Also, I agree with you that ESPN and Fox both took that into consideration when they made their offers to the Pac-12. What I don't know (and I can go either way on this) is whether Fox and/or ESPN intentionally low balled the Pac-12's "value" while they were at the negotiation table.

If I was in their shoes, then I would do it because I probably would have the mindset that I won't lose any sleep if I don't have the Pac-12 in my portfolio because a small percentage of people on the East Coast will stay up late during the week and weekend to watch any Pac-12 content. On the flip side, if I was in Scott's shoes then I wouldn't agree to a "low ball" offer unless a majority of the schools wanted to accept it. As Commission, I would feel that if I had accepted a "low ball" offer, then it would be the same as if I bent over and took one up the tailpipe. As a neutral observer, I do believe either offer was probably "fair" and maybe slightly on the low side, but as Commissioner I am not sure I would have reached that conclusion. I guess it would depend on the "mood" of the negotiations and how the conversations flowed. If ESPN and Fox approached the conversations from the start that they were going to significantly low ball the Pac-12's value (the only question being percentage of the undervalue), then (as the Commissioner) I would have been insulted by their position and probably not agree to their terms.