"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."
I see BYU as a good football program same as I see Utah's. But I also see them heading in different directions. BYU's is on the rise, Utah's is fading. BYU's national appeal is predominantly with members of the LDS Church, Utah's is predominantly within the state of Utah other than a small number of former students who live outside of Utah.

"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?"
yewt fans care. Just read comments and posts by them on nearly every fan message board from the DN, SLT, Utefan, CB, etc. They delusionally insist they were always the "A" plan. It drives them crazy when anyone mentions the possibility of otherwise.

"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."
Yes, you are delusional, or at least the yewt fans who think they're going to step right into the Pac10+2 and start dominating it are. If you take a step back and look at history and the bigger picture you see that Utah didn't even dominate the MWC during Kyle's tenure. They finished 1st once in 6 yrs and as low as 6th once as well. They enjoyed one great season (which wasn't dominating) in 2008 with the juniors and seniors who were Urban Meyer's recruits but had an average finish of 3rd otherwise. Also, they struggled to compete financially in the lowly MWC and will start their Pac10+2 era in even worse shape compared to their opponents. They will be the lowest budgeted athletic program in the conference (even lower than WSU). History showed that ASU left the old WAC as the dominant program the last 10 or so years and they stepped into immediate obscurity when they joined the Pac 10. In 33 or so years since joining they've won 3 conference championships and have been mostly mediocre to poor inbetween. AZ has been even worse.

"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."
After their gamble to invite Colorado and cause the destruction of the Big 12 so they could get Texas and others blew up in their face, Larry Scott was stuck. After Texas, Oklahoma, TAMU, OSU, TT, etc all said no, they were down to their 6th option and when you look about in the Western United States there weren't a lot of options. Utah became an easy choice for them at that point. They don't like Boise St and they absolutely don't like BYU (the Stanford Band basically displayed how the California schools in the Pac 10 feel about BYU). Who else could Scott look at and be able to sell the University Presidents on? Colorado was the bait to get Texas and when it backfired the Pac10 needed to salvage the situation. Having 12 teams and a CCG was going to be the key for them to get this big contract with ESPN. But Scott still had to be able to get the California school's buy-in. utah was the safe and easy choice.

"And the success of their deal indicates that."
It indicates the importance ESPN puts on having 12 teams and a CCG. For the deal to go through it could have been anyone. For the California schools to agree to the expansion however, it couldn't be BYU.

"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."

And there you have it. You made my point. Nobody talks about it anymore around the country because nobody talks about Utah anymore. It's already old news. Had they been able to sustain some semblance of that type of success people would see them as that team still. But scheduling cream puffs then getting destroyed by average to good teams reinforces in the minds of fans/pundits around the country that they were just a blind dog finding a bone. Just look at the Pac12 Edition of Athlon Sports. They're doing a 4 page spread on BYU's independence and partnerhip with ESPN, not on the new kids on the block (utah). BYU's not even in the conference, yet they're a feature in the pre-season magazine and casting a shadow on new conference member Utah.

It's a hard fact to accept, I understand. Nobody else see's the Utes like Ute fans do. I have 3 employees who are from SEC country, one went to Georgia, another to Alabama and the third to Auburn. They can't agree on anything but they will agree on this, that Utah had a fluke season in 2008 and caught the Crimson Tide in the middle of a funk. Had the Tide and Utah played 10 games that season, Alabama would win 9 of them (the Auburn fan actually said 7) and they all agreed that Utah would've been a .500 team or worse in the SEC that year having to play the likes of LSU, 'Bama, Auburn, Florida, etc.

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