The Big 12 as originally formed was not a bad conference. While it's true that there were a number of small population plains states included, there were also 3 very significant football brands that brought a lot of eyeballs to games even on a national scale. There were definitely some mistakes made along the way, and with hindsight being 20/20, some of the issues that plagued it (such as the discontinuity of the OU/NU annual rivalry) could have been avoided, but it was not a bad conference.

Unfortunately, some things changed for the worse. For one thing, the plethora of new inventory available on not just the major networks but also on ESPN1->Ocho, as well as FSN, etc, probably did devalue some of those big names slightly. Once upon a time, it was just the big dogs like UT, OU, and NU that regularly made it on TV - but now, many others had that chance, and the impact of the 85 scholarship limit was also felt after an initial period of inertia where some of those programs remained prominent. And as many have pointed out, while it was essentially a good collection of brands with an overall respectable geographical footprint (being the big player in Texas DID count for something), there was precious little cohesion among its members.

But worse was the fact that while the Big 12 was a good conference, it's surrounded by others that had a stronger appeal for a few core members, to deleterious and destabilizing effect. I don't think that Colorado was necessarily a bad fit, but I do understand the appeal that the PAC had for many of its stakeholders. Ditto Nebraska and the Big 10, which was also seen as very appealing as Missouri.

After the initial departures of CU and NU, if there had been some genuine circling of the wagons it's possible that a strong expansion could have been made to re-energize the conference (adding a foursome of Pitt, Louisville, WVU, and Cincinnati, for example, would have been a solid geographic and brand expansion for the existing teams, and if those candidates had been confident of the cohesion of the remaining original members it could have been attractive to them as well). Of course, with the fractured nature of the Big 12 as it was, such a new bloc of teams with some common history could also have been seen as possibly diminishing further the power of the existing teams.

So aTm bided its time briefly, and then made their break as well. (From what I've read on these boards, it does seem like they may have been among the most restless about the Big 12 initially in any case, and they found a way to get out while leaving UT with the political entanglement of caring for TT and Baylor.) Missouri's leadership was no doubt reasonably concerned about the possibility of being left without a big chair when the music stopped, so when spot 14 in the SEC fell into their lap they wasted no time in jumping.

And since then, the conference has been left in a weakened position. While Louisville may well have accepted an invitation if offered, I do find it plausible that talks with Pitt and/or Louisville may well have been stalled when they realized through back channels that the ACC (ultimately a better fit in many ways) was now an option where it may not have been seen as such before. If anyone in the Big 12 genuinely thought they could lure FSU and Clemson simply by virtue of being a football first conference, they must have spent a lot of time in Colorado even after the Buffalos had departed the league - and yet that pipe dream may have forestalled possible real expansion.

What's next? I don't know, although I find the scenario that has been posited about UT, OU, and to a lesser extent KU biding their time waiting for other opportunities to be somewhat plausible.