Medina-
Mostly agree with you, except:
1. I'd rather see OU/UT than the PAC option, but it sounds to me like OU/UT is already done to the SEC.
2. If I'm right that the OU/UT to the SEC deal is signed, sealed, and delivered; the B1G has to respond unless it's comfortable becoming irrelevant nationally.
3. UNC/UVA are great and I'd be fine with that, but think you still need to go bigger than 16 to get the kind of national exposure the B1G really needs here, I think as this thing continues to evolve the SEC might invite UNC/UVA anyway, and those schools are both a better cultural fit SEC.
4. I think the ACC is a moot point anyway because they're GOR runs through 2035, the timing on the PAC deal expiring in 2023 with disgruntled members due to revenue makes too much sense to ignore.
Regarding the non-revenue sports and travel/scheduling - keep in mind the PAC is the most geographically spread out conference in the country already for the most part, other than an instate rival, they're flying everywhere, so from an expense standpoint, I don't think it would be that big of a hit.
Regarding CBB scheduling in a 20 team conference - since when has a hiccup in CBB scheduling stopped a conference from making a good decision long term for football? 20 works extremely well for football IMO, that's what matters.
I'm of the opinion here that the B1G either expands in a major way with the the top of the PAC or concedes long term that it will become irrelevant. If there's a way around the GOR, I'm fine with the ACC members, but don't think you get the same national feel with UVA/UNC that you do with USC/Oregon/Washington. I understand ND's not a great fit academically, but we both know they're in if they want to be, revenue wise it's a definite yes and maybe adding a Pacific division gets them interested.