to the PAC, Utah was the fallback once the attempt to pull in the 5 Big12 teams failed. That A&M worked to prevent negotiations with the PAC has no bearing at all on the fact that the PAC still approached them and the other 4 Big12 teams BEFORE settling for Utah.

And if there is any disagreement, which I don't think there is, then you need to settle it with the Associated Press and your Commissioner who disagree with you:
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=5293164

"The Pac-10 that people got to know over the last week is the new Pac-10," Scott said Wednesday in a 45-minute telephone interview with The Associated Press, the first since Texas and four other Big 12 schools turned down a chance to join his conference.

Scott said he never felt he had an agreement in place with Texas that would have led to the Longhorns, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas A&M joining the Pac-10.

"We developed this plan with our eyes wide open. We knew that this would be seen as a very bold stroke and there would be all kinds of reasons why it might not be possible at the end. I think there was a sense that this was an incredibly compelling vision and certainly created a lot of excitement among the schools that we were talking to as well as our members. And it captured a lot of other people's attention as well."

"We realized that there could be all kinds of complications in terms of pulling off such a bold move," he said. "That's why we moved first on Colorado as a beachhead, to put a stake in the ground to keep available other options that we're very interested in in terms of expansion that might be more modest in nature." <<<< UTAH, you were the "modest" move.

The next part of Plan B fell into place hours after Scott spoke to the AP, when the Pac-10 announced it had invited Utah to become its 12th member. <<<< UTAH, you were the Plan B fallback.