I think the research/academic fit is a bit overblown...

The quotes in the article show that academics and being a research institution were key. It wasn't all that mattered but it was a big part of the discussions and the sales pitch Chris Hill was making.

While Utah does have a research institution... that's like saying See's Candy is a food establishment.

Facts and figures don't support your comparison. Especially when understanding that these institutions prioritize graduate research, grant-based research, etc. Utah is a known research institution in the same vein as other state schools. BYU also does great research but it is not at the graduate level.

Utah set themselves up just right for the opportunity to be there... they weren't the hottest non-BCS team at that time, that would have gone to TCU and Boise State... but Utah was firmly 3rd behind them.

This article shows that Utah had definitely been laying the groundwork, carrying on conversations with academic and athletic stake-holders, and making sales pitches to the best of their ability. This also is a bit revisionist in who was the hottest at the time. The 2009-2010 athletic year was better for other schools but these discussions were taking place within the 6-18 months after Utah steam-rolled Alabama. Utah was very much still one of the top non-BCS teams even if they'd taken a step down that paticular school year. They were negotiating with two BCS bowls in the prior decade. But, given the emphasis on the academics (BSU) and geography (TCU) even if Utah were "firmly 3rd" they still are the more clear choice than the other two you mentioned with all factors together.

Had the PAC not taken Colorado... which they did so in believing that Texas and OU were coming... Utah is still in the MWC. The PAC had to do something after taking Colorado, they did what they had to do... and it's been a win for Utah. I take my hat off to Utah for doing it... again, I wish BYU had the guts and Brains to do what Utah did.

This is completely ignoring everything that is public. The PAC took Colorado because they were getting invited in both expansion scenarios. They got that invite out there to hopefully push the Texas plan forward but to also limit UT's ability to try to foist some other school into the plan. The PAC knew that even if the Texas plan fell through they had already mapped it out with Utah. Taking Utah wasn't something they were forced into because the Texas plan didn't happen. It was something they knew they'd do if UT and OU didn't come.