I was trying to give a DMac+ scenario, but I respect your point. Iowa is at least close to that with Top-10 4 out of 8, Top-20 5 out of 8 and 2 Big Ten Titles. If ISU had that type of success for 21 years (even Bill Snyder didn't have 21 years of success), then yes we would be talking about ISU in a different circumstance, but I'm still not sure it is enough to get ISU the PAC 10 invite due to location and TV sets for the new PAC 16 network. Maybe the Big 10 gives ISU greater consideration, but the lack of delivering more subscription fees works against ISU. I think that would move ISU into the Pitt category. A great school to add academically and in your scenario athletically, but does it grow the pot enough to make up for splitting the pie another way. Sadly, I think, like Pitt, that would put ISU in the 2nd tier of expansion candidates.
The Big 12 could absolutely replace the losses of Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 and Colorado to the PAC 12 with let's say BYU, Boise State and Other Team (TCU or Houston) and still be a BCS conference even if weaker. Texas doesn't want to be in that league and that is why it wouldn't survive. Texas forcing Nebraska to commit to the conference or it will leave is just a way for Texas to not take the blame for destroying the Big 12 conference. If Nebraska, with Missouri and Colorado, wanted to show Texas for the ugliness it is, they would agree to commit to the Big 12 if Texas concedes to equal revenue distribution, rotation of the Big 12 Championship between KC and Dallas and other things that would make the Big 12 conference better in the long run. What would Texas do then?