in considering both sides I think the PAC 12 has to consider future offers not only in respect to proposed deal but, in light of historical evidence. The commissioner sold them originally on the go it alone strategy. Regardless of his reason for taking that position the results to date reflect he could not deliver on his promises and damages his credibility in terms of a future deal.

The current media landscape seems to argue strongly for resources and leverage and established distribution channels and relationships. As it relates to the PAC 12, their value is what somebody is willing to pay them and the fact the offers may be lowballed reflecting their weakened position falls on them. History is full of sellers who held an inflated sense of their worth or abilities who had to later limp to the table and accept substantially less than what they originally were offerred or were worth. Some swallowed their pride and did that, a few chose to stay the course and survived and many sunk even further to the point of nonexistence or having to accept an even lesser offer. That is the question PAC12 leadership now faces. Do we take a present, even if less attractive, offer and potentially give away some future upside in exchange for longer term stability and less downside risk or do we roll the dice again with the current leader who made the wrong initial bet in hopes of a potentially greater upside but, a far greater downside? In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."
[Post edited by 2hhoop3 at 03/28/2019 2:25PM]