Google bidding games — markets in everything?

What would happen if MicroSoft or Yahoo or a MicroHoo went to the 5 top
results for the top 25k searches and paid them to leave the Google
Index?

A theoretical maximum of 125k sites, but with overlap, probably closer to 100k or less, times how much per site on average?

The
math starts to get interesting. At $1,000 per site average times 100k
sites, thats only $1 Billion Dollars. The distribution would obviously
favor the larger sites, so of that billion dollars, would the top 1k
sites take 500k each and the remaining 99k split the rest?

Given
the stakes, why stop at $1 Billion Dollars ? Would the top 1k most
visited sites take a cool $1mm each, plus a commitment from Microsoft
or Yahoo to drive traffic through their search engines to more than
make up for the lost Google Traffic. After all, once consumers realized
that Google no longer had valid search results for the top 25k searchs,
that traffic would most likely go to Microsoft and Yahoo…

What would it cost to get that number of sites to turn Google off and
stay off, and would the traffic created as users switch from Google
more than compensate for the cost?

Or would Google recognize the risk and jump in and offer more to websites to stay?

That’s Mark Cuban, but I say no.  Is there any precedent for successfully undermining a popular "monopoly" (in this case a free one) by paying the input suppliers to go take a hike?  If bidding ever did get underway (unlikely), those suppliers are worth more to the relatively efficient company, which is probably Google and they are certainly less liquidity constrained than just about anybody else. 

Yes, Google does reap profit from the free content supplied to the web, but the chance of content suppliers colluding to keep reap more of those gains are small.  If anything the relevant externality is that Google could pay for gated content to be accessible to search engines but I wouldn’t bet on that happening either.