My thought, JR, is if the SEC is seeking to double up in a state with a relatively low population, a lower end academic (OSU), and a cultural outlier status, they are building toward a league, not a conference. A conference in the sense that we are familiar with over the last 120 years would hold out for just Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, or UVA. A league, though, seeks to dominate, even if it means trimming off the fat cats to feed the alley cats (see MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.). What constitutes an SEC league? Including every major university in what is considered (1) the Southeast, then (2) Southern, then (3) borderline Southern.

If we bring in only Oklahoma, no problem; we are still a selective conference. If we bring in only Oklahoma State but land another king as a result (Texas or Kansas), fine; we made a concession that is still a positive outcome. If we bring in both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State without anything else attached, though, I have serious issues with not having brought in FSU and Clemson when the ACC was all but dead save for the Holy Ghost of ESPN filling their nostrils and keeping the other conferences at bay. I am fine with bringing in OU/OSU as a pair as long as we are on the road to at least 24 schools in a league that absolutely has every major Southeastern school in it (FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, UNC, NC State, Duke, and Wake Forest). Inclusion of Southern schools to get to 32 should also be in the long term plan (Tulane,Texas, Baylor, Rice, Texas Tech, Va. Tech, UVA, Louisville). Borderline southern should then be the next goal (WVU, Maryland, Delaware, fills in from next tier Southern like TCU).

Maybe I am reading too much into it or overreacting, but taking in OU and OSU as a standalone pair is a big departure from the SEC expansion results since the early 90's. Don't get me wrong; I would love to have an SEC league. I just don't see it.