He is very adament that reasearch dollars matter and may matter much more than TV media dollars for sports. Schools like Utah and Colorado have seen 200% and 300% increase in reasearch $$$ since joining the Pac12. Utah now does $630M. BYU does $47M.

He gives a lay of the land across all conferences with regard to expansion:

First off its easy to dismiss the ACC at this time. They are locked and won't be a part of expansion talks for another 10 yrs.

The SEC doesn't tout their academic chops, but it actually has one of the best rosters of academic and research schools in the nation. Since 1923 they've actually only added AAU members or State flagship campuses. Their next expansion window is 10 years away (no urgency at all). When they're ready the only candidates are going to be (in no particular order) Clemson, Miami, FSU, Virginia, UNC and VT. No one else will be a candidate.

B1G expansion will obviuosly be focused on AAU as a standard as well. There are no short term targets and they're totally focused on integrating the LA schools. He was suprised they didn't pilfer Stanford in this round though. But key ACC members may be their first target along with some Pac12 schools. He gave a bit more of a pecking order for that grouping (this is 5-10 years from now). Again alot of this is based on academic chops as much as (maybe more than) football/media market strength: FSU > Wash > Miami > Stanford > UNC > CAL > GT > Colorado > Virginia > KU > Duke > Utah > Syracuse > Oregon (really surprised by this one). The B1G would consider Washington and Stanford to very much fit the profile for B1G candidates. Oregon is not really and would only be ranked above Nebraska in fit if they joined the B1G.

Pac12 expansion... he points out how different Pac12 schools priorities are from the B12. Academic ranks, AAU, Endowment, research are all metrics that do not align. In fact they are worlds apart. In sports the Big12 doesn't have a lot of non-football Olympic sports that the Pac12 seeks. He is talking about these data points at a conference level. Washington, Stanford are the big ones that now prop up the conference academics. The schools that are lowest on the PAC research rating are Oregon, WSU, Colorado and Utah. Still their bottom would probably beat the entire B12. So his point, the reasearch $$$ between P12 and B12 are worlds apart.

Athletics budgets... In the PAC12 4% of those schools entire budget is for athletics. Not signfiicant at all. It's 11% in the B12. From a numbers standpoint he's projecting the PAC to be $30-35M (plus $3-6M for the P12N) vs $31M in the B12. He's also projecting an increase in $5M in travel costs if Pac12 schools move to the Big12. Tony does not believe the numbers would work for any P12.

So to net this out Tony is basically saying the PAC12 decision isn't about just football or TV media money. It is really isabout academic prestige and research $$$. If there's a few million difference in that TV deal it is dwarfed by the academic budgets that really matter.

I think his Pac12 data points may be overstated or skewed becuase the Pac12 has also changed or will change very soon. LA is leaving and a lot of prestige goes with them. Aside from football and media market how does that impact their access to research, student recruiting, fundraising...? The PAC12 may be losing some of that lustre that has bonded them together for over the last 100+ years. Has the Pac12 changed enough and more importantly has the outlook changed enough to justify a move? Can they overlook soe of the Big12 shortcomings? The data above suggests its going to be an incredibly difficult decision and it will take a lot for a school to get over that hump. If this decision comes down to survival then all bets are off.

His parting shot about the uknown and what is happening behind closed doors in Pac12 meetings "sometimes wild things matter and sometimes people do something that doesn't make sense". We shall see what happens... eventually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZaaGIuLaQ