theinfohub

In the ever-evolving landscape of college football, the announcement that Texas and Oklahoma would be joining the Southeastern Conference (SEC) sent shockwaves through the college sports world. The move, which was made official in 2021, was met with excitement and anticipation from fans and analysts alike. Texas and Oklahoma are two of the most successful and storied programs in college football history, and their inclusion in the SEC was expected to be a game-changer for the conference, as well as for college athletics as a whole.

However, after the dust settled, many began to wonder why the two powerhouse programs, despite their immense history and financial potential, didn’t immediately earn the projected $52.5 million they were expected to generate by joining the SEC. With expectations high and the financial ramifications substantial, the reality of how these two programs fit into the SEC’s revenue distribution has raised several interesting questions about the economics of college football, conference realignment, and the true value of these teams in the new conference.

Here, we will take a deep dive into the reasons why Texas and Oklahoma didn’t earn the expected $52.5 million when they made the transition to the SEC, looking at both the structural realities of the SEC’s revenue-sharing model and the inherent challenges that accompany joining a new conference.

### 1. **The SEC’s Revenue Sharing System**

One of the most important factors behind Texas and Oklahoma not immediately earning the projected $52.5 million is the SEC’s revenue-sharing system. The SEC operates on a model where revenue is divided equally among all member schools. This system is designed to maintain competitive balance and ensure that all schools, regardless of their individual athletic success or history, benefit from the overall financial prosperity of the conference.

Texas and Oklahoma, while prestigious programs with large fanbases and considerable earning power, are not the sole beneficiaries of SEC’s revenue streams. The SEC generates its revenue primarily through television contracts, media rights, and bowl appearances, all of which are shared evenly among the teams in the conference. This means that the projected $52.5 million wasn’t a guaranteed windfall for the two programs—they would be expected to share in the conference’s collective revenue, much like all other schools.

Given that the SEC’s revenue-sharing model distributes funds equally, Texas and Oklahoma had to adjust to the fact that they were no longer operating in a revenue system that catered exclusively to them, as they did in the Big 12. In the Big 12, schools like Texas were accustomed to receiving significantly larger shares of conference revenues, particularly with their massive fanbases and lucrative TV deals. The SEC’s egalitarian approach, however, meant that the two schools would not automatically be able to pocket the $52.5 million they had hoped for based purely on their market value.

### 2. **Delayed Impact of New TV Deals**

The financial windfall Texas and Oklahoma were anticipating from their move to the SEC was also contingent on new television contracts. The SEC’s existing media rights deals, which were signed before Texas and Oklahoma’s inclusion, were already in place when the two schools joined the conference. This meant that the large increase in revenue that was initially expected from the addition of these two programs wouldn’t materialize immediately.

TV deals in college football, particularly with the SEC, are notoriously complex and take time to adjust. Texas and Oklahoma’s inclusion in the SEC will ultimately be reflected in new media rights agreements, but these deals won’t kick in until the current contracts expire or are renegotiated. As a result, the $52.5 million that was originally projected would have been contingent on the successful renegotiation of these TV contracts, which takes years. For Texas and Oklahoma, that means that the immediate financial boost they were hoping for would have to wait until these deals came to fruition.

In the meantime, the two schools will receive payouts based on the SEC’s existing TV deals, which are not as large as what they might receive once the new agreements are in place. As a result, their financial expectations were somewhat unrealistic, as the timeline for new media rights deals didn’t align with their hopes for an immediate cash influx.

### 3. **The Structure of Conference Payouts**

One key issue when it comes to Texas and Oklahoma’s earnings in the SEC is the structural reality of how conference payouts work. While Texas and Oklahoma were expected to bring in more revenue based on their historical success and high-profile programs, the SEC operates on a system where revenue distribution doesn’t necessarily equate to how much money a school generates individually. For example, while Texas and Oklahoma may have significantly larger fanbases, television audiences, and merchandise sales than some of the other SEC schools, the revenue-sharing model means that their individual earnings are pooled with those of all other schools in the conference.

As part of the transition to the SEC, Texas and Oklahoma had to accept that the “equal sharing” of revenue would limit their individual earnings in the short term. In the SEC, schools like Alabama, LSU, Georgia, and Florida have been historically dominant and have similarly large fanbases, meaning they also generate substantial amounts of revenue. The conference’s overall revenue is divided equally, which means the high earnings from Texas and Oklahoma’s fanbases are offset by the revenue from other programs.

While this approach ensures financial fairness, it also means that the expected immediate revenue boost from their presence in the SEC wasn’t as large as originally predicted. Both programs will likely benefit from their new membership in the long run as the conference secures more lucrative TV deals and bowl appearances, but the immediate financial reality was far different from what they had anticipated.

### 4. **The Financial Costs of Transition**

Along with the expected revenue gains, Texas and Oklahoma also faced substantial financial costs as part of their transition into the SEC. Joining a new conference often requires significant logistical and operational adjustments, including compliance with new rules and regulations, facility upgrades, and additional investments in coaching staff and athletic resources. The transition also involved exit fees from the Big 12, which added a layer of financial complexity to the situation.

While these costs were expected, they still impacted the overall financial picture for Texas and Oklahoma. Transitioning to the SEC was not as simple as joining the conference and immediately reaping the rewards. In the early years, the two schools would face substantial expenses to ensure that they could meet SEC standards and maintain competitiveness at the highest levels. These costs—along with the aforementioned revenue-sharing structure—meant that the $52.5 million wasn’t automatically guaranteed for them right out of the gate.

### 5. **Competition and the Changing College Football Landscape**

Finally, it’s important to recognize the broader context in which Texas and Oklahoma are joining the SEC. College football is rapidly changing, with new conference realignment creating a highly competitive and unpredictable landscape. The SEC, already one of the wealthiest and most successful conferences, is becoming even more competitive with the addition of two marquee programs. Texas and Oklahoma may have been dominant forces in the Big 12, but now they are entering a conference that already features juggernauts like Alabama, Georgia, and LSU.

The increased competition in the SEC means that Texas and Oklahoma must contend with more elite teams for championships, bowl games, and, ultimately, TV revenue. The reality is that the financial rewards from being part of a super-conference like the SEC are distributed among the teams based not just on the size of their fanbase, but on their performance, brand value, and success in national competitions. The higher level of competition could slow their ability to earn the anticipated revenue boosts from TV deals, as the media rights deals will also depend on the overall success of the conference in terms of viewership, postseason performance, and national relevance.

### Conclusion

Texas and Oklahoma’s move to the SEC was undoubtedly one of the most significant changes in college football’s recent history. However, the reality of their financial expectations has proven to be more complicated than anticipated. The SEC’s revenue-sharing model, the delayed impact of new TV contracts, the structural nature of conference payouts, the financial costs of transition, and the growing competition in the SEC all contributed to the two schools not immediately earning the projected $52.5 million.

While their long-term financial outlook remains strong, the financial reality for Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC is much more nuanced than the initial projections suggested. As the conference continues to evolve and new media deals come into play, the two powerhouse programs will likely reap the benefits of their membership, but for now, their financial expectations have been tempered by the realities of college football’s ever-changing landscape.