Speaking from the Big Ten viewpoint, I don't think Kansas is realistically available because of the grant of rights issue in the Big 12. That being said, though, I absolutely believe that Kansas would be high on the conference's radar with all things being equal. Consider that before the Longhorn Network was created, the school that made the most money by far off of third tier TV rights in the Big 12 was Kansas. They're one of the few schools that turns the traditional thinking that "football trumps all". When it comes to the Big Ten Network, the value of Kansas basketball would actually be pretty huge.
There are 2 different ways that the BTN makes money by adding a school. The first is what most people over the past week have been talking about, which is simply to add the largest markets possible and then get the channel onto basic cable in such markets. What's talked about less is the second way, where you add a school whose fan base is so rabid that a cable carrier literally can't survive in that school's market without carrying the BTN. That's why Nebraska makes plenty of money for the BTN - they might be a small market, but the BTN can literally charge any price that it wants in that state because missing any Husker game there is a non-starter. It would be like a Packers game getting blacked out in Green Bay. Kansas basketball is on that level in its home base, which is larger than its own state since the Kansas City metro is mostly in Missouri.
Note that the BTN doesn't charge the same in every market. The 80 cents per subscriber per month rate that you see reported is an average. In reality, the BTN charges a lot more in Omaha/Lincoln and Columbus than it does in Philly. So, the BTN makes money by lower priced volume in the large markets and higher priced intensity in the smaller markets.
Anyway, I don't think the Big Ten is moving again for bit, so the threats are more about whether the Big 12 would want to (or able to) make a move.
