most definitely including me, but I still maintain that you can't look at the simple math of reducing ESPN's expenditure by $6-8 million in a vacuum as necessarily helping their bottom line--it all comes down to relative value they are getting for their money. It has to.

ESPN was/is willing to pay BYU $6-8 million a year for its home games. That's what they value it at. In a vacuum (i.e., all things being equal), they would prefer to be getting our home games at that price rather than $20 million a year. If they are forced to pay a pro rata increase for two additional teams (I would love to see that contract...do they have a veto right?), the analysis is as simple as wanting to add the two teams with the highest valuation. That is completely independent of what they are already paying for BYU. If there were two other teams they valued more highly than BYU, they would rather keep BYU's inventory at the $6-8 million per year and pay the higher $20 million pro rata increase to the two higher value teams. In that scenario, they are getting more, better inventory (including BYU's games) at a better per game price. That's how the bottom line is impacted.

Again, I think BYU IS the best value proposition of available expansion candidates, so if ESPN and Fox are forced to shell out more for 2 new members, I think BYU would be at the top of the list.