I have a great deal of respect for the Big 10 academically. I have a great deal of respect for their football first programs which have tremendous fans and fan support and who frequently play above their abilities to collectively win games where they are at disadvantages in a few key positions since that still shows the power of teamwork.

But let's take a sober look at their realignment targets.

They wanted Notre Dame, but Notre Dame wanted to remain a school that played a national schedule rather than a regional one and they wanted to keep their independence. So, strike one on a top 10 prospect.

The Big 10 went after Penn State for obvious reasons and landed them. Chalk up a significant top 10 addition.

At 11 the Big 10 took in Nebraska. Competitively they had the pedigree but everything was heading against the refined formula that Devaney and Osborne had used to win. Broad national recruiting was bolstered by partial qualifying status. When the partial qualifier went away, shortly followed by the walk on scholarships funded within the state, things started going down hill. So what looked like a solid addition at the time has proven not to be the case. In fact in light of recent differences there is both sellers and buyers remorse evident in this arrangement. Nebraska needs more Southerly ties if it is to find its stride again.

During this time the SEC added two non threatening programs to the Big 10 with Arkansas and South Carolina, both regional brands in regions at the time not interesting enough to the Big 10 and neither of them Big 10 potential targets.

More concerning from the get go were the additions of Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College by the ACC along with the addition of Virginia Tech as all of those were Northeastern market grabs. And while the schools may not have been high on the Big 10's wish list the region is one they hoped to dominate market wise.

The move, however, that grabbed their attention was the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC. Both were AAU schools and A&M was an absolute huge get by the SEC, a potentially destabilizing get. Missouri was equally unsettling. Mizzou had long stood out to the Big 10 as a move the SEC wouldn't make and therefore a safe future partner for another AAU school to the West should they decide to expand in that direction again.

The concerning part about the Missouri grab was that it was another move by an ESPN property that hemmed in Big 10 prospects. With Missouri off the table as a partnering addition to the West they Big 10 struck to sew up market share in the East by taking a Maryland program that was strapped for cash and a Rutgers program that was fortunate to make the jump to the P5. As market additions there were profitable. But now that market additions for cable subscriptions is no longer a viable enterprise, those moves too are looking suspect, and feeling suspect to more than a few old core Big 10 folks.

They have two options left that would give them solid top 10 additions, Texas and Oklahoma, but they have several severe obstacles to that outcome.

First Texas has to want to move. Moving is the last thing Texas has on its mind and there is no way that they alumni base will be thrilled or even remotely pleased with such a move.

Second Oklahoma probably needs to commit first so that Texas feels some pressure and a reason to consider the move. Well, Oklahoma donors just got a firsthand look at the treatment of Nebraska and that has done anything but encourage their desire for a Big 10 move. If the Huskers are the redheaded stepchildren of the Big 10, then Oklahoma would be more like the bastard cousins and the average Sooner has too much pride for such. Besides the allure for the past few years of the Big 10 has been the 55 million they were taking home per school in media money and the SEC is set to do 68 million by 2024, maybe sooner.

With the money advantage likely to be gone or at least nullified it comes down to travel, and the Big 10 is not an advantageous option in that regard. Texas and Oklahoma would both be major outliers for the Big 10. If the Texas and Oklahoma desired to move (which they don't) the SEC offers much closer play and as much, if not substantially more, revenue.

Besides, there is another major hurdle the Big 10 now faces, ESPN. If ESPN goes all out to fully land the Big 12 it is because they have future expansion plans of their own. Face it if Texas and Oklahoma stay put the Big 10 is out of expansion options that add to their bottom line. Nobody in the ACC outside of Florida State, another academic and geographic outlier, along with Clemson, are the only major content value boosters and neither meet Big 10 specs. Outside of those 2 nobody in the ACC pays their way into the Big 10. Nobody is likely to leave the SEC for the Big 10 and only Texas and Oklahoma offer them more revenue as Big 12 targets.

So here's the deal, without Texas, Oklahoma or Notre Dame the Big 10 is out of the expansion business. And with the change in how payouts are calculated none of Maryland, Rutgers, or Nebraska is really adding significant revenue. Only Penn State is paying their way in spades. What's more, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota aren't really paying their ways either. So you have 6 schools essentially providing the meat for a 14 school conference (Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin).

I submit that ESPN has realized that buying the 10 team Big 12 permits them an opportunity to absorb the best of the PAC, possibly a couple Big 10 schools, and that the SEC and ACC can take the cream from the rest and all programs will then be tied by competition into the Southwest and Southeast from whence the best recruiting is made available to all to help level the competitiveness for college football.

When the Big 10 makes up its mind to preserve its academic alliance by separating it from sports, then the athletic franchises of the Big 10 can profit more fully by making moves to the Big 12, SEC, and ACC for athletic revenue, and the Big 10 academic alliance can grow itself and power by adding schools from the Big 12, ACC, and SEC solely based on academic standing for their academic conference.

What is holding the Big 10 back is its insistence that athletics be held in equal standing with academics and that model died almost a century ago. And I believe the legal cases are about to create a reason that a decision to separate the two will have to be made by the Big 10.

Penn State joining the ACC with Notre Dame makes that conference so much stronger.

Ohio State and Michigan joining the SEC makes them so much more revenue and would have so many more large shared 100,000 seat venues with solid travelling fan bases.

Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, U.S.C., and a couple of more PAC schools interested in preserving their sports heritage solidifies the Big 12 and all tie into recruiting.

So I submit that it's not just the fact that North Carolina and Virginia don't want the Big 10, it is that in a content driven market they provide enough to merit Big 10 inclusion, but they are in a secure enough area with access to recruits that they could provide Penn State and Notre Dame with a very safe landing spot with reasonable assumption to competitively making runs for the playoffs. So why, even if they could add the value, which they can't, should UNC and UVa need to leave for a conference that cannot sustain itself without more massive content additions, all of which say no?

I have no crystal ball as to who truly will go where, but I can read maps, demographics, and follow the money. All of it says the Big 10 is hemmed in and that eventually their 6 best programs will stand to make oodles more, and survive and thrive, by playing sports in more Southerly conferences.

I think the Big 10 survives, but as the strongest academic association, and not as an athletic conference.

Does this happen tomorrow? No It will take time, but with the pressures extant sports now on all schools that timeline could be accelerated.