Everyone keeps saying that 5 teams can "vote to dissolve the conference", but is it really that simple?
When all 10 teams signed the latest TV deal as the "new Big 12" after the Bugeaters and the *&#$aloes left, didn't they create an entity called "The Big 12"? And that entity needs to act in it's own interests AND in the interests of all it's members (as much as it can, considering that it needs to act in it's own interest first and foremost)? I have no knowledge of the contract binding the teams into the Big 12; however it seems that simply voting to dissolve the conference does not remove the conference's duty to represent all it's members.
Even if the conference CAN be dissolved by a simple majority vote, does that simply make the damages to the remaining conference members non-existent? The teams left out in the cold could sue the Big 12 as an entity, along with EVERY member of the conference for damages caused by the dissolution of the conference, right? Plus, every other conference receiving former members of the Big 12 AND all networks having TV deals with the Big 12 and conferences receiving former members of the Big 12 could be on the hook for damages caused by the assistance they provided in breaking up the Big 12.
I mean, you can't just get six members of the conference to say "Chuck You Farley" to the other four and expect for them to walk away unscathed. They can vote to dissolve the conference, but unless Texas Tech has invented a time machine that nobody knows about yet, they can't go back in time and undo the agreements all the members signed binding themselves together. We can't make them stay if they want to leave, but we can Make. Them. Pay. Through the nose.
Pay the exit penalties. Pay a penalty for loss of future earnings. Pay ALL legal fees for the remaining schools (in fact, even though I'm not a lawyer I would advise ISU to ask the Conference commissioner to cover the costs of all legal fees related to conference realignment for ISU. They won't do it, but it will give us something else to sue Beebe and his merry band of misfits in that office over when it all shakes out).
This realignment is all about money. Nobody can dispute that. Since this is about money, I think a reasonable judge would decide that a proper settlement for the remaining schools would involve an amount of money that would make T. Boone Pickens say "Dude? WTF? Who am I, Bill Gates?"
Basically, instead of an "Alamo Plan", I would call this one "Mutually Assured Destruction". Especially since (just in case you didn't pay attention in history class), the Alamo wasn't exactly a winning campaign. You want to chase the paychecks? Fine. Pay us first......or we'll burn ALL your houses down in the process.