Additional info for the skeptics:
The Big 12's conversations about potentially adding UConn as a member have stalled.
www.espn.com
"
Per sources, the talks stalled and ended up being tabled because of the timing. With the initial season of the 16-team league underway and schools facing uncertainty in the House v. NCAA case as well as looming decisions on revenue share, adding membership simply wasn't a priority.
The decision to table the talks doesn't come as a big surprise. Back when UConn emerged as part of the talks last month, an aura of skepticism hung over the Huskies potentially being added.
At the time, ESPN reported that there needed to be some votes added for the league to get the votes of 12 of the 16 Big 12 presidents it would have needed to add UConn."
That means at least 5 teams didn't want us, and that was that...
Sort of. Remember that the pitch here was basketball first and then football in 2031. That isn't a scenario where we immediately made everyone money. Here's the language that talks about value:
The Huskies have long been coveted by Yormark, who sees college basketball as an undervalued asset. UConn has the best combination of men's and women's basketball teams in the country, as the men's team has won the past two national championships. It also touches the New York market, which would in theory add value in any upcoming television deals.
Yormark was speculating that we would bring an increase in value at some point in the future due to basketball strength. If I recall correctly, the schools that backed that play did so based upon their belief in Yormark's strategic skills. That's a lot different than immediately putting money in people's pockets. Under those circumstances, we would likely get in. What we offered them, instead was a partial membership for five years with the promise that we would suck less in football in 2031. That's a speculation play, which unsurprisingly is a harder sell.
Keep in mind that while ESPN agreed to give us a pro rata share, Fox did not, which makes sense since Fox already has the "valuable" part of our portfolio, namely, basketball games. So we weren't putting money in anyone's pocket, we were temporarily, hopefully, diluting schools shares. That's the reason we couldn't get the necessary votes.
Interestingly, it seems like Yormark got most of that right. We continue to be a power in both men's and women's basketball and football continues to improve. That's a good thing, but until television media partners will pay us enough so that we don't dilute school shares plus paying additional amount so every school makes more money, it doesn't make sense to add us, at least under the current funding paradigm. If that changed so that the proceeds of March Madness were distributed amongst the schools, rather than being used to fund the NCAA, our value takes a quantum leap. If value can be derived from Internet presence sometime in the future, that's something else that we excel at. But those things aren't the current world, so we are left as an interesting, but not quite desirable property.