I always assumed that, but I don't think that will be the case. The money comes in Tier 2 revenue, which is where the networks reside. We all jumped up and down when the Fox deal came to fruition, but we got short changed big time. We're making $22 million less, annually, in Tier 2 revenue than the Big Ten, and $60 million less than the SEC because we don't have anything that resembles a "network".
Tier 1 money is kind of chump change. We've got the second highest annual total there already. Even if we got a billion dollar deal like the Big Ten has, we're only competitive with the SEC because our Tier 2 revenues are so low.
Here's the thing: We need to figure something out on the Tier 2 side of things. The only school that is going to get rich in this league is Texas. I really should have cranked out the numbers before now, but crap, we're toast if we don't figure something out there. The Fox deal actually sucks.
Thinking about it some more, isn't the solution going to simply be: add some more members?
The ABC contract is for 18 football games per year, while the new Fox contract is for at least 40 football games per year. That means we need to provide our TV partners with at least 58 football games per year.
In a 10-member league, each school plays 9 conference games and 3 noncon games. That equates to 45 total conference games and 30 total noncon games. From that, you have to assume that each school will play one road game in the noncon, so subtract 10 from our pool of total noncon games. The Big 12 also allows each school to retain the rights to one home football game for broadcast on their own Tier 3 platform, so subtract 10 more games from our pool. (45 conf games + 30 noncon games = 75 total games minus 10 road noncon games minus 10 3rd tier games = 55 games available for the TV partners. Since we're on the hook for at least 58, we'll have to hope that some schools elect not to retain a game for broadcast on a 3rd tier network or don't play a road game in non-conference play. Basically, our entire inventory is tied up in the 1st and 2nd tier contracts. If the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma pool their 3rd tier rights to form a network, we'll have a maximum of 8 football games to put on that network. That would be a big fat failure.
If we expand to 12, we solve that problem. In a 12-member league, each school plays 8 conference games and 4 noncon games. That equates to 48 total conference games and 48 total nonconference games, plus 1 conf champ game. That puts our total inventory at 97 games. As before, assume each school plays one road noncon games (subtract 12 from our total). That leaves us with 85 games for our TV partners. After they select the 58 games they want to broadcast, the remaining 27 games are available for broadcast on a 3rd tier network(s). Texas would keep their 3rd tier game for the LHN; ditto the Sooners if they start a network. The rest of UT's and OU's games will almost certainly be selected by the 1st or 2nd tier partners. That leaves the other 10 members with 25 football games to broadcast on a "Big 12 Network". That's enough inventory to give us a couple of games per week throughout the football season, which could make the network viable. How lucrative it would be, I have no idea, but the only way to make a 3rd Tier contract be possible is to expand to 12.
Or, it's possible that if we expand to 12, the Fox contract will grow to include 50 games or 60 games, instead of the 40 games they're currently under contract for. Add an extra 25% or 50% to the Fox inventory, and that contract will have to grow accordingly.
Either way, I think the money is there if we expand AND if the expansion includes the right schools. I'm looking at BYU, Louisville and ??? when I say "the right schools".
