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

Adding schools in footprint-adjacent states did what now?

Adding the two most valuable schools in one of the P5 conferences immediately put the Big 12 into survival mode. They didn't really have the quality to remain a power conference for very long without TX/OU, and no good expansion options. The SEC basically killed the B12. 

At that point the B1G/P12 could have worked together to kill the B12 and scrape up whatever schools they wanted. Instead the B1G decided to kill the PAC and let the dregs of both conferences figure out the rest. Which is what happened. 

The B12 only survives as a power conference today because the B1G killed the PAC. 

So it's the SEC's fault there were 2 blue-bloods in footprint adjacent states and should have turned them down?

Mkay.

From Austin, TX to Columbia, SC, it's 1100 miles.  The entire breadth of the conference now.

From just the easternmost original member OSU (to be extra fair) in Columbus OH, it's 2200 miles to LA.  

Let's not pretend the SEC's additions are even in the same universe as the Big Ten adding west coast schools, please.  

UTSA would be an interesting one to pair with UNLV. They'd have tentacles in CA and TX. 

I don't think New Mexico is a realistic candidate, nor Wyoming, Air Force, Montana, etc. But then again, what do I know. 

Had the Big Ten taken Texas when they wanted in (when the SWC was falling apart), things would look a lot different today. The Big Ten would have probably stayed at 12, even until today.

The Big 8 could have taken on most of the remaining SWC schools and been just fine.

The first nail in the SWC coffin was the SEC taking Arkansas.

SEC started this stuff, and the B1G and SEC finished it together.

I don't think so.  Consolidation was inevitable, it happens in every industry and college football converted from sport to industry the moment the courts found in favor of Georgia and OU in 1984.

So it's the SEC's fault there were 2 blue-bloods in footprint adjacent states and should have turned them down?

Mkay.

From Austin, TX to Columbia, SC, it's 1100 miles.  The entire breadth of the conference now.

From just the easternmost original member OSU (to be extra fair) in Columbus OH, it's 2200 miles to LA. 

Let's not pretend the SEC's additions are even in the same universe as the Big Ten adding west coast schools, please. 

I'm not saying it's the SEC's fault. The sport is going in a direction towards the biggest names consolidating and going their own way. It would only be a matter of time before the next round of realignment was going to happen.

What I'm saying is that once the move by SEC and TX/OU was announced, the B1G had to act. That doesn't mean it's the SEC's fault that the B1G acted. If the B1G struck first, the SEC would have had to act.

It's eat or be eaten. It's why the Big 12 ever took WVU, WAY outside their footprint. It's why the B1G which doesn't have a geography in its name is now coast to coast, but at the same time the Big TEN has eighteen schools. It's why the Atlantic Coast Conference now has two schools from the Pacific coast. 

The B1G took 4 Pacific coast schools because they were valuable properties, they were vulnerable in the PAC, and they felt they had to act once TX/OU were off the board. They didn't want any other B12 schools. They probably would have preferred to raid the ACC but the GoR is likely too strong. So here we are.

Yup that was the 6 that were headed over.  Then aTm decided they'd rather look East, Colorado took the bid ASAP because they'd always wanted to go to the PAC anyway, even back in the old Big 8 days, and then ESPN and Fox came up with enough money to keep the B12 competitive.

If that last bit hadn't happened then the 5  plus maybe Baylor would have gone to the PAC.

A&M was NEVER going to be in the PAC. We were wanting to go the SEC when the SWC was dying. We just got delayed by politics for 16 years. 

A&M was NEVER going to be in the PAC. We were wanting to go the SEC when the SWC was dying. We just got delayed by politics for 16 years.

Sure, A&M had looked east before.  But A&M was negotiating with the PAC along with the other 5 schools, until your administration decided to put the brakes on it and check and see if there was interest from the SEC.  When they found there was, they dropped talks with the PAC and began talks with the SEC.

It worked out for A&M as it was supposed to, but if the SEC hadn't been interested at that time, then I'd be surprised if the Ags stayed in a dying B12 while Texas and Tech and Baylor and OU headed to the PAC.  It would have been a death sentence for Aggie football with respect to the other powers within the state.