I find that scenario to be highly unlikely, as I'm sure you do. But for the sake of argument, I wouldn't mind. I don't have any angst against Texas or A&M. Any on-field issues I have with them are mostly our fault (score more so the 1 second doesn't matter, Nunn doesn't fumble, we cover the defensive backfield on 4th down, etc).
The benefit, as you point out Nexus, is that in the Big 10 Texas would NOT be calling the shots. They would be a "member school" just like the rest. I have a hard time believing that Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State would in any way surrender their dignitas to the likes of Texas. Heck, Michigan State and Wisconsin wouldn't. It would be an evenly negotiated, evenly set up conference, much like the Big 10 is now, with mutual benefit for all members.
The biggest problem people have with Texas (I think) is that they essentially rule this conference. When the Big 12 was formed Oklahoma was so enthralled with having their Red River Rivalry buddies in-conference that they weren't about to gainsay anything the Longhorns wanted. The schools that eventually formed the North were tired of being walloped by us and were in no mood to vote as a bloc in favor of our pet rules, so we ended up with Texas calling the shots - and you can't blame them, because in their shoes a lot of other schools would have done the same thing.
Texas with their bully pulpit removed would be a fine conference partner. I would have no worries about them.