help me out with this one
Dyslexic moment? Heh...
I meant to type TLDR which stands for too long didn't read.
As far as the vote discussion, we're basically having a debate between official and unofficial rules. The question though is it worth angering multiple SEC teams to add Texas and Oklahoma? No one has to stay in the SEC, you rock the boat too much and these programs don't have to stick around.
I’m guessing you have access to financial information that Sankey doesn’t have access to

.
Sometimes moves are made for political reasons. We don't even know for sure Sankey is interesting, heck we don't even know for sure that Texas and Oklahoma are. Let's just assume the interesting is mutual though.
The SEC added a signing limit. Then, on their own they decided to lower it to 25. At the time they said something along the lines of they expected NCAA legislation or other movement (paraphrasing a bit) to lead other conferences to adopt this rule. 0 conferences did this. Not a single one followed suit.
Not only that, but word came out that SEC head coaches were universally against this! So, they got together and had a vote to do something their head coaches didn't want. They justified this with an entirely false assumption. Why did they do this? Purely for the sake of appearances, basically just for political reasons.
So, even if the SEC does move towards this doesn't mean it's purely because it's a sound financial move. It could just be for the prestige. It could be a group of elite people out of touch with the football programs got together and decided they wanted to do this because they think it is a good idea. It doesn't mean it is...