You've totally misrepresented things.
1. The old ESPN contract also had the provision for the best games to got to CBS. The new contract is an extension of the old. That's why the matching provision was in there. That was from back in the Tranghese days. The whole set-up was Tranghese era.
So we don't learn from our mistakes? You take a job as a professor and it turns out the previous professor was teaching with his pants down. Do you learn the lesson, or keep teaching with your pants down? I don't care what the previous arrangement was, this was a new deal.
2. Now, I'm saying that perhaps they could have gotten a better deal from ESPN if they had given ESPN the best 12 games. CBS had no such matching rights. However, the trade-off might have been this: the games had to be guaranteed on ESPN, not 2 or U. Otherwise, it makes no sense to give up the CBS games.
You are only guessing here, same as the rest of us and yet you are so clearly right, why? I will also remind you that the dude was managing a sinking ship and his former employer ended up with a sweetheart deal. That sounds odd to me.
3. There was nothing to stop them from offering ESPN the rights to the 12 games AFTER the initial extension of the contract. Maybe they did. Maybe ESPN didn't add enough. Maybe they thought it wise to keep CBS on board (though CBS is becoming less relevant now that it's abandoned the NCAA tourney).
Um, fine.
4. Why do you constantly misrepresent the facts here? You say I'm confused. I'm not. You're taking the Pitt guy's word for it that CBS might not mean CBS Broadcast but rather a mix between that and CBS Sports? NO. Why in the world would they give the 12 best games to CBS Sports? Makes no sense. And finally, Aresco was explicit when he said that future football contracts would be on NATIONAL TELEVISION and NOT ESPN3. How much more explicit could he be?