The Bishin Cutter, that is a reasonable point about implications, but does not define the motive. Remember, the deciders were the 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame. That has been a set structured group evolving from the former BCS group, and refined given the demise of the old BE as we knew it. Is the SEC's intent to retain the Power 5 structure, showing plus three independents, instead of plus just Notre Dame? Concur on the 03 post, the inclusion of BYU and Army was about SEC choice/optional scheduling, and not about P5 governance. By the act of the SEC declaring that BYU and Army are allowable for that one OOC game to satisfy the 9th game minimum, will that propel BYU and Army into full inclusion by all the P5? I don't think so. BYU already had complaints about the P5 freeze-out, so what the SEC did was toss them a bone, not a whole P5 cow, that was also in the perceived self-interest of the SEC. For them (BYU and Army) to get there, convincing evidence would have to come from those schools totality of schedules and records over some chosen period of time. It's not going to be based, at most, on one game per year vs an SEC team. BYU has ambitions to join a P5 conference and will take every given opportunity to schedule elite schools. Army, on the other hand, has not shown that ambition, and over the more recent years, has tried to make their scheduling more compatible with their capabilities. The SEC is not the whole P5, and the scheduling accommodation that the conference extended, does not even suggest the SEC would push or vote for BYU/Army as being a part of P5 governance.
The SEC and the ACC got pressure from BYU about scheduling. There is evidence for that. The complaint was about only including Notre Dame from the independent ranks that numbered only three as a total. The ACC could easily justify their decision because Notre Dame was already associated with the ACC.
What is little known but some SEC schools were saying it (or complaining including mighty Alabama), is that certain SEC teams were having trouble finding P5 teams to schedule for certain dates and years. All of them do have to incorporate dictates for their own in-conference schedules. Texas A&M, for example, could find UCLA for a series, but forget about the B12. Adding BYU to the mix was a scheduling relief, and a desired option, given that BYU got some SEC games as soon as hints developed. Plus, BYU does have athletic credentials that are not shabby. The Army thing? It looks as if it was done by the SEC not to deliberately diminish them as a result of adding BYU. The military is popular in the south, and given Army's other attributes mentioned, it was viewed strategically wise to include them. If there were other independents, there would have been political cover to be more limited with the decision, or not change the original one. While it brings into question future independents that may seek the same from the SEC or the ACC, it has broaden the status, at least for SEC scheduling purposes, that only Notre Dame could benefit beforehand by being independent.
The SEC, by default, is telling the other two SAs' their games with SEC opponents will not be a 9th P5. But that alone would not motivate them to become independent either. I imagine Navy is not so thrilled about going into the AAU anyway. Air Force appears happy where they are at, and rejected the B12 offer a few years back. But the B12 didn't accept Louisville, Go figure.
Could the ACC ever do something with Navy, given Maryland leaving and if Notre Dame ever becomes #15? It's an on-going interesting thought, but SA recruitment limitations and regimental structures suggest not.