12 is a stable conference. Shown by history. 16 has failed the only time (that I know of) that it was tried.
Because the WAC, a conference that consisted mostly of small schools and/or large schools in small population areas and/or large city schools that nobody in that city cares about, which had a footprint that covered at least half, if not 2/3s, of this nation and therefore travel was expensive, and was practically nonexistent on TV and therefore had practically no TV revenue, is a valid explanation of why 4 16-team conferences consisting of large schools that lots of people care about (whether small or large, whether private colleges, state universities or city schools), much smaller geographic footprints, (none of these conferences will be larger than 1/3 of the nation, considering the vast majority of the schools making up these conferences are either east of the Mississippi River (which is about 1/3 of the way across the nation from the Atlantic Ocean, not halfway), and SIGNIFICANT TV presence and resulting revenue.
In other words, if you're using the WAC as your basis as to why superconferences won't work (which is the general argument that everyone claiming "instability" uses), you need to find a more valid and relevant argument, because every reason why the WAC fail doesn't hold water in the superconferences that seem to be forming now.
And by the way, if 12 is so stable, why did the Big 12 almost go into nonexistence the last couple of years? Or why is the ACC about to be picked apart now? 12 is no more or less stable than 10, 14, or 16. TV money is what makes a conference stable.
