I know people on this board don't necessarily want to hear this, but moving east in and of itself is NOT the goal of the Big Ten. That's the mistaken assumption that I keep seeing on this board a lot. Now, if the Big Ten gets who it believes to be the right schools in the east, then yes, it wants to move in that direction. That doesn't mean moving east for the sake of moving east, though.
Gordon Gee's remarks to Ohio State's athletic council were certainly insensitive, but it also provided a rare glimpse into the Big Ten's thinking that wasn't covered up by PR-speak and general "we're monitoring the landscape" platitudes. He said multiple times that Kansas and Missouri were high on his list, but the reason why the Big Ten didn't go that direction initially was that they were hoping for a breakup of the ACC and that "making a T" going toward the southeast was what the Big Ten was really after. When the Big Ten says "We want to go East", in my mind, that means UVA and UNC. Those are the two Eastern schools that the Big Ten really wants.
If the Big Ten can't get those two, though, that doesn't mean that the conference is simply going to add other eastern pieces for the sake of geography. This is a league that still wants to make a lot of money, and making a lot of money still ultimately means maintaining a great product. In the event that ACC schools are off the table, then schools like Kansas are absolutely high (if not on top) of the list. (Whatever happens with Missouri, I don't think anyone is leaving the SEC, so what the Big Ten's thoughts on them at this point are largely irrelevant.) KU is an AAU school with a massive fan base and the bluest of the blue blood basketball programs. You can't get any more blue blood than James Naismith starting up your basketball program. Also, KU's market isn't really the state of Kansas - it's both Kansas and the western half of Missouri (as KU is directly in the KC market, only it's on the Kansas side of the border). (And lest you think that I have any personal affinity for that school, that's absolutely not the case. I loathe those guys and wish nothing but bad things to happen to that team with the tiny exception that I'd slightly favor them over the even worse Duke. However, my personal viewpoint should have little to do with how they objectively should be valued in conference realignment.) Unless the Big Ten also wants to add Iowa State (which makes zero financial sense) and assuming that they aren't adding Mizzou or any ACC schools, there aren't any other contiguous AAU options for school #16. Good for UConn? I don't necessarily think so because if the Big Ten starts going down the proverbial well of looking at non-AAU members, then Oklahoma is sitting right there, and they're arguably a more valuable version of the Nebraska program that the Big Ten just added (more recent success, larger immediate home state market, and effectively a home team in the massive football-crazy Dallas market, so OU is the closest addition that gets you legit access to the state of Texas without actually being in Texas). The Big Ten spent the time and money to commission a study on Oklahoma for conference realignment, so this isn't exactly a stretch.
Yes, the Big Ten wanted to get a presence in the New York market, which is why they added Rutgers. However, the standards are much higher for schools #15 and #16. Essentially, schools #15 and #16 have to make markets almost irrelevant, where they're powerful enough additions that the Big Ten Network transforms from a regional network to a legit national network. That's what OU and KU can do better than anyone once you get past the obvious Notre Dame/Texas-types. Just look at what the Big Ten would be football-wise by slotting OU (along with KU) in the West Division and then incorporating KU into the basketball league. (Yes, I know that UConn has been stellar at basketball, as well, but KU is one of the few basketball brands strong enough where that can legitimately compensate for a lack of football success. Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA are also on that very short list. Everyone else, even schools like Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State and UConn that have had elite programs every bit as successful as those blue bloods over the past 20 years, are on the "What have you done for me lately?" list where basketball doesn't count that much.)
In essence, I believe that the Big Ten would prefer to add UVA and UNC over OU and KU, but if they can't add UVA and UNC (which is more likely than not in my mind, particularly UNC), then I could certainly see OU and KU being the next targets. The main drawbacks to OU and KU are more political - making the very large assumption that any grant of rights issues are resolved, I think both of those schools would take a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat if they're left to their own devices, but they might not be able to act alone if they have to bring their in-state brothers of OSU and KSU with them (which would be non-starters for the Big Ten).
.
