You keep saying that's where the "real money is at" but no clue why. Cable has a fixed floor since it has subscriber costs to supplement the advertising revenues.
No YOU were talking broadcast only. Sure, say "Broadcast TV" again, no skin off my back. Purposely excluding a major channel because B1G doesn't play there is childish.
I don't care what you did, I'll just skip your posts due to clear and obvious bias. And this isn't some week to week competition which is what makes your excluding numbers to try to prove some point even more sad.
This month was a little odd. The SEC had 4 teams with bye weeks, and then had only 3 of their 6 games on ABC or ESPN. The others were on SECN which aren't included in these numbers. That included TEX squeaking by the Vanderbilt powerhouse.
We'll see.
You aren't remotely trying to say the B1G is doing better than the SEC in viewership, are you? Look at my post above. Counting 3 games we had 13.2M, counting 8 games you had 17.8. You aren't bragging about that are you? I'd guess that one of our games not counted - TEX v. VU - would come close to making up the difference.
Tell me why broadcast TV is real money. Eyeballs are eyeballs, aren't they? Advertisers don't care if you are on CBS or ESPN ... if 4M watch on ESPN, that's the same if 4M watch on CBS, right?
Why do you omit any numbers you can get your hands on? That seems and odd way of doing it. Clearly the SEC has more games with ESPN that isn't an over the air broadcaster. But I don't get why it matters ... people spending ad money don't care.
To be honest, I don't have time to read 3 pages of your posts. If that is not what you are trying to assert, what is it you are trying to assert and prove by differentiating ESPN eyeballs v. CBS/NBC/Fox eyeballs?
I can read just fine, but you said: