Exactly. Anyone who seriously believes Texas had anything to do whatsoever for the SWC’s demise is using circular reasoning to argue backwards to an assumed conclusion. It’s a form of self-deception, if you think about it.
There was an article on ESPN not long ago about this and it also spelled out the TV share in this way: elite conferences can deal with having 1 or 2 private schools. That’s fine. When the SWC broke up:
The PAC 10 had 2 private schools (Stanford, USC)
The SEC had 1 (Vandy)
The Big 10 had 2 (Purdue and Northwestern)
The ACC had 2 (Duke and Wake Forest)
The Big East had 2 (Miami and BC)
The SWC had 4 public (Texas, A&M, Tech and Houston) and 4 private (Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU). That’s an unsustainable model, and it’s one of the big reasons it died. The series of probations levied by the NCAA against several SWC schools in the 80’s didn’t help, the death penalty of SMU even less so, etc.
When you make a conference’s existence almost entirely dependent on two of its members, you’ve got yourself a shit conference.
Would the PAC 12 survive if USC and UCLA left? Probably
Would the SEC survive if Alabama and LSU left? Maybe but that would be devastating
Would the B1G survive if Ohio State and Michigan left? I really don’t think so, but they’ve been far more proactive in expanding the conference to mitigate that reality in the past decade than the fucking Big 12 has (and let’s face it, those two aren’t going anywhere).
Would the ACC survive if Clemson and Florida State left? See SEC
Some are arguable, but the SWC and Big 12 were not arguable. The SWC needed Texas and A&M to survive. The Big 12 needed Texas and Oklahoma to survive. When that happens, you don’t blame half of the teams in he conference depends on for survival; you blame the conference for depending on them in the first place.