a lot of sense to me. It's not nearly as applicable to BYU, which has built and sustained a P5-level program for decades now. The Big 12 is not going to be very concerned about BYU's willingness and ability to field a quality program. But the Big 12 is going to have some concerns about Cincy and UH, which do not have P5-level programs right now (emphasis on programs, not teams), and have not yet proven that they are able and willing to devote the necessary resources to compete at a high level on a sustained basis.  

This isn't really any different from a law firm or any other business deciding to admit new equity partners. Some of the new partners might be less proven as business generators, and the firm in that case will say "hey, we'll let you in, because you show some promise, but you'll get a lesser split and you'll be subject to de-equitization if you don't take advantage of this opportunity and do what you need to in order to be a net contributor to this thing instead of a net taker." They're not going to say "yeah man, you haven't shown much ability to grow or sustain your practice, but saddle up, we're all equals here, and we're with you till the end."

Some might argue that these conditions make the conference less stable, but I'd argue it would be more unstable if Cincy and UH get in, relax on their haunches with their small stadiums and low-dollar programs, and watch OU and Texas generate a ton of revenue that they all split equally, with Cincy and UH now having as much say as OU and Texas over conference matters.  That's how you get perpetual, institutional instability in a conference or a business.  The Big 12 schools know they need to expand, and right now that means reaching out to programs that they don't know, and have no history with, and who aren't proven to be net contributors.  So it is protecting itself accordingly.  I'd be interested to know whether the same conditions that apply to Cincy and UH's admission apply to BYU's as well.  They might not.