But it still comes down to perception. You look at BYU as a dominant powerhouse with a huge fan base while Utah is a small time program with no national appeal.

The irony is this is the same logic CBers used to explain to "delusional" Utah fans how and why the Pac would never take Utah. Which goes to show how blue-goggles do not reflect reality. Remember how funny you all thought the June 11th date was? And how pathetic Utah fans would look?

Your denial is what led to this crazy idea that the Pac came up and invited Utah at the last moment to save face. It's invented on CB to save face for how pathetic you all were in saying it would never happen.

The reason why the June 11th date came about was Utah had received a conditional offer as early as February. Utah insiders were fairly confident that Texas' demands would be too high for the Pac-12.

Yes, Utah was the contingency plan. We were "sloppy seconds" to Texas. But who isn't? And who cares? What makes Utah such an appeal is that we are the small school with fewer fans who punched the system in the mouth - on the field.

I don't think we have any delusions of who we are as a school. But that's part of what our national appeal is.

However, texas wanted their own network. The Pac wouldn't bite for it and they felt their contingency plan was good enough to walk away. That's a credit to utah and colorado and not a knee jerk reaction. You don't make a billion dollar decision on a whim.

And the success of their deal indicates that.

Let's go back real quick to the Sugar Bowl. Pundits used the "alabama" didn't want to be there as a way of making sense for the beatdown. Now, 2 years later after 7 of Utah's D starters were drafted, nobody says that any more. Except BYU fans.

But that's part of the blue goggled outlook, no one respects the BCS bowls but they all admire WAC championships from the 80s.