We'll see. Texas A&M and Mizzou just left. Texas and OU separately talked to both the ACC and Pac-12 a year ago, so not sure how I can take 10 years to the bank. If you can stabilize a conference in one year - in this environment, then well well done. I just don't see it.
I agree: Well, well done indeed, and it was adding West Virginia that much to do with it being "done". Well, and the astute hire of Bob Bowlsby as league commissioner.
Much has changed in the last 14 months. Texas and Oklahoma shrugged off the Pac-12 in September 2011. The Big 12 announced West Virginia's addition on October 28. TCU had joined a little over 2 weeks prior.
Since then, there's been a 13 year Grant of Rights agreed between the schools in association with a lucrative new media deal. The GOR gives the conference athletic media rights for the schools in the GOR (all of them) even if they leave the conference. In short, there is no benefit to poaching a Big 12 member, or to one leaving the conference voluntarily, during the period of the GOR.
The Pac-12 and Big 10 have a GOR of similar length. The ACC does not, and the SEC does not. The SEC also has no exit fee, as it is confident that no one wants to leave the conference, whereas the ACC is attempting to katy bar the door with a punitive fee on the order of ~50M, presumably because there are members that do not want to enter into a GOR. From this, it is clear which conference is the least stable of the 5, and it will be very interesting to see if Maryland is able to negotiate or win a judgment for a reduced exit fee.
The Big 12 media deal is comparable to that of the Pac-12 on a per-school basis; there's no longer a reason for Big 12 member to be nervous about its future on that front. The GOR was less about binding the schools, and more about demonstrating stability to the networks -- indeed, decisively defeating exactly the kind of doubt your post contains.
Hopefully you now understand how stabilizing a conference in a year's time is not only possible, but has taken place.
