This notion that Scott is doing a bad job because he cannot come to a deal with the DTV is misinformed and to complain at this point is just a waste of energy. I think he has made a lot of mistakes, more than people ding him for even. But if one wanted to blame Scott for no DTV, it would go back to the formation of the P12 network. To get the cable companies on board (and dish quickly after), he agreed they would always get the 'best rate' and not undercut them to get latecomers (ie DTV) signed up. This was important to ensure startup costs were paid for, and it may have been necessary to even get the cable companies on board. I have no idea what exactly was brought up in the initial meetings with Comcast and TWC, but I can guarantee that if those two companies didn't bring the guaranteed money and partnerships to the table to begin with, the network would not have gotten off the ground in it's current form.
As we can see now, it very well may be that the best move for the Pac-12 would have been to partner with a company like ESPN or Fox to get greater distribution, and reduce risks on costs. However, we don't actually know if they were interested. The ACC and Big 12 had similar national ratings to the Pac 12 (TV wise), and do not have networks today (The ACC's is coming in some form soon). The ACC's partnership with ESPN at the time was for a 'digital network', ie ESPN3, which doesn't exactly make headlines, or have the upside potential that the P12N has. I do feel the conference could have received more money from ESPN to do a similar thing - there is value in the 40 P12 football games withheld yearly for the current P12N. ESPN simply would have streamed them on ESPN3, which requires a subscription to ESPN... and they could do this for a smaller cost (especially with out all the extra events/studios/etc on the P12N as currently implemented).
The major issue with meeting DTV's demand now would be that the P12 Networks is pretty expensive cost wise compared with revenue. If you believe Wilner and his deductions from the P12 tax returns, the yearly costs are in the $80-100 million range with revenue slightly higher at $100-120 million. The difference being whatever gives each of the 12 schools a check for $1.5 - 2 million. Now say the in market rate is currently $.80/sub, and DTV is offering $.50/sub. Guess what... the P12 has to match that rate for Comcast, Dish, and TWC/Charter resulting in a huge hit to the revenue side, which would push the network in to actually losing money.
So yes, the P12 is backed into a corner. But would it even exist if the original terms were different? The bottom line is that it does exist, and there's absolutely no wiggle room with DTV. It's pretty much a take it or leave it offer at this point, because the network would not exist anymore at DTV's terms. BTW, I pay Comcast a ton of money each money for cable, and if it weren't for sports, college football/basketball in particular, I would have cut the cord a long time ago. So they (comcast and other cable companies) know exactly what they are doing. For those saying the P12 is in a better position in a future of cord cutting by owning their own network, that is somewhat of a misnomer too. The big money is still in the primary TV contract, which will decrease significantly if too many cut the cord. The conference networks are really scraps packaged together for some extra money.