PAC - MWC Agreement (some hefty fees exist if poaching occurs)

Yeah, it's definitely too high a price IMO.
I'm not sure it changes anything all that much, though. We already knew the prices were going to be pretty high if the Pac-2 made a move on MWC teams before 2027.
Personally, I've kind of soured on the idea of the Pac-2 merging with some MWC teams and teams from the AAC or other G5 conferences. I don't think it would have enough of a positive impact to set it apart from just going ahead with a full merger with the MWC and that can be done without spending any money.
What it could impact is if the ACC does come apart in the next year or two and Stanford, Cal and SMU come available. I guess you could add just two MWC teams and fill in elsewhere or something like that.
None of the other possibilities are affected at all.

Cincinnati is in the Big 12.  They aren't going anywhere.

I really wonder what the Pac-2 leaders have actually meant by "rebuilding" the Pac-12.
Did they mean that they would put a new conference together with the best possible teams under the circumstances? If so, that seems pretty unlikely at this point.
Did they mean that they were going to just merge with the MWC all along? IMO, this is pretty unlikely and they've probably viewed this option as a last resort, mostly due to the high likelihood of having to accept a much lower level of income. I also don't see how anyone can see this option as a truly a rebuilt Pac-12 when it's OSU and WSU joining the MWC, no matter what label you put on it. You can call it the Pac-12 but the broadcast media companies are not going to see it that way.
Or did the leaders of the Pac-2 basically use the terminology to be able to buy some time and to get that payday as well?

I have to agree here. To turn a phrase from Mike Vrabel, Boise state would cut of it's own dick to join a P5 conference. 

OSU/WSU do not have a P5 conference per se, but the opportunity to build one. Boise, Fresno, SDSU and UNLV for 100% certainty will pay money to be a part of something getting built.

I don't think the amounts of money being quoted represent anything OTHER than what if forces is that OSU/WSU has definitive plans/commitments from others before tearing the MWC apart.

SDSU was apparently ready to cut loose at 17 million until the MWC said it would be 34.

I read somewhere right after everything fell apart and they were looking at options, that BSU would be interested in a rebuilt Pac and was would likely join if they could give a year notice to keep it at 17.

I think 17 is doable by at least a few schools (if we have an attractive media deal lined up), but the 34 might be hard to stomach if they can time it right by giving a year's notice. That's got me thinking we can potentially hear things on the expansion front as early as July/August of this year for the 2025 season, or a year later for the following season.

The MWC has pretty much the most restrictve buyout of the G5 conferences from what I've read, so there could be some others out there available if the Pac-2 decides to take the leap of faith.

What constitutes "acceptance" of an offer before August 1, 2025? Is it a verbal understanding, or is it ink on paper? Can the Pac-2 negotiate with schools before then, but not formalize an agreement until August 1, 2025. Is intent enough to constitute "acceptance" or does it have to be actual performance?

I don't doubt that Boise State and San Diego State would be willing to try to make it work financially to get out of the MWC if there was an attractive enough option. The Pac-10 or Pac-9 was definitely attractive enough. A Pac-2 that adds Stanford, Cal and SMU is probably attractive enough.
One big potential stumbling block for the Pac-2 in general is the conference status moving forward. IMO, it is imperative that the conference positions itself to become a power conference.
There has been a lot of speculation by reporters working for actual media outlets that things are going to get much more difficult for the G5 and possibly even G5 schools that join power conferences. There's been a push to not allow those teams the $6 million CFP payout and keep it at $1 million (SMU is a team that could be on the short end here). I believe it has to be a unanimous vote to push this this through, so it might be a non-starter.
There's also the power grab by the Big Ten and SEC that will have a flood-down effect on the rest of college football.
CBS sports recently put out a story by Dennis Dodd regarding the potential dominance of the two conferences even with the 12-team playoff:
"It is becoming increasingly apparent that -- even with the expanded 12-team playoff -- access will remain an issue for pretty much any school not in the Big Ten or SEC.
CBS Sports ran the numbers. Conference realignment and consolidation will make Monday's result -- a conference being guaranteed a national championship before the ball is kicked -- more frequent. Using 2024 conference affiliations, one league would have been guaranteed a title prior to the CFP National Championship four times in the 10-year existence of the CFP.
2014: Oregon vs. Ohio State (Big Ten)
2017: Georgia vs. Alabama (SEC)
2021: Alabama vs. Georgia (SEC)
2023: Michigan vs. Washington (Big Ten)
Expect it to happen more often. With 34 of the biggest, best brands now further combined in the Big Ten and SEC, those two conferences are almost certainly going to account for a majority of playoff berths going forward." 
I would say it will be pretty difficult for those other power conferences to get a team to the title game and it will still be difficult to get into the CFP at all. Then you get to the G5 schools.
I would add that if the Big Ten and SEC reach the level of a two-conference superconference (and that's well on the way), that will change the face of college football significantly. It will create an extra tier. I've touched on this before, but what's very likely coming is the superconference or elite tier, the second tier with the Big 12, maybe the ACC, maybe the Pac. Then the group of whatever in the third tier.