(07-11-2018 10:20 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I may be wrong, but where Larry Scott was flying was probably not as important as what Stanford was telling USC, Cal, and Washington. Again I may be totally wrong, but I can't see any move in the Pacific going forward that is not supported and fully acquiesced to by Stanford. No one in the ACC has been added over UNC and Duke honest objection, ever. UNC and Duke often have certain positions for public consumption and their real position is closeted because they try to avoid appearing self-serving. But I can tell you if UNC and Duke really didn't want GT, FSU, Miami, VT, BC, ND, Syracuse, or Pitt, they would not be in the ACC now. The ACC Commissioner has been made to look like a fool a number of times by the Presidents, I think it's possible the same thing goes on in the Pacific.

No, it is USC and UCLA that wield the most influence. Colorado wanted to be in the Southern Division with UCLA and USC. The LA market is the 2nd largest in the country. Southern California is rich in athletic talent. Colorado has four alumni chapters in Southern California. They have two in Northern California.

Scott presented three expansion models to the Pac-10 presidents. Colorado was the only school that appeared in all three models. Once Texas decided to stay in the Big 12, Utah was going to get the invite. They would be the travel partner for Colorado and get the Pac-12 to 12 schools, the number needed for a conference championship game at that time.

USC and UCLA, knowing that Colorado wanted to be in the Southern Division, would obviously decide if that was acceptable. Since that would split the California schools into different divisions, all of the schools had to be okay with this. The schedule was arranged so that all 4 California schools would continue to play each other every year in football.

As the Utah President indicated in the article, USC and UCLA would decide if Texas could join with their own network. Neither school would have allowed that and so we have Utah.