the BE and influence of high mid major is not going anywhere in college hoops. Their demise was written about in the 80s. You only need to see Loyola having a shot to make the Final 4 as proof of that and if they and Nova are in that makes two non D1A level football schools in the final 4.
Your premise I just think is wrong. BE got 6 schools this year. You are thinking of this in terms of football and not hoops, different story. The arms race has always been there. Just because Rutgers gets $40 million does not mean they will be more successful in hoops than a Big East school. If that was true Penn State would have long ago been the dominant team in the East. Alot more factors go into it than money. The Big East didnt suffer much drop off after realignment, was I surprised? yes but I was wrong. They have survived it and now formed a little niche for themselves. They are not outside the Power 5, they are part of it. They are not going anywhere, neither is the success of smaller schools in the NCAA tournament
You may very well be correct, but there's never been this great of a financial divide, and as such, I'm not sure you can draw anything from the past. If Seton Hall, hypothetically, is spending 4 million on its' basketball program, and at the same time Rutgers is spending 15 million -- and these are very reasonable numbers to assume -- RU will pay its' coaches better, more money into facilities, better (legal) perks for the athletes, ect., ect., ect., and over time that will have an effect. What happened in the past is I believe irrelevant because college athletics has never seen such a great disparity between the haves and the have nots. And so my theory goes that over the years you'll see a shift in at large bids going to more of the money conferences. The SEC is illustrative. As their conference money has expanded, they've put more into their basketball programs, and this year they've sent eight teams to the tournament. I don't think that's a total coincidence. We'll see.
Addendum -- Curiosity drove me to some research. According to UCONN documents circa 2015, they spent approx. $ 9 million on their mens BB program which grossed $11 million in revenue. The woman's BB program did not make money. It was anticipated that 1/2 of their 80 million athletic budget by 2017 would be subsidized by student fees ect.. We know what that is like. Consider this, their AAC payout barely covers Hurley's salary. Anyway, they (and similar schools) appear to be in dire financial straights concerning athletics unless something changes. Glad we have a solution for our budget.
I also read somewhere that BE schools spend 7-8 million a year on average on their mens BB programs. That was the highest, on average, of all conferences. Will they maintain that position? Maybe for the BE schools, that don't fund as many sports, they can maintain this arms race, but I envision this "arms race" will explode to a whole new level in the years to come. Maybe after a certain point money has diminishing returns on BB programs? I don't know, but watch the SEC schools; I anticipate those schools starting to outspend the competition on their programs.