[Canalejas]

The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer.  Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away.  It's ridiculous.

That's exactly the line that was being suggested 10 years ago. 

But you've convinced me.  Stanford welcomed Texas with open arms.

I don't know how widely Stanford opened its arms, but it had to approve the offer that Larry extended to Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a group, no?  It was my understanding that votes on membership back then had to be unanimous.  But maybe someone that remembers the bylaws of the Pac-10 can correct me if that wasn't the case.  

After A&M declined and Texas got a deal for its own TV network, I don't remember any of the reporting saying that only Stanford and Cal opposed Texas coming with their own TV channel anyway.  That was supposed to be a line that many of our old conference-mates didn't want to cross.  

Anyway, that's all old news.  What aggravates me is that the story has morphed into a few variations.  That Stanford rejected Texas and Oklahoma, or Texas and Texas Tech, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (the following year.)  That last one is probably the closest one to being true, actually.  Though by then I think the threshold for membership decisions had gone down.  So Stanford and Cal couldn't have been alone in opposing it, if in fact they opposed it.

[Canalejas]

The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer.  Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away.  It's ridiculous.

That's exactly the line that was being suggested 10 years ago. 

But you've convinced me.  Stanford welcomed Texas with open arms.

I don't know how widely Stanford opened its arms, but it had to approve the offer that Larry extended to Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a group, no?  It was my understanding that votes on membership back then had to be unanimous.  But maybe someone that remembers the bylaws of the Pac-10 can correct me if that wasn't the case.  

After A&M declined and Texas got a deal for its own TV network, I don't remember any of the reporting saying that only Stanford and Cal opposed Texas coming with their own TV channel anyway.  That was supposed to be a line that many of our old conference-mates didn't want to cross.  

Anyway, that's all old news.  What aggravates me is that the story has morphed into a few variations.  That Stanford rejected Texas and Oklahoma, or Texas and Texas Tech, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (the following year.)  That last one is probably the closest one to being true, actually.  Though by then I think the threshold for membership decisions had gone down.  So Stanford and Cal couldn't have been alone in opposing it, if in fact they opposed it.