(01-05-2018 04:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!

The flaw in that thinking is that you (and JR) are thinking like fans and not looking at things from the "networks" prospective.
Would the SEC want to take Oklahoma State or any other lesser school? Of course not! But the SEC is in the best position of absorb a school like Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) because of their core strength. The networks are looking to market college football, not the SEC or the B1G. In order to do that the strengths of the conferences have to be more level than in the past. The SEC does not need any more great football schools to be successful and gain attention, but the PAC does and probably the ACC too! The one problem that redistribution can not solve is the Big 12's lack of populated areas.
Now I don't blame any fan of a conference saying "we won't take them, they aren't up to our standards, or they will dilute our product", but in the grand scheme of things, if the "networks" decide it's in their best interest, and are willing to pay for it, it will happen.