Texas A&M and LSU is almost as big as UT and A&M. Texas A&M and Alabama would be big especially since Coach fran is there. As for Texas and Alabama, Alabama has never beat Texas.
Watered down earnings this would be the biggest tv deal in history if UT and A&M came into the SEC.
The Big 10 and ACC did not want to destroy the Big East. Because it could have destroyed the BCS. The Big East has great Basketball thats why the didn't expand beyond 12, plus the ACC didn't have the votes and The Big 10 only wants Notre Dame.
WAC did not survive because it killed off the more important
As for 14 teams to me its perfect. That way a championship game would be played by teams that didn't play in the regular season. Plus there would be more excitement for championship games.
I don't see A & M and LSU as big as rivals as UT and A & M. They don't play each other every year. That's like Missouri/Illinois, which doesn't necessarily mean Mizzou should be in the Big 10, as the rest of its rivalries are KU, NU, OU and KSU. A & M not only has UT, but the TTU rivalry has heated up recently, as well as OU and OSU.
I don't see a coach having to do with creating a rivalry. He was at Alabama for such a brief time and if that's the case, U New Mexico and TCU should be huge rivals with A & M.
If its simply just a case of Arkansas, which is the only pure rival of the whole SEC, and as you say LSU, and since you promote 14 teams as being perfect, which I still don't agree unless you create a 13-game schedule, which will never happen, then here's the simple solution to unite UT and A & M with all its rivals:
U of Arkansas and LSU join the Big 12 to become the Big 14 (or XIV). There, all of the potential rivals we are talking about here would be in with Texas. All said and done.
Again, if 14 was the ideal, when the SEC was established in the very early 1990's, they would have invited 4, and not just 2, and perhaps if they really wanted UT and A & M in the first place, they would have invited them back then, way before the Big 12 even formed. They didn't then, 14 is not the ideal, as there isn't enough room in the schedule to make such a big conference meaningful. If it is only 11 game schedule and only 8 conference games, that means 6 games are divisional and 2 of the other 7 are played in 2 year rotations. That means some teams wouldn't play each other for 4 to 6 years. If you separated Alabama from Auburn into 2 divisions, this means they would play each other twice out of 6 years. So you're willing to break up present day rivalries just to bring in UT and A & M which really only have 1 rival presently in the whole of SEC?
UT and A & M are in the right conference. Anything separating them from TTU and OU and OSU just does not make sense. If they really want Arkansas, and LSU, then they would ask them to join the Big 12, if indeed 14 is the ideal, which it is not. Its not worth making interdivisional and intra-conference play meaningless just to get two teams that may have not played each other in the regular season. People recognize that as a weakness of a conference championship game, but is it that much of a problem and the solution is to add two more teams that have only very marginal relationships with 1 or 2, as you say, teams and make conference play meaningless by not having other traditional rivalries play each other? The playing a team for a second time in the conference championship is a weaknesses, but fixing it by adding two additional teams only adds more problems by solving that problem and in the end it doesn't totally solve it as there still is the potential of having two teams that already played each other. Unless you are thinking like the old MLB where the two division teams don't play each other except in the conference championship game, then you are really suffocating traditional rivals playing each other by going to 14 teams and not having inter-divisional play.
UT and A & M are in the right place and they are thriving in the Big 12, so why would they leave? They wouldn't.