Because if Houston's football is legit and continues to be legit, it will make them more money next negotiating cycle. Politics plays a role, but $ is more important. $ buys politics anyways.
Your post seems to be based on the premise that winning football teams make the most money and are more valuable to a conference. But is that really true? I mean for the past few years Baylor and TCU have been winning ALOT. In fact, they have won even more than UH which has also been on a football tear. On the other hand UT has experienced one of their worst football droughts in recent times. Guess what???...UT is worth more than TCU, Baylor and UH combined....it not about winning football programs, its about fan bases and markets.
Here is what we know:
1. The Big12 spent a significant amount of money to hire independent consultants to evaluate the value of the expansion candidates
2. UT has very publicly endorsed UH's candidacy for the Big12
3. UT has argued against the public presentation of the consultant's data at the Big12 meetings
The most logical conclusion we can draw is that UT's preferred candidate, UH, is not supported by the consultant's data. If UH was a top candidate by the metrics UT would be arguing the data should drive the decision and would want the data publicly presented.
Big12 expansion is more complicated than which is the best G5 football team. The Texas power play (to include the Texas Governor, etc...) shows UH is not the slam dunk some of our posters think they are...coaches and players come and go but the core institution and its fan base/market are forever.