Bowlsby confirmed publicly in June of 2015 that the pro rata clause in the TV contracts would match shares if the league expands. Shares from the NCAA and CFP would be split evenly, as is currently the agreement.

I occasionally read this specific board page (as a former poster way back in the day). What is most troubling about this topic not only here, but, in the media as well, is the amount of misinformation and conjecture. (I think it is apparent that BigCrumpy is neither a fan of any Big 12 success nor that of WVU. That aside, I will only say that some of his posts are misleading and he is seemingly ill-informed not only about the Big 12 but what positives WVU would bring to any conference).

I am no insider. However, being one that is interested in the expansion topic, I believe that the most critical factor for Big12 success is (much like the ACC), contingent upon added revenue generated by a network. This is essential in order for the Big 12 and/or the ACC to stay within any range of revenues generated by the SEC and the BIG as the gap obviously widens.

Just as an added bit of information, WVU received $23M as a partial share payout (85%) for 2015 from the conference. That does not include West Virginia's Tier III contract negotiated separately with IMG (approximately $8M per year). WV ranked No. 33 in the total revenue database for 2015 at that 85% payment. At 100%, it would have come in at No. 22. Of course, total revenue is not the topic nor an indicator of member or conference stability. Yet, WVU would have made $9M the last year in the Big East. The increase is notable ....as notable as Bowlsby's projection that each Big 12 member would make $44M by the end of the current TV contract in 2025. And, we would still be behind the SEC and B1G.

The annual revenue paid via the NCAA March Madness Tournament (approx. 10% of conference revenue) and College Football Playoff revenue are split equally by Big 12 members. Adding 2 (4) schools would obviously impact that amount annually due to the split. On the other hand, the adding of schools would/could also place more schools in the tournament run and increase revenue with additional bowl tie-ins. Add to that the likelihood of a Conference Championship Game that is projected to make $20-25M for the conference members.
That is added revenue split as well.

Therefore, given the above possibilities, it is not projected that current Big 12 members will be losing any substantial amount of money (if at all, they may gain), with additional membership (as the contracts stand).

Once again, I believe a network is critical to stability. And, that is a hard nut to crack in this conference. Texas is receiving its guaranteed $15 M per year. And, more importantly to them, UT does not want to give up the "branding" associated with the LHN. No doubt, branding has value. On the other hand, to form a network, all other Big 12 schools would also be faced with addressing their individual Tier III packages so as to provide more content to the Conference for networking purposes.

This will be an interesting summer to say the least.