[OutsiderFan]

While I agree with the gist of Farm93's position, it doesn't factor in the equity issue.  Let's pretend the Pac-12 partnered with ESPN for Pac-12 Network before the SEC did, and the SEC decided to go it alone as the Pac-12 did.  What would things look like then?

Would the SEC and B1G networks be doing as well if they didn't have the carriage they do now?  The main reason they do is a result of FOX and ESPN having equity stakes in them, that forced cable providers to include these networks on their systems.  Would the SEC been able to force its way into the cable and satellite packages in say California, if on its own network?  Doubtful.  This to some degree weakens the "A's vs. Yankees" argument, because it doesn't take into account the promotional power ESPN has.  If ESPN was giving Pac-12 football top billing and weekly prime viewing slots, I'm pretty sure the Pac-12 would be generating a lot more money, even if ESPN owned a 50% stake.  The Pac-12 would be generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in Florida, forced to pay for Pac-12 Network to get ESPN.  Right now, SEC schools are generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in California forced to pay for SEC Network to get ESPN.  It's always better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, than a big piece of a small one. 

All that said I'm a little confused about how B1G revenue is increasing at a time when cord cutting and cord nevers are starting to pile up.  What keeps income going up when revenues are ostensibly going down?

[OutsiderFan]

While I agree with the gist of Farm93's position, it doesn't factor in the equity issue.  Let's pretend the Pac-12 partnered with ESPN for Pac-12 Network before the SEC did, and the SEC decided to go it alone as the Pac-12 did.  What would things look like then?

Would the SEC and B1G networks be doing as well if they didn't have the carriage they do now?  The main reason they do is a result of FOX and ESPN having equity stakes in them, that forced cable providers to include these networks on their systems.  Would the SEC been able to force its way into the cable and satellite packages in say California, if on its own network?  Doubtful.  This to some degree weakens the "A's vs. Yankees" argument, because it doesn't take into account the promotional power ESPN has.  If ESPN was giving Pac-12 football top billing and weekly prime viewing slots, I'm pretty sure the Pac-12 would be generating a lot more money, even if ESPN owned a 50% stake.  The Pac-12 would be generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in Florida, forced to pay for Pac-12 Network to get ESPN.  Right now, SEC schools are generating gobs of revenue from poor suckers in California forced to pay for SEC Network to get ESPN.  It's always better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie, than a big piece of a small one. 

All that said I'm a little confused about how B1G revenue is increasing at a time when cord cutting and cord nevers are starting to pile up.  What keeps income going up when revenues are ostensibly going down?