Two thoughts here: 1) "get a footprint in Texas with a school like whom? What draw is left when it comes to the TV market? 2) More importantly, the idea expansions and realignments are now linked to TV markets like they were when A&M joined the league is outdated. It's all about brands. (Linear TV markets have lost thier "leverage" due to so many options when it comes to watching games.) The brand Texas brings, the brand OU brings, they both add to the bottom line in the TV contracts: the dollar amounts. Going back to the first thought in this post: which of these Texas schools add any revenue to the bottom line when it comes to a TV contract? They don't, and that's why we're here now.
It was outdated then. I've said for forever that TV markets are irrelevant. Nobody is after the Tuscaloosa market. Maybe in pro leagues where people mostly identify with the team where they live.
That would be the Birmingham market which has been #1 for college football viewers for 10+ years running. The expansion including A&M and Missouri was most definitely relevant. One only has to look at the number of D1 prospects leaving the state for SEC country: something Texas certainly noticed as did OU. The biggest change here is how the linear TV market/audience has changed with streaming options. Take last year as an example. With the CBS afternoon slot I watched their All-22 feed more than I did their regular broadcast—streaming.
BYU is interested and only for their network. Specifically, only in academic settings as they discuss the three degrees of glory. "Don't do what Baylor students ..."
Pac-12/Big 10/ACC alliance now official https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-12-alliance-announcement-focus-common-values
