I thought about adding my justifications last night, but I'll go ahead and do it now.
1. What does the PAC get?
Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State
How does this benefit them? It's true that this doesn't really add the "pop" of an OU or UT. The problem is that UT is so connected with ESPN right now that it wouldn't work unless the PAC sold a portion of its network. I don't see them doing that because they probably wouldn't get the value they wanted. ESPN doesn't have a great deal of motivation to buy into it unless they're getting a good price. I think it would be wise for the PAC to sell, but they seem to think the current arrangement is a good long term investment.
So for Texas, the money won't be that great unless they stick with an ESPN property. That narrows it down to the SEC and ACC for them. I think the PAC would change their mind if they had it do all over again and would take OU and OSU. Problem is that the SEC has cashed in big since then with the SECN while the PAC has had distribution problems for years.
The PAC needs access to the state of TX though. TCU is a good, solid addition that accesses DFW. Texas Tech is a solid state school that's not too far away compared to some of the others. Iowa State is an AAU school that brings a smallish, but more college sports friendly market. The same is true of Kansas State albeit not an AAU school.
The PAC's options are limited due to a combination of geography and economics. My theory though is that they need to expand and increase their payouts and network distribution or they will run the risk of losing members in the long run. Their GOR is up around the same time the Big 12's is. The Big 12 is done, but the B1G is still hungry for new and growing markets. I could see them snatching Colorado and maybe a couple more. I know that doesn't sound likely, but I think there's a chance the B1G could become more desperate for growing markets as their current region has become stagnant. They wanted ACC schools, but that's not going to happen. They still might land OU or KU, but it's a more difficult play as they are in direct competition with the SEC. And access to TX for the B1G is unlikely.
2. What does the ACC get?
Texas and quite possibly the full membership of Notre Dame
Why does this work? Obviously, landing Texas would be a huge get. UT checks all the boxes for them outside of reasonable travel, but being stretched out on a thin line from Boston to Miami doesn't scream geographic contiguity anyway. ESPN will keep Texas because they've planned well ahead in order to do so. Texas doesn't want to partner with the SEC, but they could chart their own unique path in the ACC and that allays their ego in addition to having greater exposure in Eastern media markets.
The reason I think ND might join in full at this juncture is twofold. Their options are starting to get limited when things get pared down to a P4. The odds of a non-P4 champion getting into the playoffs probably plummets at this point. Now, they've committed as much to the ACC as they have to anything other than independence itself. Point being, they want to be there which is why they've agreed to join the league should they join one at all before 2034. Now, if Texas joins then their considerable influence would be put to use to talk ND into joining fully. ND gets an annual game with Texas and a set of divisional rivals that check other boxes. ND's out of conference schedule has to be respected so I think 9 league games is the absolute max and they might stay at 8. This 16 team league is a powerhouse economically and provides the foundation for long term survival.
3. What does the B1G get?
Kansas and UConn
Their options are also limited because they want state flagships and premier academic institutions. Texas is highly unlikely and OU needs to stick with OSU. Kansas can probably escape K State, however, and they provide a good national brand that makes the BTN more marketable. UConn adds value in the Northeast by increasing viewership in NYC if nothing else.
Putting Kansas in the B1G is important because it's one of the few they will take. Remember we have to get to at least 8. Which leads me to this...
4. What does the SEC get?
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, and Houston
Why does this work? OU and OSU are self explanatory. I know it's doubling down in a smallish market, but that has covered elsewhere.
Houston works for 2 reasons. No one really wants Baylor right now. Their value is limited. Their potential is limited. To top it off, the scandals have given them a huge PR black eye. A major state institution may have been able to overcome that(see Penn State), but it's much harder when the school doesn't add a lot of value in other areas. They're probably getting left out.
Right now, we're at 8 members having homes. That's enough, right? Well, remember Texas has been under pressure to rescue Houston. It's a major state school with growth potential in a huge market at that. I'm thinking ESPN would rather take a chance on Houston as opposed to taking a chance on Baylor. Why do they need to though? Because Texas needs assurances that their little brothers will be taken care of if they bolt out on their own to the ACC. The political backlash would be significant if any little brothers had been left behind while Texas' departure was the act that left them in no man's land. Who cares? Texas probably doesn't, but the politicians in the state do. I'm also betting they would prefer to rescue Houston as opposed to Baylor also. Baylor is not a state school and the TX legislature doesn't have to cut checks to fund it. They do have to cut checks to fund Houston and all that would probably be easier if UH had the exposure and funding of a Power conference to bolster their financial portfolio.
The SEC works out as a good location for UH because the league needs more penetration in TX. Don't OU and OSU accomplish that? To a degree. They have good alumni bases in Dallas, which is very important, but they are not physically located in TX. They will never pull the viewership or sub numbers in another state that they pull in their own. The SEC taking a 2nd TX school, one with immense potential that also happened to have been in discussions with the league before the SWC fell apart, pays dividends if for no more reason than not allowing UT and the ACC to have a greater share of exposure in the state than the SEC does. Why would the SEC care about that? Because they want TX recruits, dollars, and preeminent status. In all the other states that the SEC and ACC share, the SEC owns the flagship. If you can't own the primary flagship in UT then you might as well have a greater share of the pot. Having Houston also creates opportunities for more games in TX(league games) and more special match-ups. A&M and Arkansas meet in DFW every year. Wouldn't it be beneficial to have Houston and OSU do the same or something like that?
Why does WVU work? Well, the ACC is now a fortress. The SEC will likely never get into NC and VA at this point. Not for many decades at least. They might as well take WVU and have access to the Mid-Atlantic region and create more opportunities for interchangeable content with the ACC(Backyard Brawl/WVU-VT). The ACC doesn't really want WVU(not that the SEC is clamoring for them), but Louisville brought a lot to the table that WVU did not. That's ultimately why they made an academic exception. They had to. The ACC mostly owns the region and while WVU is a good football product, they don't bring great demographics to the table. That and if the ACC takes WVU then the numbers are off. At this juncture, WVU is actually more valuable to the SEC than they are to the ACC.
------------
I know a lot of that sounds convoluted, but it makes sense in my head even though that's not saying much.
