Well said there. However, I don't have a problem with UT, they are doing everything they should be doing. They are maximizing their opportunities to build their brand and long-term stability. My problem is with Nebraska, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Texas A&M. Those four have been voting against any positive change in the Big 12 for years. Nebraska tried to stand up to Texas when the Big 12 was formed but ever since then those four "big money" teams have prevented any growth for the conference because they only wanted to growth for themselves. Now Nebraska is openly stating that they would listen to a better offer because Texas is doing so. Oklahoma must be ****ting in their pants right now, and A&M to a lesser extent, but they probably figure they can still ride UT's coattails into a better conference.
The Big 12 rule that requires 9 votes to make any rules changes means that if those 4 teams don't want something then it won't happen. Missouri, Iowa State, and Kansas have all publicly criticised the leadership in the Big 12 for not making progress on revenue sharing and the TV network, but it was shot down by the "big 4". So what does Texas do? They start to form their own Longhorn Network! They are just selfish pricks, yeah they are the biggest program in the conference, but you know you need quality teams to play week-in-week-out.
Sorry for the rant, but my problems with the Big 12 are "systemic" as was stated, not because of the recent rumors.
In the Pac-10 they are slower to change but they require 100% voting in order to enact change, so no "power blocks" can form to steer the ship off-course. It requires the issues to be thoroughly discussed and researched by all members.
Sure the Pac-10 had issues with their marketing, which is why the brought in the team of Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg specifically to address the issue. The Big 12 hasn't taken a proactive step in any of these areas, so the programs are all talking about taking their own.... out the door.