Started By
Message
re: Every SEC School will Make Serious Money--More than ND, Texas
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:10 pm to Smoke Ring
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:10 pm to Smoke Ring
quote:
7. Pac 12 Network: 26 million households $249.6 million
quote:
Big Ten Network: 52 million households $237.1 million
Because of Los Angeles? If not, this doesn't make any sense.
6
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:23 pm to TabledTiger
quote:
Because of Los Angeles? If not, this doesn't make any sense.
how so?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:27 pm to TabledTiger
they charged more and pac 12 contracts negotiated at a later date.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:28 pm to TabledTiger
I read where poor little MSU will have a $100 million athletic budget by 2016.
That's insane to me, growing up when we paid Jackie Sherrill $75,000 while he was taking us to bowl games and castrating bulls.
That's insane to me, growing up when we paid Jackie Sherrill $75,000 while he was taking us to bowl games and castrating bulls.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:31 pm to TabledTiger
quote:
Because of Los Angeles? If not, this doesn't make any sense.
Neither the B1G, and especially not the PAC12, are carried by as many cable/sat providers as the SEC is right out of the chute.
I think, if that's the question you are asking, is why there is such disparity in that regard.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:44 pm to TabledTiger
quote:
Because of Los Angeles? If not, this doesn't make any sense.
Let's look at the top 50 markets each network has in its footprint: (give 50 points for #1, 1 point for #50)
1-New York (NONE - Rutgers is in NJ)
2-Los Angeles (PAC 12)
3-Chicago (Big Ten)
4-Philadelphia (Big Ten)
5-Dallas/FW (SEC)
6-San Francisco (PAC 12)
7-Boston (NONE)
8-Atlanta (SEC)
9-Washington D.C. (NONE)
10-Houston (SEC)
11-Detroit (Big Ten)
12-Phoenix (PAC 12)
13-Tampa (SEC)
14-Seattle (PAC 12)
15-Minneapolis (Big Ten)
16-Miami (SEC)
17-Cleveland (Big Ten)
18-Denver (PAC 12)
19-Orlando (SEC)
20-Sacramento (PAC 12)
21-St. Louis (SEC - ESL doesn't count)
22-Portland (PAC 12)
23-Pittsburgh (Big Ten)
24-Charlotte (NONE)
25-Indianapolis (Big Ten)
26-Baltimore (Big Ten)
27-Raleigh (NONE)
28-San Diego (PAC 12)
29-Nashville (SEC)
30-Hartford (NONE)
31-Kansas City (SEC)
32-Columbus (Big Ten)
33-SLC (PAC 12)
34-Cincinnati (Big Ten)
35-Milwaukee (Big Ten)
36-Greenville/Spartanburg (SEC?)
37-San Antonio (SEC)
38-West Palm Beach (SEC)
39-Grand Rapids (Big Ten)
40-Birmingham (SEC)
41-Harrisburg (Big Ten)
42-Las Vegas (NONE)
43-Norfolk (NONE)
44-Albuquerque (NONE)
45-Oklahoma City (NONE)
46-Winston Salem (NONE)
47-Jacksonville (SEC)
48-Memphis (SEC)
49-Austin (SEC)
50-Louisville (SEC)
By my score:
Big Ten - 358
PAC 12 - 304
SEC - 370
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:45 pm to TabledTiger
quote:
Because of Los Angeles? If not, this doesn't make any sense.
Because a vast majority of those 26 million households is within the PAC12 footprint, where the rates are higher. The Big 10 has more households, but a higher percentage is outside of their footprint, meaning a lower subscription rate than within their footprint.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News