One other thought on the "0 additions" scenario. Flugs has argued the networks do not want to set a precedent by paying the Big 12 "ransom" not to expand. I think the bigger issue is that the math does not support paying ransom to the Big 12 NOT to expand.
Let's assume it is $25 million per team per year increase built into the Big 12 TV contract. At first blush, ESPN paying the Big 12 $20 million NOT to expand would seem like a better solution than paying $50 million to add 2 teams, but at $20 million, ESPN is pricing the marginal value of the two new programs at $30 million or $15 million each. If ESPN priced UConn and Cincinnati at about $12 million a year each in the final Big East contract, why not just pay the incremental $30 million and get 2 more schools and their football and basketball teams?
Given that situation, the tipping point at which ESPN would rather not add the new teams is probably big enough, that the available ransom payment is too small to justify the Big 12 holding the networks up. If the ransom was $10 million, for example, maybe ESPN would pay the ransom because the incremental cost of adding the two additional teams would be $40 million, and maybe UConn and Cincinnati don't justify that much money. That said, is a $10 million ransom big enough for the Big 12 to even justify pissing off the networks by asking for it? It would certainly seem like the long-term benefits of 2 extra teams and increased likelihood of getting a team into the Playoffs would more than justify not taking the ransom and just adding the teams, to say nothing of the new market access.
Furthermore, the Big 12 has more leverage over the new teams tha they do over ESPN. ESPN might pay the Big 12 $10 million a year NOT to add two new schools, but he schools themselves would likely be willing to pay a lot more than that. The math works out a little better for the Big 12 to add 4 teams, but even if the Big 12 could command $20 or $25 million of ransom from ESPN for not adding 4 teams, it would also mean the payout per school to the Big 12 would be more from adding 4 schools.
All of this leads me to believe that "doing nothing" is less likely than the media would indicate. I think it is still very much on the table, but it is probably not the most attractive solution for the Big 12.