I don't quite follow why the value of a conference TV package should be linked to what happens to a different conference on the other end of the continent.
They're interconnected because ultimately, each media group only has so much money and so many available timeslots. If the Big12 and Big East ceased to exist or merged, then that frees up some of both.
The ACC was working under the assumption that we were headed for that scenario, and that a 16 team league is worth considerably more money than a 12 team conference. That would be the case because there would be one fewer 16 team conference, creating scarcity in the number of conferences available, while creating value with a higher total number of conference events to cover.
The argument that it's about new TV markets is somewhat valid and adds some value, but the scarcity that one fewer league creates is much, much more.
That said, does your premise once again raise the possibility that adding Texas AM might not necessarily result in a sizable increase in the SEC's TV revenues?
That is absolutely the case. Where a 16-team league might have increased TV revenue by 50-60%, giving the 16 teams a bigger slice of pie than the 12 were getting, a league with just A&M added, or A&M and another school may only see a 15-20% increase, even if those schools are in new markets. That barely covers the new schools while keeping the other at the same level.
There is strong word that I'm getting from ACC contacts that ESPN has already told them that they're getting a modest bump at the most from their addition, despite expanding into a major TV market. Remember that the ACC just signed a new deal last year, ESPN hasn't seen the significant landscape change that would have forced them back to the table.
The continued life of the Big 12 sunk any chance of leagues getting a huge windfall from a new TV deal.
WHo it really screws is the Big East, who rejected ESPN's huge "final offer" a few weeks ago. Their TV rights look a LOT less attractive now, unless Syracuse and Pitt go back.