it doesn't mean the conference shouldn't jump into another bad. As of right now, 2 pieces of information we don't know is what year ESPN wanted the deal to expire and how much ESPN was willing to pay the PAC-12 during that time period.

One thing I found puzzling during this good and interesting discussion is your assumption that ESPN would be willing to pay the Pac-12 more money and still pay them what they are worth. The reason I found it puzzling is because the Pac-12 isn't a hot commodity in the East Coast Market due to the time zone differences, so I am not following how having ESPN on board would suddenly make those problems go away given those problems exist under the current ESPN agreement. The Pac12N wouldn't suddenly start showing more live on content at the 7pm EST time slot during the week, so it would still be stuck with the 9pm or later EST time slots. Also, I don't see more non Pac-12 fans staying up late during the week just because ESPN now controls the Pac12N. This dilemma is what led me to believe that the Pac-12 probably receive less money than the ACC and maybe even the AAC given that majority of the AAC members are located east of the Mississippi.

I think we both can agree that it will be interesting to see if the Pac-12's gamble will or won't pay off in the end. Who knows it is even possible that the conferences may conclude some day that ACC's approach to agree to 1 contract for a long period of time is not the best approach for a conference to maximize its revenue stream. Instead, a conference may find it can make more money by agreeing to multiple contracts with shorter terms during that same time period because of how quickly the landscape changes. It will be fascinating to see which gamble pays off for a conference which ones don't pay off in the end.