bottom line, is that the current sec deal now looks pretty mediocre.
no way, based on ratings, should the pac 12 get anywhere close to sec and big 10 money
USC always got plenty of attention. The networks may help, but the reason the SEC has been getting so much attention is because they have had better matchups, IMO.That's because so many of the Pac-10 games were on regional FSN broadcasting. IMO the networks (read: ESPN) dictates who gets the ratings and the notoriety, not the teams playing. Sportscenter deliberately downplays games that aren't on their networks. Whoever is on top of the SEC is the exception because they're usually too big to be ignored. This doesn't prove true for everyone else, though.
USC always got plenty of attention. The networks may help, but the reason the SEC has been getting so much attention is because they have had better matchups, IMO.
Who owns the rest of the Big 10 network? ESPN? First I've heard of that.
I believe by "more games per week" he means that the Pac-12 network will be showing crap like olympic sports and swimming, which the SEC knows no one wants to watch.
That's speculative BS. The ridiculous euphoria of PAC 10 fans the last couple of days is funny. Even the coaches in that league know the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 will make that deal look like chicken feed as soon as they get around to reworking their deals. Further, as a Big 10 basketball coach told me today, "We're not in bed with a company that couldn't run the Dodgers. That's like running Wal Mart into the ground." I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone get more praise for doing nothing than Larry Scott has gotten the last couple of days.they'd be making more in the pac-16. no question about it.