You were already in a conference with Nebraska and Iowa (State). And Kansas, and Colorado. And I'm guessing that if Texas went North, so would OU. I'm not certain why you think it's so absurd for someone else to think that Texas to the Big 10 made more sense. As an outsider, it seems to be a reasonable position. Texas seriously considered joining the Pac 10 (per reports from the era, not all Aggie biased), even if they eventually turned it down.
You're now in a conference with South Carolina, 1,100 miles away. And Knoxville, 1,037 miles away. Regionally, the SEC makes much more sense. I do agree with that. But I think Texas to the Big 10 adds much more value to each other than just another big program in the SEC. The Big 10 is basically Ohio State and Michigan. With Texas, it would be Ohio State, Michigan, and Texas.
FWIW, I really don't like the current membership of the Big 10. The far flung members, like Rutgers and Maryland, do nothing for the conference except spread it out. I'm sure the people who pull the strings are happy about it, but at least the SEC makes sense from a regional standpoint, mostly.
Texas only ever considered joining the PAC when it thought it would need a soft landing spot if the B12 split up. Then Fox and ESPN came through and made the B12 TV money close enough to the B1G and the SEC for the time being, that it stabilized the conference, and that was that.
Why wouldn't Texas have reached out to the B1G, then, under the same circumstances? Because Texas was attempting to negotiate a landing spot for 6 teams, not just itself. The B1G had no interest in that, but the PAC would have gladly done it to secure Texas, OU, and in the original round of negotiations, Texas A&M. As you state, clearly A&M didn't really want that and preferred the SEC, and went out and made that happen all on its own.
There are certainly some academics at Texas who've long pushed for inclusion in the PAC or the B1G. But they're called "athletic conferences" and not "academic conferences" for a reason. Knowing that ultimately it was going to come down to the SEC and the B1G, then, for the purposes of "athletic conferences" -- the only real option for Texas and OU was going to be the SEC. You point out all of the advantages of regionality, which is precisely why it works. Your only tick on the positive side of the ledger for Texas to the B1G over the SEC is some antiquated notion of "culture" but that's really not important in the current landscape of athletic conference restructuring. I've predicted since 2010 that Texas would join the SEC because I realized it was inevitable. It's an athletic conference, we're playing football and basketball and baseball games against one another, not the Academic Decathlon.
Texas didn't want the B1G, and now that the B1G has teams from New Jersey all the way to LA, it's even more of a non-starter. The PAC was always just as vulnerable as the B12 and the ACC, once the B1G and SEC moved into their endgames. There was only ever one real choice for Texas.
