling interest in a school/groups of school anymore, the Cali schools gave up much of their power by adding the AZ schools and again by adding CU/Utah, the NC schools gave up much of their power by adding the Big East school which now outnumber them, and the Big Ten has done much of the same with the additions of PSU/Neb/MD/Rutgers. And all of those conference are better off the than Big 12 in the long term.
Texas has given up control before when it left the SWC for the Big 12 and could again with the same results. Eventually the power schools always gain control and I wouldn't be shocked to see UT/USC/UCLA/UO/OU/UW to form an alliance a vitually run the conference.
The biggest issue, IMO, won't be any of those things...it will be admitting defeat in the LHN. Now ESPN could simply not renew the deal in 2025 which would allow this to happen, however if they don't voluntarily trashing the concept will be the hardest thing for UT to swallow along with their pride. Powers will never do it, but Patterson and the next president might.
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...