They own it completely though. So, for instance they could add Texas, as part of that work out a deal with ESPN to let them play a role in their network. That way, not only would they add the state of Texas, but they'd have ESPN backing their network as well. I don't think the network is as big a problem as it might seem because their true independence makes them valuable in a future deal.True. But the Pac 12 Network is struggling mightily.
Why leave the Big 12? Because it's a Texas dominated conference that perpetually flirts with disaster. The only reason the Big 12 is in reasonable financial shape right now is because the powers that be didn't want them gone, so the Big 12 was overcompensated as a way to keep them together. They're still inept, bumbling fools that lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M.Which means why would anyone leave the Big 12 for less money? I thing the Pac 12 need to add Houston and SMU while they can get them. The AAC doesn't pay much at all.
The only problem the Pac 12 has right now is their network. That's it. But the idea that just because a school is making a bit more on their tier 3 rights, everything is going great, is kind of ridiculous. Even considering the fact that the Big 12's paying out about what the Pac-12 is, there's just no doubt at all as to which conference is healthier.
Also, I would add that I see no pressure on the Pac-12 at all to add SMU or Houston. They can, if they want, at any point in time. I doubt the Big 12 is stupid enough to add either, so what's the rush for the Pac-12? They can keep aiming high until the Big 12 gets their act together... and as long as they have Texas we can ponder if that ever happens.
If the Pac-12 is really in some sort of trouble, there's a lot that's not publicly known. I don't buy it though, we constantly hear about the Big 12's problems, and if they don't play things just right with their expansion, they'll only get worse.