I am not sure how this plays out as any of us are. But I think the economics of further conference realignment are much deeper and more complicated than just the number of TV sets in a given state. Regardless of the structure, each major conference except for the Big 12 has a conference network. Now that those networks have been formed, the business intelligence from those networks is piling up details on viewership, etc. I think the value of further realignment becomes more marginal and not pro-rata. You cant absorb UNC and except to just move 1/14 of the revenue share over to the SEC ledger. I think the value of further realignment comes in the secondary sports and I think the conferences are beginning to understand this and see the value of those sports as being undervalued.
I have to kind of stop you here and say I think you are pretty accurate in your assessment. This is more than just adding TV sets. If it was, then we'd just say add Syracuse (though that is an intriguing option) and Eastern Carolina and be done with it. But, I would point out that my analysis of the matter pre-dated the conference networks, and has always included a myriad of factors. You have to take contiguous states into account, this creates rivalries and bridges from one program to another. You have to take attendance into account, this shows the level of fan interest. You have to take athletic department revenue into account, this shows the overall health of the athletic department. Are they the premier program in the state? Where do they rank within the state in terms of relevance? You might even take a peak at their endowment, see how their financials are, and their academic stature has some relevance. This is, absolutely about what they bring to the table in total, not just how many people live in the state, or how many football games their team has won.
I understand the frustration with adding OU and OSU from a football standpoint. But I am telling you a renewed rivalry with OU-A&M-ARK would be extremely valuable for the conference. Plus both programs OU and OSU would be in the upper half of the conference in terms of basketball competitiveness not to mention some recent success in baseball and softball for both schools. Move Auburn to the East and you have solved the scheduling problem. I dont think its any coincidence that the SEC wants to improve its basketball brand with the origination of the network - they have to have something for somebody to watch during some other time of the year than football season. A conference basketball lineup featuring Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, OU, and OSU along with everybody else would be a vast improvement over what we have now.
This is where we start to differ a bit. It isn't so much that I don't see any value to OU in the conference, it's just that the things you are saying about them can apply to other schools as well. For instance, let's take North Carolina. Success in baseball, and one of the top brands in the country. Consider this, Oklahoma and Arkansas combined have a population of 6.7 million. You appear to be arguing on behalf of adding
two Oklahoma schools, so that's a three school relationship for 6.7 million potential fans.
Kentucky+North Carolina would be 14.3 million. You think for one second that the Kentucky+NC rivalry wouldn't instantly become massive, in basketball of course but that it wouldn't spill over to other sports as well? It would be huge, there's no question about that. So, a lot of the stuff you're selling here would apply to North Carolina as well. There's no way around it, and in truth simply as a matter of branding, the North Carolina brand rivals the Oklahoma brand. I haven't included this before, I've kind of guessed at it, but North Carolina is #10 in apparel sales, Oklahoma is #12. North Carolina is #2 in the ACC in revenue, they have a well rounded athletic program, one that doesn't need football success and would improve the SEC in several sports, they have ready-made rivals in Kentucky and South Carolina.
So, I kind of get your point, I do... but the thing is Oklahoma just isn't sitting at the top of the heap when it comes to these factors. And they come with a great deal of risk that other programs wouldn't. I was a big advocate for adding Texas A&M, a huge one, so much so that I was sought out by A&M fans. I called them a sleeping giant, I said they could be "scary" once they got things going. I believed in them absolutely, I talked about potential rivalries, Arkansas, LSU, etc... so I get a lot of your points, but Texas A&M has Arkansas, they have LSU, they have Alabama, they simply don't need Oklahoma. They don't, they might not even want them.
Now, we've seen South Carolina blossom within the SEC into a legitimate football program with good fans. We've seen Texas A&M step all the way up to #2 attendance in all of college football. But, it hasn't all been quite like that. Arkansas has been kind of stagnant within the SEC, and even Missouri, who is a good addition and has been winning games, hasn't seen much of a spike in attendance. There's no guarantee that you add a particular program, and things get better. The SEC has never added a football elite, not in my lifetime. The truth is that Oklahoma in their premier sport at least really has nowhere to go but down. That's a big risk, so much of their value is tied up in football, so much of LSU's current value is tied up in football, so much of A&M's value is tied up in football, so much of Alabama's value is tied up in football, this is kind of dangerous to mess with. What happens if you have an addition that's has more trouble adapting than Arkansas (who at one point was looking longingly at the Big 12?). There's some bad that could come of that relationship.
I dont think we can legitimately consider targeting members of another conference (the ACC) that has a fairly profitable network structure for itself as well. I think the network tie-ins are quickly making it difficult for teams to move.
The ACC buyout is very painful, but the numbers themselves for the ACC and Big 12 are about the same. Both conferences are weak. If the SEC Network gains enough traction, the financial incentive could be enough to lure away a program. It could in the foreseeable future be in the neighborhood of +10 million per year. That makes taking a hit to leave tolerable.
Now, I won't lie. I'm huge on North Carolina, I think Notre Dame, as has been said is the exception to all rules, you roll out the red carpet for them. Am I overjoyed at the prospect of Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, or Duke? No, I'm not. But, the SEC West just doesn't need Oklahoma, and it certainly doesn't need Oklahoma's little brother. They don't need to move past 14, but if they do there is an obvious choice and it's where the people are, on the east coast. There's no reason to assume the massive risk that moving into the small state of Oklahoma would entail, when there's much less risk and more reward elsewhere.