Looks like the PAC had 4, the SEC 2, the B1G 2, the ACC 1, the Big 12 1. Two seem unaffiliated with any P5 conference. Also, some of those conference connections are pretty thin. Osborne is pro-Nebraska but if they're not in the picture would you really consider him pro-B1G? He never coached in the B1G, and was an AD in the B1G for maybe a few minutes before retiring. The SEC's connections include a sportswriter with roots at Mizzou and a former HC at Vandy, who actually graduated from and coached at Clemson. I'd say the ACC has just as much, if not bigger gripe than the Big 12 given that they have 4 more teams but the same number of "representatives" and their guy is equally nameless as the TTU AD.
Not saying the Big 12 doesn't have a legit gripe. But no bigger than the ACC. Or even the SEC, which has 4 more teams and is the top conference in the country but has 2 no-names while the PAC has 4 including Haden, Willingham, and Rice.
Your assessment of Osbourne couldn't be more wrong, but outside of that this is exactly the truth and exactly what I'm talking about.
The two major conferences that have recently been poached have one member with ties, neither a big name. The others have 2-4 with clear ties, some with huge names.
I lived near Lincoln for 6 years. Nebraska could join a conference tomorrow with teams that play on Mars and every Nebraskan, former player and former coach would be 1000% committed to that conference over Oklahoma, Baylor or TCU. Tom Osborne's Big 12 lean is exactly zero like every other Husker, their only lean is Husker and that means Big Ten now. Kind of silly to even bring up that Tom Osborne wouldn't favor Nebraska's conference. And yes I seriously doubt that all of these other members carry as much clout as Osborne or Alvarez. Anyone supporting a B12 team would swap out the no name from Tech in a heartbeat for Barry Switzer and Mac Brown which is the representation B10 has.
The point is we went from almost the most objective selection possible, to nearly the most subjective selection possible. There's no accountability for why 13 members, no accountability for who the 13 members are, and the selection criteria was changing week to week or day to day.
The fact that the two leagues who have recently been poached have less representation than the 3 leagues that poached them is CLEARLY the #1 indicator of conference instability in college football. We just finished year 1, over a 5 year period controversies will happen again and people will start talking about the obvious makeup of the committee and questioning that it's likely not just a coincidence.
Why the B12 and ACC commissioners aren't making a stink about it is beyond me, it's something real at least as opposed to message board rumor mill. The ACC may figure that FSU and Miami are the only programs they have that could sniff the playoff at some point and their name would get them in, they don't really have a consistent top 15 non-brand team like KSU/TCU/Baylor lately.
