Here's the problem with dropping the small schools @Al_4_ISU hates because they got a unwarranted seat at the P2 table...conferences don't drop teams. What happens is the either schools choose to leave on their own, usually because they're de-prioritizing sports (U. of Chicago, Ivies), or the creme of the crop leaves to form up or join a new conference with others more like them (OU/Texas -> SEC, Big12 formation). There's a lot of legal mess with kicking a school out against their wishes, and no one wants to spend money and time on it when it's relatively easier just to take the top x% and leave to form a new shiny conference.
But herein lies the issue: the B1G and the SEC members are kinda stuck now with the private equity guys circling. If the top teams leave the SEC/B1G to form something new and drop the Vandys of the world, it provides an opening for the PE groups to fill that vacuum. There's an old saying in the startup world "do you want to be King, or do you want to be Rich?" Startup founders often have to choose between the two and rarely do they get both (exceptions are Jobs and Zuck). Right now the SEC and B1G are both King and Rich. They could be (marginally) richer, but they are opening a yawning gap on the G7 conferences (American, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, ACC, Big12) already. Do they trade control for even more money? Why would they do it when they have both? I see an impasse unless they can guarantee the control they want, no high level team like Texas, Georgia, OU, and Bama want to get put into a gilded cage by PE overlords - too proud.