It's funny the effect ESPN has on college football. Funny and scary.
As we've seen in the last few weeks,
ESPN's 'lowball' offer triggered Big Ten expansion, which is why you have a bunch of guests running around here sporting a Big Red
. While I am well-pleased with your company (and I hope you're pleased with ours), it's disgusting to think that this marriage was arranged by the Bastards of Bristol, no matter how tangentially.
So, because of ESPN meddling, the Big Ten alters tradition and brings a new member into the fold. As if that weren't enough, in the distance like some gewgaw salesman we hear off in the distance, "But wait ? there's more!" At least potentially. And again it's because of ESPN meddling.
Once again the stage is the Big XII, but instead of two disgruntled northern schools, this time it's a southern stalwart, Texas A&M, whose affiliation with the Longhorns goes back more than a century. As I've mentioned before, the relationship here runs deep ? so deep that each school mentions the other in their fight song. To create a split in that relationship you'd have to have a pretty strong wedge.
That wedge is, apparently, ESPN and gobs of cash. Once again the four-letter network rears its ugly head. This is why, today more than ever, I feel that ESPN is bad for amateur athletics. But that's a discussion for another day.
Were A&M to move, the only logical moves they have are to the SEC or the PAC-12. They will not move to a second-tier conference, nor do conferences like the ACC, Big East or Big Ten make much sense, either fiscally or geographically. Maybe ?
maybe ? they move to the Big Ten, but that's a longshot. That?s a move I'd welcome, for many reasons. The Aggies are good people. We'd have more inroads into Texas, both for my school and the conference. It would make sense for the BTN.
But fiscal and geographic reality says the SEC is the logical choice, with the PAC-12 second on the list. The only thing is, if either conference were to take the Aggies, they could not stop there.
Thirteen schools in conference makes little sense; even numbers are better for scheduling as well as determining champions. That would mean another school from another conference most likely (unless the PAC-12 is the choice, and BYU jumps in).
For the SEC to add A&M, their next logical choice for a partner would be to further raid the Big XII or to grab a member of the ACC or Big East. The Big XII, minus A&M, would be vulnerable and very likely to lose their AQ status, making the task of prying another school loose that much easier. Oklahoma is a national brand and would be a good fit with the SEC. Clemson has a similar identity to other SEC schools, and the Clemson fans with whom I am acquainted tell me they've had a strong "like" for SEC membership for years. They don't seem married to the ACC, at least as far as I can tell.
Regardless of who the SEC would poach, or where they would poach from, adding another team ? or two, as seems more likely ? would send yet more shockwaves through the landscape of college football. Assuming a one- or two-team expansion by the SEC or PAC-12, could the other two major conferences (the Big Ten, and either the PAC-12 or SEC) stand by and allow that competitive, and fiscal, imbalance to stand? Or would that trigger yet more expansion by the other two?
Of the six AQ conferences, the two in most jeopardy in the Mega-Conference expansion scenario are the Big East, which is largely a basketball conference with middling football success, and the Big XII, already reeling from the defections of Nebraska and Colorado and faced with a major future financial imbalance generated by the Longhorn Network, and our friends at ESPN.
@bylawblog The Bylaw Blog 
) are:
