The big 10 made money due to the old model and them giving up money for membership. Now that the incidental cable and satellite bucks are drying up with those platforms shrinking fast and sports channels going to packages in those platforms, a team has to draw viewers to drive ad value. Maryland and Rutgers are terrible in that regard. The importance of the market you are in keeps shrinking while eyeballs on the product keeps increasing.That was just a ploy to get the big ten network into the east coast cable markets. The schools aren't great from an athletics standpoint but they accomplished their goal and that's why they have been making more money then the SEC this whole time. Nebraska is the only real failure of the last expansion.
That is why the Big 10 might actually consider ISU. ISU was 21st in the nation in attendance, averaged far more viewers per game last year than much of the Big 10, including Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Purdue and of course Rutgers and Maryland. Most of those by a large margin. I didn’t look at MSU.
If Fox does not push them to expand, I doubt they will. If they do, I’m sure looking at the likes of the ACC teams (though highly unlikely due to GoR) and USC and Oregon. But if people ditch their antiquated notion of what makes a team valuable from a media contract perspective, ISU is surprisingly attractive, and a good chunk of the Big 10 is not attractive at all.
Last, you can bet ISU would forgo dollars much more than the ACC of PAC candidates would.