We're running this Mizzou thing into the ground, but what developed cannot be overlooked. I am sure the B1G examined Mizzou before adding Nebraska, and we can all agree the message was Mizzou was not the B1G's top choice, and probably not the second or third choice given the conference turned east next. At the start, Mizzou looked liked an obvious pick. I would venture to say, considering all aspects, Mizzou would have been a more plausible choice than Nebraska. The B1G did not see it that way, at least initially or then. Maybe it was Nebraska fb success in recent decades; maybe it was a desire for a more west extension; maybe it was a clash of personalities among the decision-makers about Mizzou; maybe some key individual had animosity toward someone associated with the school; maybe some or near all of this. What weighed heavily, I believe, Nebraska had conducted a long-term, strategic, and discreet lobbying effort that proved successful. Something similar may be said about Rutgers. Maryland was a bit of a suprise, but not terribly unexpected. It took the right timing, the right administration of the school, couple with the financial concerns, and the enticements, to make it come together.
We see certain schools that we say may be better fits with others. Using South Carolina as an example, they were an ACC charter member as Maryland was. South Carolina looked in most dimensions, as an ACC staple. But Paul Dietzel took them out of the ACC to exist as an independent in all-sports which did not work out so well. And there were detractors about So. Carolina heading into the SEC. In any case, they got to be where they wanted most. Arkansas? Texas A&M? Those moves got questioned also to varying degrees.
There's talk of the need for Oklahoma to move, Kansas to move, and certainly Texas. On paper, one could argue Texas would be wise to follow Texas A&M into the SEC. The first problem would be to "follow". What would make sense does not make sense. Pride, control, attitude, protectionism, and perhaps targeted resentment drive so much of this. If Texas does not like certain SEC profiles, academically and/or athletically, then they are following their preferences not to go there, and they do have options. For the SEC, getting into the State of Texas with a major school was achieved. The dynamics are further diminished for UT and the SEC to be a pursued match. I expect Texas, and Oklahoma (with OSU) for that matter, will not end up in the SEC. It's fine, schools need to strive to be where, realistically, they are most happy.
Notre Dame makes sense for the B1G. But the Irish found yet another arrangement to do exactly what they wanted to do.
Mizzou and the SEC hooked-up by the right timing and opportunity. If the B1G missed an opportunity, that's their mistake if they see it that way now. Can a conference's mistake in decision-making be corrected? That depends on circumstances. And for Mizzou, they made the change and it is no longer about leaving a conflicted B12. I suppose Mizzou's resolve can get tested and be the object of luring. But prior factors are not the same as now or the new future, and the intensity of motives to change can go downward in short order to a comfort level that's secure. The question is has such already been reached. In a structural way, yes.