If SMU or Rice, with SDSU already being discussed, is being mentioned as potential adds for the PAC 12, they might as well shut it down now. (I mentioned both because it is the only way travel partner-wise to make the other sports viable.) The problem is that Rice is a boat anchor for a P5 and will never be a revenue positive add.
So you are telling me that the PAC12 schools will be ok adding those schools or that those schools will provide enough payout to make the conference viable longterm? I find that hard to believe. Why would the 4 corners prefer that type of setup vs defecting to the B12 for a higher payout?
I can “understand” those adds if the Pac12 is trying to backfill after additional defections, but as just new adds they don’t move the needle enough to be considered a proactive move to help increase the payout to convince teams to stay.
If this is a move the Pac12 is truly considering then the B12 might as well break out the champagne and celebrate its new members. I can see little benefits for say Cal or Stanford for agreeing to add Texas schools. How do you sell these adds to your current members without them being a huge improvement to the current tv payout? The problem is that these adds are much worse than the departing schools and so they are not proving enough value to offset their warts.
This gets to the real crux of the problem of that what is killing the Pac12 from a realignment perspective is the lack of viable additions. The B12 struggled with this, with few solid regional options, and now the Pac12 is faced with the same scenario with even less viable alternatives.
The BYU add might actually be the real lynchpin in killing the Pac12. They were a perfect “break in case of extreme emergency” option. Unfortunately the Pac12 waited for so long that the emergency life raft got used by someone else and now they are looking to dip into the ocean with the best emergency options being a soggy life preserver or a wooden door cast off their sinking ship.