Colorado to the PAC is more about alumni base and culture. Sure, they get some of the Denver market, but from what I've been told, CU isn't really a big draw. The PAC is limited because of geography, they really can't get much further than the Mississippi River. So, you grab the biggest markets you can that are in some sort of proximity to you.

Don't you remember the T-Shirts that said "The University of California at Boulder?" There's as big portion of Californians that attend Colorado.

This one is easy....the PAC 10 missed the opportunity to nab the Huskers thinking they weren't going anywhere. Instead they nabbed CU.

The Big 10 is highly confident that they can have MU anytime they want...MU has shown it wants to be in the Big 10. (The KU fans chided us for showing our skirt to the Big 10 and then getting dumped)

So the Big 10...pretty confident that they can add MU on their own time table, didn't need to offer MU anything because MU wasn't being looked at by anyone else.

When the Big 12 falls with OU/OSU heading west and Texas/TT probably following behind all the Big 10 has to do is pick the team(s) from the East they want most and add MU to that list. Then they stretch out in the areas they want.

That's because you can't see beyond KU basketball.

And, I'm just pointing out the fault in your logic is that just because the Big XII folds doesn't mean the SEC or B!G has to act. It could be several years before they do. They may wait until their current TV deals are done so they can freely negotiate an expansion package. Availability does not always equal "right time".

So, MU joins the Big 10 as a step child? Do what we say?... scenario?

Yea, I remember those. But I don't think that's what led CU to the PAC. And brand doesn't really explain Utah.

I want you to know, I'm not being snide here, but I think the 'brand' argument is a very small portion of the pie. And I think that's what sets Mizzou in the catbird seat in this discussion.

But KU basketball is a huge money maker on a national level.

HH...do you truly believe that once the Big 12 folds and those teams move to the PAC 12 (turned 16) that the other conferences won't act ?

That's the flaw in your logic.

So what you are saying is that KU BB money makes them more attractive than MU?

Then that refutes any argument here made by everyone else that the real money maker and driver of this realignment is Football Revenue.

So...which is it?

I disagree. How many millions of eyes watch KU basketball when they are shown nationally every week... sometimes twice As I posted before, the Financial Times writer said the top tier basketball programs bury a middling BCS program.

Interesting thought basketball wise:

Why would UCLA or Az want KU in their conference? As it stands now, they only have to deal with KU in a non con or NCAA tourney appearance. Is it in their best interest to have KU threaten their dominance of that conference?

Wrong! The Financial Times did a study and the top tier basketball programs are much more profitable than middling football programs.

And how do you classify middling?

I don't know what the fallout will actually be. All I know is that outside of the PAC, which is geographically neutralized from the SEC and B!G, is the only conference that has definitvely said they want to expand. Everything beyond that is an ASSUMPTION no matter which way you choose to assume. I'm making financial reasons why it MAY not happen like you THINK it will.