Alicks, it's true that realignment is driven by more than money. Academics and state politics are factors, of course, but they are not absolutes. AAU membership is desired for inclusion in the B1G, but I don't know that it will always be applied as THE benchmark for "strong academics." Can you envision the B1G rejecting Notre Dame? State politics could come into play. The Virginia Tech/ACC case is often cited. But I don't know of any other instance in which politics prevailed. Texas pols made a very public campaign to get Houston added to the Big12. No cigar. Money is more determinant than either academics or politics, though I concede that money is also not an absolute. The B1G desires contiguity as well, but I if they had an opportunity to add, say Stanford, or Florida, would geography nix the deal?
The CIC bylaws/charter/whatever has been modified, and the name of the organization has even changed. Many beieve that the reason is to accommodate less-than-sterling academic schools to the conference without allowing automatic entry to the "CIC."
Why didn't the B1G want Missouri? Maybe they did, kinda. Way back in the Twentieth Century, the Big Ten decided they would expand with two premier programs: Penn State and Notre Dame. Penn State signed-on. Notre Dame demurred. The Big Ten stood at eleven members for twenty one years waiting for The Irish to succumb. Along came Nebraska and Missouri, worried about the demise of their conference and seeking asylum. Missouri was very public about their interest in the Big Ten, but the legendary Cornhuskers got the nod. These days, Missouri is somewhat damaged goods. The freshman enrollment has tanked. This is not the kind of problem that will likely endure over time, but who knows for sure?
"Pining for logic beyond dollars?" I suppose it's out there, somewhere. Search on.