Given all the noise about "future considerations" in their process - i would assume you won't hear about the "why" here until the contract runs out.
ESPN is way too big for their britches. At some point, the complete control they exhibit over college sports will (hopefully) bite them in their ass.
It speaks more to the disfunction of the B12. As we are starting to see, there were fans of particular schools, just not enought to meet the super majority.Goes to show you what P5 schools think of us. "Hmm, UConn as a full time member, or an extra $100,000k. Well we do need new water bottles for all the athletes... ok we will take the money."
There is more to this story. Members were told not to state publicly that possible additions didn't bring value. Why? It isn't true for at least 3 schools and maybe 4. There is documentation to prove it and it will probably surface at some point (UConn, Cincy, BYU, maybe Houston). That could be used later to show that ESPN lied to keep expansion from happening and worked against schools that they have an obligation to treat fairly and who deserve access to a power conference based on the facts.
There is more to this story. Members were told not to state publicly that possible additions didn't bring value. Why? It isn't true for at least 3 schools and maybe 4.
The "public" agreement is for $10MM. But do you really think that the B12 would give up their pro-rata for only $10MM? My guess is that there is an unspoken promise to the "little 8" that they will have a safe landing spot when the B12 implodes in 10 years. This was the last time that the "little 8" will ever have any leverage whatsoever over the networks, Texlahoma, and the rest of the P5. My guess (assuming they were smart), is they used the leverage they currently have to ensure their long term safety in the P5/Super Conferences.
You know what they say, such agreements are as good as the paper on which they are written. Kinda like verbal commitments in recruiting."Unspoken promises", if they exist, are largely unenforceable, especially if a later writing between the parties (the "public agreement") contains the standard contract language that the writing constitutes the sole agreement between the parties and that all amendments to same must be mutually agreed to in writing.