Scenario #1 gives Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State etc a little bit more money (depends on how the $1 billion is divided up) but no assurance that the conference survives past the current GOR deal (which they don't have anyway). It could also be argued that it may bring in some poor football schools (UConn, Memphis, etc) and gives Kansas, Iowa State, etc a chance to move out of the Big 12 cellar. If Texas and OU leave, it also gives the remaining schools a large conference that they can hopefully keep alive for a few more years even if the golden gooses have run off. I'm not seeing why Iowa State would shut this down. Sure there may be some insecurity moving forward but you already have that and adding BYU/Houston/Cincy would help stabilize the conference in my opinion.

Scenario #2 gives the Big 12 increased stability and I can only assume more money as well. Why wouldn't the other 8 all vote for this option?

Scenario #3 seems unlikely but Iowa State certainly shouldn't complain and this would be an obvious no-brainer. It could be argued that Iowa State is still better off competitively with a 12 team league where they would only have to be in contention to win a 6 team division to be relevant in November but if money is the only thing that matters ...

The best case scenario to me for the non-Texas/OU Big 12 schools and BYU would be adding two quality programs (BYU and Houston or Cincy - no need to add a bunch of bad schools for a few $$$), increasing the GOR deal through 2032 and hoping for the best. Fifteen years is a long time and hopefully Texas and Oklahoma will want to stick around at that time. College Football is cyclical and the Big 12 may be seen as the top conference tin 2032. In 2004 an undefeated Auburn team was left out of the BCS title game which seems almost impossible in the current SEC loving world we live in.