(12-11-2020 12:38 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  There will continue to be monetary differences between now and 2037. That is certain. The degree of which these differences affect the decision-making of several institutions considered to be in demand is the unknown.

Looking at the brands not in the SEC or Big Ten in 1989: Penn State, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, Nebraska, Florida State, Miami, UCLA...you could argue BYU

Penn State was the big move since that year.

Florida State moved for a more prestigious academic neighborhood.

Miami moved to be with their peers and is not the same since.

Nebraska's old neighborhood changed enough that it was unrecognizable to them and then moved to secure their position in the new alignment. It remains to be seen whether they will recover.

Notre Dame moved to protect their position on independence.

BYU is being blocked from the PAC (and maybe everywhere else).

USC and UCLA are stuck on the West Coast.

Texas and Oklahoma are the question marks but I think they'd prefer they not be forced to join other conferences where they won't have an easier path to the playoffs. The Big 12 is their best home that does that for them.

What I think we'll see is that there will be enough suitors to buy into the Big 12 to keep them whole. Their basketball is high quality. Baseball is taken seriously there. Sure, the geography outside Texas is not optimal but, culturally, the Big 12 feels like home.

The general rule is the bigger the program the harder for that program to move. We saw the likes of UNC stay put rather than give up their position in the ACC pecking order. Texas and Oklahoma was thought to be ready to move west but then changed their minds at the last minute. Now that non-move appears to be wise looking back.

Two other things will stop movement at this point: history and academic elitism. USC might gain a little more if they aligned with Texas and Oklahoma but they might not like associating with the likes of Kansas State and Baylor. And would they still be able to play Notre Dame every year plus their old rivals in CA?

Here is your weak link. Texas likely prefers to stay as they are. They don't need the money. Oklahoma does. The state has not only been hit by COVID 19 like all the rest, but Oil and Gas are down. That yields a bigger impact for a school already scrambling to pick up donations. A difference of 22 million a year (220 million over the duration of the contract) is massive. If they move Texas has to consider it.

The Big 12 was overvalued in 2012 to keep it together. They were essentially paid for 12 schools while only having 10. What's more we are moving to a streaming world where content value matters. Yes the Big 12 has solid basketball, but basketball revenue is 1/5th that of football particularly in their region. The truth is Oklahoma dominates the conference and Texas is the only other school that pulls the viewers regardless of their record. Kansas has practically no football value right now, Kansas State's is slipping fast and both Kansas and Iowa are small market states. Baylor, T.C.U., and Tech have difficulty pulling national interest so they are mostly viewed within Texas. The value of the Big 12 diminishes even more than it did under the market model in the streaming model.

You evaluated the potential candidates for movement well enough, but the economic disparity, the outlook beyond 2036, and Oklahoma's need of a cash infusion tell me a different story when paired with the expiration of the GOR and the opportunity to move without penalty beyond exit fees.

The timing and money is right, and destination will be safe for football beyond 2036. That combination will be hard to resist. And, OU has played Texas non-conference more than they have played in conference. Without OU Texas has some tough choices to make. And without interest from PAC schools in joining the Big 12 I don't see an upside that is stable.