i agree that i don't see the sec or big 10 making a change because they have solid leadership at the top, everyone is making money, and the public perception of the brand is very strong.
the acc competitively is strong in football and basketball, they have great brand recognition, and i think they fit a niche' as the east coast college conference.
the concern i see is someone either getting a wandering eye because a school believes they are being shortchanged or you have a state like nc do something stupid like pass that damn law allowing players to basically market themselves as a way to protect duke and nc basketball.
when individual schools act in a way they think is best for them and not for the collective a conference is in trouble.
the pac has a poor public perception, money is not where it is with the other conferences, leadership is poor, and schools from across the country are coming into your prime recruiting ground and pulling out talent damn near at will.
usc is underachieving and ucla is a freaking train wreck. kelly might destroy the ucla football program if things don't change and asu continues to be the program that looks like it should be more on paper, but really doesn't do much.
finally, the big 12 and the elephant in the room is texas. there is a segment of texas supporters who feel they should be on the same level as the very elite programs and believe they won't ever reach that status while in the big 12.
money is good for the conference, but football perception is not strong and there are concerns about the size of the media market with schools in kansas, oklahome, iowa, and west virginia. additionally, the conference shares texas with the sec for media coverage and other schools cherry pick recruits out of houston and the metroplex.
the big question on texas to me is will they be willing to invest themselves in building their programs through the big 12 and stabilize the future of the conference or leave looking for a better situation which i don't think exists.