This is all too funny by half. First, I think ESPN has a much better idea of the financial potential of this than any cheeto eater here -- and they put their money where their mouth is. Second, as far as DTV bandwidth demands -- if there is room for Fox Sport Ohio, and the appeal to the monster TV markets of Cleveland (#18), Cincinatti (#33) and Columbus (#34) -- with a combined household count of around 3.5M. then there is room for the Longhorn Network with the markets of DFW (#5), Houston (#10), San Antonio (#37), and Austin (#44), with combined households of 6.3M. It is all about the benjamins (which is really about the eyeballs), and UT delivers markets like no one else. All you add with a Big 12 network is STL (#21) and KC (#31). No value add.
I am pretty certain the naysayers here, if they could be intellectually honest, only wish their college could deliver something like this. Fact is, that for TV households, # of graduates, rabidity of fan base, and excellence across the full range of sports, no single college in the nation comes close to UT. $300M of ESPN's money says so.
Compare your (burnt) orange to this apple, Fox Sports Ohio broadcasts the Cleveland Cavaliers (NBA) and the Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL) - which accounts for a good 120-150 broadcasts between two of those teams, and supplemented by Ohio State and some games in the MAC. D* usually goes after sports networks that have significant content that is likely to have mass appeal.
The Longhorn Network as it stands now is not likely to work. BUT, if UT would broadcast ALL
of their Football and Men's Basketball games and what have you, then your argument will have merit. 2 football games and 8 basketball games over the course of a 12-month period would not warrant much success unless those allotments are for every school in the Big XII, you do the math there then you will see where I am going with this.