The essential message here and a trend I see taking place on websites is not the destruction of google, but the destruction of the internet. What Cuban here is suggesting is not to simply entice sites away from google, but to make them participate in a system that is not democratic and elective, but entirely under the control of one authority.
All the comments above citing the estimation and price being off are symptomatic of the brain freeze that M$ would use to accomplish this. The point is, whether 1 million is correct, that there is a price or probably a single number that could disrupt the top 1000 list. Now from the standpoint of the SEO community and analysis there are potential benefits not only to migrating the list, but also in destroying it completely.
While the things that Cuban suggests are flawed on so many levels, the ignorance contained should be seen as information itself and representing common misperceptions about the internet, free systems and the universe.
The best way I can logically express the problem with using money as an incentive in this case is pushing a string.
While this is not itself an ad for Bing, it implies that Bing would be the next best choice after Google, and this is reflected in responses here. This is also advertizing for Bing itself. For the time being, a number 2 position after google would be quite an accomplishment itself.
I think perhaps the real motivation in the comment is simply to encourage people to imagine an internet without google, and to spread the idea that the internet is just another application or hole through which to pour video garbage and advertizements. Peoples' choice and sites' choice seems to be disregarded.
Cuban and M$ are against free principles and Google was born of the internet.
While Google is not the internet, it is a species that evolved from the conditions of the internet. Paying someone money to leave a system they would otherwise find beneficial should be the biggest insult to any other alternative. If a site removed themselves from the google index, they should do so not because someone offered them a bribe, but because of a better idea or merits.
Perhaps Bin Laden will take Cuban's idea and offer citizens of respective nations the option of 1 million dollars for becoming one of his followers. Well, a place in heaven or the Bin Laden afterlife fantasy might be just as attractive.
The attraction will work for some, and given the balance of irrational fundamentalist thought in the world today among those who have a choice we should not be surprised that such a successful capitalist would speak to the insane than engage the intelligent.
The internet cannot be manipulated and managed like a sports team and the sites are not athletes in your portfolio.
If there is a perception that there should be more than 1 successful rank, then there should be alternatives and maybe there is some monopoly perceived when more choices are desired. I think the intelligent observation here is that if there is a better way than google, it should not take tender to to convince the popular sites. Unless of course it is a complete accident that they find themselves so popular like winning the lottery. Maybe they are so popular because google is playing favorites and helping themselves in the process, instead of reflecting culture at a point in time.
And this is the benefit of understanding inverse advertizing. What Cuban has expressed through inversion is his understanding of google as a manifestation or mapping of his own principles. If he was google, he would play favorites and he would reward his golf buddies and this is expressed through his proposal. Free systems like the internet are always under the attack of the Lenins, Bin Ladens and Cubans of the world. It comes from megalomania and they see it inside everyone and everything around them. The sympathetic break allows these types to operate quite efficiently without the hindrance of others' motivations and feelings. They are often leaders, capitalists, dictators and entertainers.
Google cannot be a pure conduit and index. They have learned that they must be involved because forces like Cuban will exploit and manipulate through the unmoderated connection. Google is not just a technical services organization, but one whose mission is guided by a sort of digital good samaritan sense. Something as pure as IP cannot be good or evil. But the actions of an informed agency may be. Google has in the best way communicated through its own actions and intentions, itself essentially, what benefits may come from a free system. By exhibiting these qualities they strongly suggest what other companies or agency involved might gain through honest participation in an egalitarian network. Google takes a risk whenever it moves away from pure neutrality in managing its index. But I estimate that the bulk of google actions indicate this deviation to be on behalf of people, individuals and the network participants themselves rather than arbitrary or self serving interest. In this sense I think google deserves some recognition as a beneficial institution in the world network and as such crossing all cultures and nations, perhaps the most important institution humanity has spawned thus far.