game. But Utah doesn't play "second fiddle" in the state. They've beaten us three years in a row and 8 out of the last 11. They've been invited to a BCS conference and played in two BCS games. The last two years they've been down and they've STILL beaten us.

You are right that Utah helps the PAC get a conference championship game, but any school in the west could've done that. BYU, Boise, San Diego, Fresno, etc. All of them could've helped the PAC get a conf. title game, but the PAC chose Utah. Maybe the PAC is trying to get Utah to not play BYU these days to try and diminish BYU to the conference's advantage somehow. But it's crazy to think the PAC invited Utah because the PAC was worried about BYU's influence in the region.

The PAC invited Utah for a lot of reasons, some are complimentary of the Utes, some are logistical. The PAC was making a play for BIG 12 Texas and Oklahoma schools. Part of the plan was to nab Colorado. When negotiations fell through with the others, the PAC needed a 12th member. Utah made sense geographically, it brought the PAC into a new market (and it's silly to reference the size of SLC -- the SLC market includes everything from Ogden down to Utah County). The Utes have also had a lot of success in recent years, so from a competition standpoint it made sense as well. Most of Utah's athletic programs were able to come in and at least be competitive right away (not dominant or at the top, but at least competitive).