Yes but who knows what exactly and how exactly those things are implemented.
People who are in the industry or pay enough attention to the industry to know what is going on.
I still think they could sign a deal that put it in the sports teirs and everyone could survivor. Pac12 could still charge more and no hurt MFN I would imagine and dtv would get what they want which is a different teir.
MFN prevents a competitor from getting a better deal without making the previous deals better. For example, if DISH agrees to $10 per subscriber per month with an MFN clause then Comcast getting a contract for $9 per subscriber per month would lower DISH's rate. Carriers are free to make worse deals than their competitors ... for example Comcast agreeing to pay $11 per subscriber after DISH agreed to $10 per subscriber would not affect DISH's rate.
If the tier is the point of contention that may get written in as an MFN. But after introducing a channel in a lower tier (the one Pac-12 wants) raising it to a higher tier (the one the carrier wanted) is bad for publicity. Such an MFN clause (ie: "you must place the channel(s) in Choice in market unless another carrier is given permission to place the channel in a higher package") would free up the previous contracted carriers to move the channels (and reduce the subscriber count) but there would be risk involved for the carrier. How would an in market customer like it if PAC-12 was in Choice when introduced and then a year later jumped to Sports Pack/Premier?
PAC-12 wants to ADD subscribers - not lose them. If a deal with DirecTV to add their subscribers caused PAC-12 to lose subscribers through other carriers or reduced per subscriber payments from other carriers it would be a bad deal for PAC-12. DirecTV would need to bring more subscribers and money to the table than PAC-12 would lose when accepting the deal.
It seems that PAC-12 is doing fine without DirecTV and are confident going forward. DirecTV can say the same.