Yeah, I agree with most of this. Football is a runaway train dictating terms to everyone, and that's bad for a lot of Wazoo and Oregon State (and, yeah, maybe even Illinois Rutgers) types too because, as you say, they're stuck in an arms race. Alumni want/need football at those schools, but the resources it generated often stay silo'd within the football program.
This is probably the crux of the matter. Do basketball schools with football programs (Kansas, North Carolina, etc.) seek to apply a football model (and super conferences DO make sense in football) to basketball? It's, in my view, undeniably good for MBB that the Big East exists. That Gonzaga exists. That Murray St. and Belmont and Dayton and St. Bona and Davidson and the whole A10 (and a few other schools that either don't offer football or only play non-scholarship) have the chance to build a national profile by making the NCAAT. It's also bad for the Big XII because, the more of those smaller teams that make the field, the more they eat into the moneypot the whole conference shares when it's teams advance.
What's good for CBB then, isn't good for the conferences themselves. So, how much do they pursue self-interest? I think, to keep the NCAAT status quo, you really do have to make a more values, "social responsibility" argument. Like it's some sort of duty as a basketball citizen to allow those small teams to compete on the same level. Maybe that'll happen. But since I do believe college sports is all about the $$, I worry they won't care much about the emotional glory of the NCAAT.