Assuming BYU is the #1, as pretty much every media outlet has stated and which is pretty obviously... There is such little gain in Cincinnati and Houston, that taking both serve no purpose at all and honestly means that you have to invite a 3rd of that group to make it 4 invites total and there honestly isn't a 3rd that is even remotely viable or of any value at all... that it just makes sense to take BYU and then either let Texas politics reign or give West Virginia a team within an ear shot of their campus.

BYU brings the value the conference needs to raise their conferences reputation. Adding UH or UC add's the 12th team that gives the conference the championship they want and finally solidifies the conference as a true power conference. Adding both UH and UC, and then needing to scrap the bottom of the barrel for a team like Memphis or Colorado State honestly loses the credibility of the conference and serves absolutely no value or purpose.

And if you think adding UH and UC alone, without BYU helps the conference... it doesn't either. They will have added nobody that increases or stabilizes the reputation of the conference. Right now, reputation matters... and the conference has a dysfunctional reputation that they would like to stripe away. Nothing screams dysfunctional more than adding only UC and UH and/or adding BYU, then UC, UH and Memphis or CSU.

I think they add BYU, and UC or UH... and then hope and watch the PAC12 slowly because the new dysfunctional conference and pounce on getting the Arizona schools later on. It makes the most sense.