And/or been unwilling to accept the Pac 12's rules to play nonconference games and hoping the conference would bend for BYU. They wanted a guaranteed game which the conference couldn't offer because their number 1 goal is to have conference games when one can be had. But yes, the ultimate argument is they missed out on playing Colorado.

This quote about the SDSU AD are very telling. Why are people ignoring Cohen's remarks? They are very reasonable and detailed.

BYU was asking for more than the Pac 12 was willing to give and here's SDSU willing to accept their offer as it was. So they get the contract signed on Monday and BYU's negotiations "fall apart".

BYU practiced on Monday hoping the Pac 12 accepts their counter offer, which they didn't because of SDSU, and possibly the knowledge that Utah was likely going to play Washington anyway. But they hedged their bets anyway by signing SDSU- and that contract was changed to play Colorado within hours or even minutes after Washington and Utah are lined up to play each other.

This whole thing is sensitive because it seems eerily similar to the Big 12 negotiations with BYU and TCU. BYU thought they were in, but here's TCU that can comply to the Big 12 and not the other way around. They take TCU because it's an easier fit that takes less effort from them. I wouldn't criticize BYU for not budging on the Sunday play or honor code, but that and geography probably was the difference in why TCU was easier to take over BYU.

Without BYU adding any contrary information, that is how the dots connect for anyone looking at the information without blue goggles.

The real question in the end regardless of the exact details of what happened, is in retrospect at the end of the season, would it had been better for BYU to just take the terms of the Pac 12 and play a P5 game, or did it have no effect?

If BYU ends up in a NY6 without playing a P5 team, the point is moot. But if they don't, the decision to wait and circle back may have been a huge factor in excluding BYU.