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

I think this is an important point.  Sometimes on here we get fans from current or former conference-mates of Texas who obviously chafe at Texas' perceived (rightly) throwing their weight around in their league. 

I think they are right, Texas does, but I also think that any school in Texas' situation would.  The B12 has forever had way too many weak links.  That left Texas as the 900 lb gorilla in the room.  The exact same thing would have happened if the B12 had been those schools with Bama or tOSU instead of Texas. 

Assuming Texas joins the SEC or if they had joined the B1G things would have been very different.  In the SEC or B1G Texas would still be one of the biggest or possibly even the biggest revenue generator, the gap wouldn't be so large.  In the SEC or B1G Texas would have somewhat equal "colleagues" in schools like Bama, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc. 

In the B12 Texas probably was responsible for at least close to a majority of the revenue not generated by Oklahoma.  Ie, after Oklahoma the Longhorns probably generated more revenue than the next 4-6 (or more) schools.  That inherently created the situation where the B12 HAD to cater to the Longhorns (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Sooners).  It is like a company whose largest client provides 50% of their revenue.  That company will do almost anything for that large client, they have to. 

In the SEC or B1G, Texas would be analogous to a large client but not an overpowering client.  They'll be in the group of largest clients and maybe even the biggest, but they won't be 50% or even 25%. 

Ultimately, I think that this whole thing was due to what happened when the SWC folded.  From the mid-1970's up until Arkansas left for the SEC, the SWC was made up of (listed in Medina's order of presumed $value):

• Texas
• aTm
• Arkansas
• TxTech
• Houston
• SMU
• TCU
• Baylor
• Rice

Meanwhile, the old Big8 in the same timeframe was made up of (same order):

• Oklahoma
• Nebraska
• Colorado
• Kansas
• Mizzou
• OkSU
• KSU
• ISU

If the powers then at be would have been able to pull it off, the solution that would likely have led to a successful conference based in that region would have been to take the top four or five from each league then expand the footprint from there.  I'm thinking something like (same order):

• Texas
• Oklahoma
• Nebraska
• aTm
• Colorado
• Arkansas
• Kansas
• Mizzou
• TxTech
• Houston
• A New Mexico School (either University of NM or NMST)
• Either a Nevada school (probably UNLV rather than Nevada just due to travel considerations) or Utah or BYU

That would have been a powerful conference not altogether dependent on Texas.  That could have survived. 

Instead, Texas politics and the old Big8 members not wanting to leave the small-revenue historic members behind led to the B12 which, as originally constituted was:

• Texas
• Oklahoma
• Nebraska
• aTm
• Colorado
• Kansas
• Mizzou
• TxTech
• OkSU
• Baylor
• KSU
• ISU

There are just way too many non-contributors there (financially).  There always were.  Thus, when #3 (UNL to B1G), #4 (aTm to SEC), #5 (Colo to Pac), and #7 (Mizzou to SEC) left, the conference was a dead man walking.

Exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.  Guys like you might live in a fast-growing sunbelt state but your team is from where you came from.  I would guess that tOSU/M is a bigger deal in a substantial portion of Florida than UF/FSU for the same reason. 

I think it's gonna be hilarious when Texas and Tennessee argue who is THE UT, while aTm in the background says Texas is "tu".

yep but one thing remains constant

OU SUCKS

Great analysis, Medina!

As an old Big 8 geezer, I'd flip your rankings for Colorado and Missouri.  Colorado has a better all-time record, and a part of a national championship, due to its best-ever run from the late '80s into the early '00s.  But Missouri's significance to college football goes back further than Colorado's.  Think Don Faurot and the Split-T offense.  Also, Missouri was the flagship school in a state much more populous than Colorado.  Missouri's stadium seats 71,000, while Colorado's seats 50,000.  Colorado was a relative latecomer to the conference--it joined what had been the Big 6 in 1947 and made it the Big 7.  (Oklahoma A&M joining in 1957 was the final brick in the wall.)  Before that, it had been in the Skyline Conference.  Missouri, by contrast, was a founding member of the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MVIAA, a.k.a. the Big Six) in 1928. That became the Big Seven in 1947, then the Big Eight in 1957.  Missouri's rivalry with Kansas was the 2nd-longest continuous rivalry in the country (longest west of the Mississippi) until Kansas discontinued it when Missouri joined the SEC.

On the basis of all that, I suspect that Missouri was a bigger financial contributor to the Big 8 than Colorado was.
That doesn't affect the logic of your analysis a bit.

• #20 WI, 5.8M and grew 2.4%
• #19 MD, 6.0M, 4.7%
• #18 MO, 6.1M, 2.5%