The Des News article was clear enough as written, that at least some of the PAC-10 athletic directors like BYU and, if it was up to one or more of them, would have BYU be part of their league.

An informal straw poll of the preferences of one or more of these athletic directors is not even 0.0001% of an 'official offer' from the league. The 10 presidents acting as a group are the ONE and ONLY group with any authority to make a binding offer to another school. An 'almost offer' doesn't exist, unless you are referring to a live proposal that the 10 Presidents 'have on the table,' where BYU almost got approved - but we have no reliable, independent evidence that it ever got that far.

Depending upon the PAC-10s own bylaws, they will not let one favorable-to-BYU president overturn 9 unfavorable-to-BYU presidents, but would spell out if all 10 have to agree, or what percent of the 10 have to agree, before the LEAGUE itself extends a legit binding offer. The concept of non-binding offer is meaningless.

It is totally irrelevant what the a single athletic director prefers, or what 6 of them prefer or what all 10 of them prefer. Their opinions do not amount to .0001% of a legit offer from the LEAGUE.

It may be nice to talk about, that BYU has good relations with some, many or all athletic directors, but it is irrelevant as to whether a legit offer from the LEAGUE was 'almost' extended.

Don't confuse genuine 'preference' of athletic directors with a legit 'offer' from the PAC-10 as a league, because no offer legally arises until the league meets its own bylaws, which sets out how many PRESIDENTS have to formally agree before a legal offer can be extended, That offer will come, if at all, from the league office on behalf of all 10 schools under strict compliance with their own corporate bylaws.

Anything less, is meaningless.

A few years before I was in law school at the University of Arizona, the Arizona football team had scheduled a game against Utah in Salt Lake City. On the week before the game, the semi trailer which contained Ariizona's football gear broke down somewhere in southern Utah, and it was close enough to Saturday that there was no way to get the gear up to Salt Lake. If the logistic problem could not be solved, Arizona would be forced to forfeit or reschedule the game, but it looked like forfeit was the only viable option.

One of the administrators at Arizona knew Dean Harold Goodman, who was BYU Dean of the College of Fine Arts, who had studied at Arizona years before. He suggested that the Arizona A.D. call Dr. Goodman, and see if Arizona could borrow football gear from BYU (white shirts, white pants, pads and shoes) in the proper sizes, and truck them up to RES for the Arizona players to wear on Saturday.

Dean Goodman contacted LaVell Edwards and he had his equipment people work with Arizona's to find exactly what they needed in sizes, and with a little overtime, solved the logistical problem. I believe the Arizona players brought their spare helmets on the plane with them, and the game against Utah went off without a hitch, other than that the Arizona players were wearing BYU white uniforms.

The informal relationship between two professors, who knew how to work with a sister University in a problem solving mode, was remembered by the Arizona administration years after BYU and Lavell Edwards stepped up to bail Arizona out. That example, and the example of BYU's video coordinator in making and sharing tapes of past games, reflected BYU's service orientation - and stuff like this is why athletic directors appreciate working with BYU to solve problems.

If the Des News article reflects the positive experience of PAC-10 athletic directors, that's well and good.

As a law student, I was surprised when one of my professors told me about how much he and other Arizona administrators, faculty ad staff admired BYU for loaning Arizona its white uniforms when the semi broke down on the way to Salt Lake years before. This spirit of helpfulness was reflected by Al McGuire on TV speaking of the time when the Marquette basketball team won a regional basketball game in Salt Lake City when BYU lost, and how the BYU Band offered to play for Marquette in the next game. Al told a national TV audience that BYU went 'above and beyond' the call in offering to stand in for the Marquette band. A lot of good will is developed by acts of service, like these.

All of these positive relationships mean nothing, however, when it comes to how and when legal offers are extended by the PAC-10 as a league, and who actually decides.

Wishful thinking doesn't overcome the cold-eyed reality of how and when legit offers to join the league, come from the league, under their strict bylaws. Two different animals, that should not be confused.

Your post would be more accurate if it said 'A lot of BYU fans have wishful thinking that PAC-10 athletic directors had authority to decide for the league presidents, who should be invited to join the league and when.' However, it is simply FALSE that an 'unofficial proposal' or offer was ALMOST made to BYU.

When the Des News writer was researching the piece, he may have picked up on one or more actual conversations where one or more PAC-10 athletic directors had contacted BYU to see if BYU was interested, for the purpose of having the athletic directors make such a proposal to their presidents - but that is not an 'unofficial offer.' It's no offer, until the league says it is.

'Offer' is a legal term of art.

No amount of wishful thinking changes how the PAC-10 league operates under its bylaws, which spell out precisely how an 'offer' may be made and based upon how many PAC 10 presidents have to agree.

To make the legal tangle even deeper, the legal counsel for each of the PAC-10 schools would have closely examined the proposed bylaws before the PAC-10 or PAC-8 was formed, to be sure that each University is not bound by a formal league action, unless that University's president was protected by formal procedure - so that no one President could 'rush through' a proposal without thoroughly vetting it according to proper approval from all 10 presidents.

Because lawyers like to get involved (and often 'muck it up' for activist leaders), it's a big deal for any league, to make the fateful decision to invite another team to join. The new school has to jump through a lot of hoops, before the league satisfies its own bylaws. During my last 18 months of law school, I worked 20 hours a week for the legal counsel to the Arizona Board of Regents, so I got an up-close look at the thick legal bureaucracy of how the PAC-10 plods along.

We'll never know which athletic directors in the PAC-10 lobbied for BYU to their own President, or how hard. Nor will we ever know which, if any, of the Presidents were favorable to a BYU invite.

It doesn't matter, unless enough Presidents agree. Only then, does a legit 'offer' arise.

None of this strict legal protocol takes anything away from the good will built up over the years by Lavell and other fine representatives of BYU, as seen through the eyes of PAC-10 athletic directors and coaches.