Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

30 teams competing for one Conference Title?

Didn't Texas and OU take a larger share anyways?  So you'd have to calculate the payout based on not having to share more revenue with TX/OU, and maybe calculate how much a UH and Cincinnati would bring to the table.  But more importantly you'd have to compare that to how much the AAC would be able to payout.  I'm betting that the AAC would still not be able to match what a revised Big 12 would bring. 

Also I know the regional model for conferences is mostly dead but it still makes a lot of sense for the non-revenue sports (womens sports, olympic sports, etc).  I think we will at some point see football and mens BB partitioned out into their own conference with the other sports settling into a different model.  Call it a hybrid model.  Of course the bigger schools will have more money so they can continue to pony up more travel expenses.

Yes, OU and UT got more money than the rest of the programs.  As did A&M and Nebraska when they were in the conference.  But it wasn't a huge difference.  Maybe 115% of what the other programs got.  (My firm belief is that this was a cancer at the heart of the Big 12 from Day 1.)  So the amount to be gained by not having to pay extra to two members won't come near making up for what will be lost in the next TV contract.
I think that the Big 12 can survive--and even get somewhat better--if the remaining members behave the way they wish OU and Texas had, by sticking together.  They can poach the best two or four mid-majors between the Appalachians and the Rockies and be OK.

I maybe wrong but didn't all TV revenue (not first tier) and bowl revenue after expenses go to the conference and split equally?  
https://cyclonefanatic.com/2021/05/big-12-announces-2020-21-fiscal-year-revenue-distribution/

The unequal part was the LHN and OU's deal with Learfield for 2nd and 3rd tier rights.  
Of course ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc. varied among the schools.

Of course I'm talking about the 10 member Big 12.  The original 12 member group did have unequal distribution and I agree with you that it was a cancer.  

I maybe wrong but didn't all TV revenue (not first tier) and bowl revenue after expenses go to the conference and split equally? 
https://cyclonefanatic.com/2021/05/big-12-announces-2020-21-fiscal-year-revenue-distribution/

The unequal part was the LHN and OU's deal with Learfield for 2nd and 3rd tier rights. 
Of course ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc. varied among the schools.

Of course I'm talking about the 10 member Big 12.  The original 12 member group did have unequal distribution and I agree with you that it was a cancer. 

I guess you're right, Thumper.
Does the SEC treat 2nd and 3rd-tier rights the same way as the Big 12, or does the conference control them?

Yes, OU and UT got more money than the rest of the programs.  As did A&M and Nebraska when they were in the conference.  But it wasn't a huge difference.  Maybe 115% of what the other programs got.  (My firm belief is that this was a cancer at the heart of the Big 12 from Day 1.)  So the amount to be gained by not having to pay extra to two members won't come near making up for what will be lost in the next TV contract.
I think that the Big 12 can survive--and even get somewhat better--if the remaining members behave the way they wish OU and Texas had, by sticking together.  They can poach the best two or four mid-majors between the Appalachians and the Rockies and be OK.

This is incorrect.  B12 has had equal revenue sharing for all Tier1 and Tier2 since the 2010 contract renegotiations (after Nebraska and Colorado departed).  The Tier3 rights were still retained by the individual conference members, but all official conference revenue was split equally.

In 2010 the B12 offered to give additional shares of the Nebraska/Colorado exit penalty money to UT, OU, and A&M. UT and OU declined.  A&M was the only school that accepted the additional share of exit penalty money, and then departed the next year anyway.

I agree that you can't just look at how a program did last year.
But how far back do you go to get that "average"?  Does how a program did in 1920 have just as much weight as how it did in 2020?

Seems like a rather exaggerated "problem" to me. 

I mean it isn't as though there are a chorus of posters suggesting Coastal Carolina and Liberty as expansion candidates. 

This is incorrect.  B12 has had equal revenue sharing for all Tier1 and Tier2 since the 2010 contract renegotiations (after Nebraska and Colorado departed).  The Tier3 rights were still retained by the individual conference members, but all official conference revenue was split equally.

In 2010 the B12 offered to give additional shares of the Nebraska/Colorado exit penalty money to UT, OU, and A&M. UT and OU declined.  A&M was the only school that accepted the additional share of exit penalty money, and then departed the next year anyway.

Thanks.  I already got corrected on the revenue issue by Thumper, but you are adding some additional info.
Maybe something else I'm thinking is also incorrect, but I think I read something in the last 6 days that verified it.  It is my understanding that the SEC controls Tier 1, 2, and 3 revenue.  Yes?