I'll humor you here. A little while back a reporter wrote an article claiming that the only real way Big 12 expansion made sense was if they added a Big 12 Network and it made money-sense. He did the math behind it all, though he admitted erring on the optimistic side as far as money and convincing the TV networks of a school's potential value. He DID go on the assumption that no Power 5 conference teams (or Notre Dame) would join, but part of the discussion is still relevant to what you're asking.
He claimed that he only way it made money sense was if the conference went to at least 14 members, and all of the members were targeted at convincing TV networks that they could claim the population of a large state. Basically, his view was that Memphis (to claim the state of Tennessee), Cincy (to claim the state of Ohio), and UCF (to claim the state of Florida) were all key, and then the 4th school would either be USF (if the networks needed more convincing because they didn't think UCF had enough pull in the Florida market), UConn (for a 4th state), or BYU (for Utah, but also because they have a brand that goes beyond just the state there). He admitted that convincing ESPN or Fox or whoever that any of these schools could claim to have enough pull in their states would be an uphill battle. He also said that, yeah, the current Big 12 members would have to make some monetary concessions to appease Texas to help them drop the LHN and sign on. In addition, he pointed out that the 4 new schools would probably see value in just being invited to join a higher-tier conference so they'd probably be fine taking less money than the 10 current members (and probably hope that if they develop their program after being invited that they'd eventually earn a bigger piece of the pie).
So, an obvious difference is that Florida State and Clemson wouldn't have much trouble convincing a TV network that, yes, they should be able to claim that they bring the Florida and South Carolina audiences. So that's a plus. On the flip side, the (rather generous) math that the reporter (whose article I can't find right this second) suggested that it would take 3 or 4 large-population states, plus the incoming schools taking a smaller cut of the pie, for the Big 12 Network payout to make up for the LHN. Your plan brings in one of the states in question plus a state that is lower in population than either Ohio or Tennessee so the odds are that the math would work out to a lower amount than that reporter's pie-in-the-sky idea that the Big 12 could claim the full viewership of at least Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. Beyond that, FSU and Clemson would probably not be on board with the whole "we're willing to take a smaller piece of the pie... we're just happy to be here!" perspective that Memphis of UCF might be overjoyed about.
Now look, I get where you're coming from. For one thing, I definitely feel like the traditional cable model is going to start having to evolve or be replaced. More people are going to find ways to get their cable a la carte. More people are going to unplug from traditional cable packages for alternative viewing methods. I firmly believe that, at some point here, the teams and match ups that bring the most actual eyes to their TVs (or whatever devices they watch games on) will be far more valuable than how many states and metro areas you can try to convince the TV networks that you can claim. And in those cases, brands like Oklahoma, Florida State, Texas and Clemson will be the ones who make the difference.
I also am a person who thinks that the Big 12 failed big-time by taking the passive approach to expansion. There was a point where the ACC looked shaky, and either the Big 12 should have gone hard after FSU and Clemson then (and seen who came along), gone after the "weak link" of Miami (who was worried they'd be left out of expansion) and then try to real the others in, or made a deal with the Big 10 and SEC to give all 3 conferences a chance to claim some prizes by pressuring the ACC from all sides and filling up each conference to about 16 members. I really think that if the Big 12 had been able to get a group of schools like Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson... that it would have suddenly been one of the more diversely laid-out conferences and, when Notre Dame needed a home for their non-football teams after the Big East was no longer viable, it would have come down to the more regional and media-strict Big 10, or the conference spread across the midwest, midatlantic, southeast, and Texas with more negotiable media guidelines... and neither of them would have to to let ND make some sort of "but football stays independent" deal. Sweeten the deal by letting them pick school #16 (I'd imagine that Louisville (for proximity), Pitt (for tradition), Virginia Tech (for football prestige, and Navy (for an even longer tradition)) would all be in the running, and if it sealed the deal with Notre Dame, any of them would be acceptable. I really think this COULD have happened if the Big 12 had been the aggressor instead of sitting around and watching to see what happened, and then, who knows. The LHN and Notre Dame's tv deals would be things to discuss. But as someone else said, that ship, from all appearances, has sailed. The ACC is more stable than it was when the original talk about poaching some of their teams came up. The Big 12 had just made two reasonably strong school additions, negotiated good bowl match-ups, and were getting way better TV contracts than most expected back then. Now they are giving off the appearance of discord, desperation, and fear that they might fall behind as a conference. And whether it's justified or not (since clearly the Pac 12 and ACC each have their own reasons not to be completely happy with their current situations), the media is mostly focusing on the Big 12 as being in a position of weakness.
At this point, the odds are that there's not a way to make all the current Big 12 teams happy, make big-name newcomers happy, AND make Texas happy. And if there was, it would require something way bigger than the Big 12 is currently considering now (and it's something that would have been way more realistic back before the ACC made their deal with Notre Dame, added Louisville, and signed their Grant of Rights). And right now, the LHN isn't just about money (but it's that too), it's about UT's brand (especially if we can get back to where we belong in the big sports). It adds to the strength of the deal we might eventually make, if that's what it comes to when the Big 12 Grant of Rights has concluded, both in the money it brings in to help continued improvement of our facilities and staffs, and, if it eventually comes down to it, as a way to say "ok Pac 12/Big 10/whoever... we're willing to adapt and/or get rid of the LHN... if moving to your conference is worth us doing so. Let's talk about that."
