Interesting read. A few quick reactions:
-If U$C wanted a Longhorn Network-like arrangement, they missed the boat by half a decade. With TV revenue quickly falling for televised sports, such a network would be in trouble from day 1; I'd venture to guess all the Conference TV contracts will be renegotiated down when the next set of renewals comes. Without that TV money, I don't know where they make the rest of the shortfall up, unless they do well enough in FBS bowl games that taking home the entire pot themselves outstrips what they get from the Pac-12.
-Relatedly, although U$C is in a large TV market, I don't think it has a wide enough fan base for this to work. UT Austin has an undergraduate enrollment of 40,000+ and the UT system as a whole has over 160,000 undergrads; U$C has 18,000 undergrads. UT is the state school, so many from Texas can support it even if they don't have direct ties. (I'm admittedly biased in saying this, but...) Who voluntarily wants to associate with U$C with their rich and spoiled, cash-over-values image?
-This would be highly detrimental to their Olympics sports, which U$C also cares quite a bit about. They're only a few national championships behind us and send brobdingnagian contingents to the Olympics every four years, and I don't think they want to be cutting their teeth on the weaker competition of the WCC. And, by the way, how is having to fly to Gonzaga, Portland, and BYU all that different from having to fly to Pullman and Corvallis? Same distance, same weak recruiting markets, same hassles.
-Finally, U$C's rivalries with UCLA and Stanford are really, really important. Those schools, plus Notre Dame and the East Coast Ivies + Duke, are the schools U$C internally compares itself to - not just in sports, but in everything: academic recruiting, faculty hiring, fundraising, departmental quality, etc. U$C cares a lot about the schools it is categorized with. I don't know why you'd trade Stanford and UCLA for University of the Pacific and Santa Clara.
But just my two cents.
-If U$C wanted a Longhorn Network-like arrangement, they missed the boat by half a decade. With TV revenue quickly falling for televised sports, such a network would be in trouble from day 1; I'd venture to guess all the Conference TV contracts will be renegotiated down when the next set of renewals comes. Without that TV money, I don't know where they make the rest of the shortfall up, unless they do well enough in FBS bowl games that taking home the entire pot themselves outstrips what they get from the Pac-12.
-Relatedly, although U$C is in a large TV market, I don't think it has a wide enough fan base for this to work. UT Austin has an undergraduate enrollment of 40,000+ and the UT system as a whole has over 160,000 undergrads; U$C has 18,000 undergrads. UT is the state school, so many from Texas can support it even if they don't have direct ties. (I'm admittedly biased in saying this, but...) Who voluntarily wants to associate with U$C with their rich and spoiled, cash-over-values image?
-This would be highly detrimental to their Olympics sports, which U$C also cares quite a bit about. They're only a few national championships behind us and send brobdingnagian contingents to the Olympics every four years, and I don't think they want to be cutting their teeth on the weaker competition of the WCC. And, by the way, how is having to fly to Gonzaga, Portland, and BYU all that different from having to fly to Pullman and Corvallis? Same distance, same weak recruiting markets, same hassles.
-Finally, U$C's rivalries with UCLA and Stanford are really, really important. Those schools, plus Notre Dame and the East Coast Ivies + Duke, are the schools U$C internally compares itself to - not just in sports, but in everything: academic recruiting, faculty hiring, fundraising, departmental quality, etc. U$C cares a lot about the schools it is categorized with. I don't know why you'd trade Stanford and UCLA for University of the Pacific and Santa Clara.
But just my two cents.