One potential answer would be some Big 12 teams are leaving, and the remaining teams would have trouble not being the ones poached and sent every which direction. Another could be, at 12, we're much more likely to poach leftover Pac12 and ACC schools than have those conference lure some of the 12.So this is why I don't understand the rush to add BYU, Cincy, UH, and UCF to the B12. Those schools will always be available to us. But if there is a likelihood of the P12 or ACC getting poached then why don't we let this play out first? I think the ACC and PAC will be well behind the B1G and SEC financially, so it seems very possible that their top tier teams make a move. No matter what that combination looks like, I would rather add remaining PAC or ACC schools to rebuild the B12.
And of course if none of that comes to pass, BYU, Cincy, UH, and UCF will still be there waiting. Again, no rush.
If you're the old Big 8 schools, the difference is being a core member vs being a new edge or satellite member of a new conference in which you're the backfill. Third is to weaken any other best of the rest conference (AAC).
I think two would have been fine, UC and UCF since they are obvious ACC tragets when replacing football schools. The leftover Pac 12 schools would go to the MWC over add BYU, but BYU was also the strongest brand, so now you're at three. Might as well add Houston since they could be a strong member and it helps pushdown the AAC.