I disagree. Not all major conferences are alike. If (when) TX and OU see a better offer and jump, the Big 12 stops being a major conference. Ego isn't a factor at all. I think most Mizzou fans don't want to see the Big 12 destroyed, nor do we think that our departure would do that.
An "emotional" or "irrational" decision would be to reject an opportunity to increase revenue, create new matchups, and gain stability in favor of "traditional" rivalries that few care about. Do you get fired up by road trips to Lubbock or Manhattan? Or Columbia, for that matter?
I don't think ANY Mizzou fans expect to come into the SEC and win consistently, right away. We're certainly not Alabama, but we're not Vanderbilt, either. (I think the 2007 12-2 team could have competed with anybody in the SEC at that time) We'll get better.
All I want is what is best for Missouri, just as most of you want what is best for ISU above all else. Maybe that's part of the problem with this conference.
I don't claim to understand all of the implications about Tier 1/2/3 revenue, but this is the best article I've seen explaining it. (My apologies if the link doesn't work...it's my first post)
SEC Expansion To 14 Goal: Its Own Network : Outkick The Coverage
(sorry if this has already been posted in the thousands of posts in this thread!)
I think Gabe D's right about one thing: the time for complaining about this conference is over. Either the Big 12 is fixable or it isn't. I would imagine most Cyclones believe it is. My guess is most Mizzou fans think it's time to shake hands, part company, and move on.
There is only one league that makes sense for Mizzou (or ISU) for that matter to consider a better scenario than the current B12 and that (as much as I hate to say it) is the B10. To try and create a compelling story that ends in the conclusion a move to the SEC for Mizzou is better than staying in the B12 is nothing more than thinking with blinders on (i.e. anything, ANYTHING is better than the B12).