Disagree. Take the teams and set the Big 12 as the only #3 conference. Otherwise, we risk the PAC settling in and going through this exercise again every couple years. Next time the PAC is told to expand into the CST, they may grab some Big 12 teams leaving us in a potentially bad spot if not one of those teams. End it now.
I'll go along.
I believe it is more likely this is academic since the PAC10 will go forward with the remaining 10 for 2024-25 so the B12 won't have the option to get 2-4 PAC teams at this point.
If I'm wrong and the PAC10 doesn't hang together in the short term, it will be because
the insiders know that there's another shoe dropping before 6/30/23 and 2-4 additional schools will be "in the B1G money." In this scenario, the leftover pool of B12 candidates will be everyone but OreSt and WashSt.
Maybe the B12's goal should be to
bring in two of the MountainTZ four. I say: Colorado & Arizona.
Why bring in more mouths to feed by taking all four? (AzSt and Utah - we'd have those that states covered with AzU and BYU.)
1) it lessens the PAC 10 down to 8 and further weakens them so the newPAC is marginally viable.
2) a side benefit would be so they later won't have the strength to "take" any B12 teams.
3) this economy of choices maximizes the B12 future options in other areas of the country down the line (with the goal of being Conference #3 after the SEC/B1G.)