But you don’t sound like somebody that is worth engaging in an honest discussion. Your post is so full of negativity and bias, that it’s probably pointless to even provide a rebuttal.

But I’ll go ahead and make a couple of points here.

One of the big 12s biggest advantages is that nobody wants any of their teams. Please don’t take that as an insult as it is not. These are quality programs and quite frankly, I’m glad that my team is a part of this conference. But they don’t have any top brands. And therefore they don’t have to worry about anyone poaching them. They can sign immediate deal that is worth less money, and they are still good to go.

The PAC 12 had to worry about making more and closing the gap with other conferences Or they would risk losing some of their top brands to those conferences. That initially happened with USC and UCLA. It really killed their conference with the final death below when they lost Oregon and Washington. They knew that that was a real threat and they knew that they had to make more money. The big 12 didn’t have that risk.

The single best move that Yormark made was signing a media deal early before the PAC12. If you have read or listened to any of the very interesting discussions on the death of the PAC 12, you know that the one of the biggest reasons they failed Was the timing. Once the big 12 had struck their deal, there simply wasn’t enough competition to create a bidding war and make a deal. There was enough money and interest out there for one deal and the big 12 struck the deal first. That ended up being very harmful to the Pac valuation.

Your comments about the University of Utah killing the PAC 12 are silly. If I told you that you were in charge of 12 kids and you were going to represent those kids and make a deal on their behalf with another company and you went down and sat down with all 12 of them and they gave you 12 different valuations and you picked one of those valuations that was too high and you didn’t end up getting a deal, is it the blame of that kid who had the high valuation or is it the blame of the person who was supposed to be in charge? That’s your job. That’s what you were picked to do.

And besides that, if one side comes in with a valuation that is too high, they just get laughed at and get provided a lesser valuation/offer. Negotiations then continue. Rarely do negotiations just halt.

Deals are made because it benefits both sides. They don’t just get cut off because one person starts at too high of a price point.

The PAC 12 failed to make a deal because they didn’t have a buyer and they didn’t have competing buyers and they didn’t have the market to get a price where they needed to get it or else they would lose more teams. They didn’t fail to make a deal because one of the schools came in with too high of a valuation.

Like I said, I don’t really expect to change your mind. Your post makes it quite clear regarding who I am talking to.