@ctx48c: The problem for the Pac is that there is no "non-Texas" scenario that moves the needle enough financially for the Pac-12 to consider it. If the rumors are true, it's pretty revealing that the Pac rejected the Ok/Ok St. combo by themselves.
Yup. I've taken heat for saying the same thing elsewhere: without Texas, the PAC becomes the far distant third conference. Should Notre Dame ever fully park its entire AD into the ACC, the PAC could even become the fourth.
I never thought that highly of the Utah grab, and to hear of their issues with other eastern schools nibbling into the Utes' California access, it kind of makes them a big problem in these realignment sagas. The PAC didn't need them (they did need Colorado), and now with them, get a school who already asserts its power, which it only had at a minor scale before (big difference between stiffing UTEP and stiffing OU-oSu), upon programs much bigger than it. It's kind of like Utah is a the new Seton Hall. Not good for the PAC.
To an extent, I fear Rutgers will do the same thing once in the B1G (forget about it, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn). And it sounds like WVU wants to make sure any Big XII movement bridges them back to the heart of the conference.
The political baggage the Big XII schools have attached to them hurt their chances in a lot of places. That these alternative, future homes have scorned ex'es within them (PAC, B1G, SEC), may make it even harder for anyone to move as freely. It may just keep things in the Big XII "as is" just because. Even a school like Kansas, who is said to not be tied to KSU the same as OU is to oSu and Texas is to TT (and what happens in the B1G were ISU invited), made for sure that Kansas City was involved as a major venue for conference doings. KC will not be of value to the B1G, PAC, or SEC.