Texas, and their big donors, want the Big 12 to survive. They absolutely love having God-like status.
We'll add a CCG, renegotiate the buyout, most of our schools will be on par with the SEC in terms of cash, and Texas will make more money that everyone.
Texas will fire Charlie Strong, throw $5 million a year at Tom Herman, and they'll be winning ten game a year, and no one will be talking about leaving the Big 12.
Expect OU, who are becoming more like Red-Assed Aggies.
Oklahoma is in a weird spot to trigger realignment. When they tried last time, they failed because the Pac-12 didn't want Oklahoma State. So, for starters, if they want to go somewhere else, they need to uncouple from OSU. That's easier said than done.
So, let's assume for a second that Texas wants to stay, but OU wants to go. Also, in this scenario, they can move without concern for OSU. Where do they go?
If you're the Big Ten, do you invite them? Oklahoma has one of the lowest ratios of cable subscribers by state, and it's a small state to begin with. Per the last numbers I saw from about a year ago, they had less than 600k subscribers. So, if you charge $1.00 per month for the state to carry the BTN, that will net you, at best, $7.2 million. That may get you close to the break even point. Would the be enough to get you a much better T1/T2 deal? Maybe, but would it be enough to overcome the diminishing returns of adding two shares? Probably not.
And Oklahoma isn't an AAU school, and they would walk in as the lowest ranked academic school in the entire consortium of the CIC, so it's not like you're gaining a lot there. Also, would Michigan and OSU really want to upset the apple cart when the conference is freaking printing money? Why would they add an academically inferior school in a small, slow growth state with few cable subscribers that would have the potential to upset the balance of power for the current elite teams if there's little monetary incentive?
What about the SEC? Again, academically, you gain nothing. No additional prestige. No new AAU designation. You add another power school in the west with the potential to siphon off Texas talent that LSU and the rest of the conference is already feasting on. All of the previous comments about cable subscribers stays true. And if they still decide that they want to bring OU aboard, who is #16? Oklahoma State? Not a chance. Kansas? Mayyyyybe. But even then, they have to uncouple from us, and that's even less likely since we share the same BOR.
So, one, they have to clear the OSU hurdle, which they haven't been able to do. Two, they have to overcome the fact that they bring few cable subscribers to the table, and they are in a small state. Three, their academics don't move the needle at all. Four, even if you net a better T1/T2 deal because of them, is it enough to cover two additional shares?
The only scenario where this really works, for any conference, is if OU and UT move together, as a pair, to a different conference. OU needs Texas to be a part of the deal because no matter where they go, they need Texas revenue potential to justify the two extra mouths. It's much harder for everyone to stay square when you start talking about splitting shares at 16 teams vs. 14 teams vs. 12 teams.
And the political ramifications of OU and UT moving together would be so immense that it's probably going to be unbelievably difficult.
