Save, thank you for that. I've been struggling for a term to describe the mid-term future due to the latest college football moves, and "second order consequences" is just about perfect. I will plagiarize you.
As for your point that getting rid of existing have nots creates a new group of have nots, that is both correct and unassailable. Heck, look at Nebraska...their shift took them from a "have" to a "have not", and that was before the big money became the primary issue (though in fairness their market is so small, they would probably not be welcome in the B10 if the move attempt were to happen today). UCLA is likely to experience the same football impact in their move as Nebraska, and they didn't start from as lofty a perch. What I keep coming back to in the UCLA decision is why they decided to forego being the big dog in the LA market within the PAC. Most of the SoCal TV audience are PAC people, not B10 people. I just can't see how moving to the B10, when considered from all angles, is a good decision mid- or long term. And the studies being released now suggest that the short term money boost will be eaten up in added costs...it is looking more like a naive desperation move than anything else, at this point.