this?

I'm not talking about threats, but I don't think the B12 will have much leverage with the conference they are depleting to get the conference to reduce its monetary and notice demands. If anything, the B12 has to be very careful because they cannot be seen as interfering with the contracts between the schools they are poaching and the former conferences.

So, B12 says, hey, we'll agree to play at least one of your teams each year in our conference for the next 10 years if you play nice and let CSU off the hook.

MWC says, oh, and how exactly do we get money out of this, what about lost total value to the conference due to an inferior replacement team? What about ESPN now changing our deal and cutting our tv fees in half?

B12 - okay, how about 2 games a year from any conference team.

MWC - actually, I'd like the money now thanks, and I'd like to keep the team for their fully committed time, and if you continue down this course of being involved here, we will sue you for intentional tortious interference with contract. Now both you and the school will be liable.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/4/3061842/college-conference-realignment-big-12-acc-lawsuits

From the article: "Q: Is this why conferences get so tight-lipped when they talk about realignment?
A: [Tortious interference of contract is] certainly one of the reasons. And it's why the Big 12 general counsel probably banged his head on his desk when Derrick Brooks said the Big 12 approached FSU, not the other way around."