Lost in the discussion of a possible Pac-12 expansion to 16 is the fact that the fan bases of the 4 schools who gave up absolutely nothing in regards to Pac-12 expansion/divisional alignment (Arizona, ASU, Utah*, and Colorado) are largely opposed to expansion if it puts them into an eastern division with the Texas and Oklahoma schools. As the solutions to that ("zipper" or "pod" divisions) are either against NCAA rules or were nixed by Larry Scott last time around as being too hard to market, there is the distinct possibility that those schools could balk and prevent further conference expansion because they consider the increase in revenue to be not worth being separated from the state of California.
The question is: what does the conference do if Oklahoma/Texas want in but Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado don't want them?
*Note: Yes, Utah agreed to a staggered revenue sharing, but even without television revenue this year, they are making more than last year and every successive year is a huge financial windfall.
I'm not sure what the rules are regarding conference expulsion are and I know it goes against the idea that the conference is an equal partnership, but I'd follow a vote against expansion with a vote towards expelling the schools that voted against expansion. (If that isn't viable for whatever reason, have the Pac-8 schools leave and dissolve the conference)
Colorado and Utah were brought in solely for the money (Colorado originally as part of a Pac-16), so it is not like this is a completely new idea being sprung upon them. The money was more than expected, but not enough to push everyone so far into the black that they can just give up additional revenue. Balking now would show that they are unwilling to make the sacrifices for the greater good that every other school made and as such are schools with which I would have no desire for Cal to be associated.