It's not a matter of being nice and congenial. I think you have misread the last conference realignment episodes if that's what you got out of it. You are only looking at the results and saying, hey, this is what happened, they got there, that's all that happened. When in reality a lot of guns were pointed to a lot of heads to make it happen, and it very well could have been the case that if a couple of court cases went the right way, that the Big East would have been in a better position than the Big 12 (not likely, but nevertheless possible).

It's a bit more like some guy you hate coming in and saying he wants to marry your 15 year old daughter. You say, no, she has to wait until she's 15, and I don't like you anyway. He says, very nicely, well, it's going to happen either way, so I'll tell you what, let's make this easier on everyone and you can come visit us periodically, and she'll be wish me in a big house. So, I'll pay for your travel and all. You say, yeah right. That's what it seems like a scenario consistent with what you're suggesting.

Just know that what you are suggesting is not remotely as simple as you claim. If it were easy enough to accomplish that much by effecting a compromising attitude, conference realignment would probably happen much, much more frequently.

Let's put it this way. There is a very real reason why conferences put in very onerous terms on conference membership and membership exit, and being nice about it doesn't really matter much.