I've always liked the idea of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

It's a little weird, but it fits a certain criteria. The academic angle has been covered.

In addition to that, I would add that it grows the potential audience for the league. If you're going to take smaller scale programs then it's better to add them from states/markets that you don't already penetrate. IA and KS are not currently in SEC territory by any means so grabbing solid products in both states would grow the organic audience.

Sometimes, people compare those programs to Missouri. Geographically speaking, they are certainly in the same ballpark, but there are some differences. MU is a program in a fairly populous state, but one that takes certain pro sports very seriously. That's a little different than what you tend to see in SEC territory. The St. Louis Cardinals and Kansas City Chiefs are big time in those markets. That reduces the potential audience among the casual fan in that state.

This isn't a knock on Missouri, but I'm just trying to be realistic. In states like KS and IA, you don't have the pro sport problem. Their flagship schools are much more readily followed...much more similar to what you see in the Southeast. While it's true that Kansas City is a market with large suburbs on the KS side of the state line, I've never gotten the impression that MU had a larger and more dedicated fan base than KU. Seems the opposite to me.

In addition, I think basketball will become more valuable as time passes if the major conferences play their cards right. One day we may look back and regret not diversifying our interests a little more. KU is a basketball blue blood and ISU is pretty good in their own right.

I wouldn't classify Texas Tech or Oklahoma State as weak programs, but they don't really fit the SEC average and considering they duplicate markets that would be well covered...I don't see the point unless it's purely a matter that UT and OU demand their inclusion.