all the Power 5 conferences (presently). Why does the SEC and B16 have more subscribers? I'd like to see the percentage of those households who stream rather than paying for cable or satellite tv per region? I'd predict that the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and California have a lower percentage of cable and satellite subscribers due to demographics or entertainment interests. Those viewers may not have any interest in sports and stream services that lack live sports. It seems like the urban areas are more likley to stream than purchase cable or satellite services? Does anyone have the website to the article (from a few years ago) showing the percentage of people per state who watch college football? I remember the SEC states had a much higher percentage. I think the state of Alabama was #1. The Northeast and West Coast had the lowest percentages. I remember the state of West Virginia had a high percentage. I think Virginia was somewhere in the middle?

that likes to read books and go to museums, a problem large swaths of the SEC doesnt have . ☺️

My assumption was that the earnings report that S&P Kagan used numbers for the ACCN before the ACCN got distribution with Comcast, and now with Comcast the ACC would be in line with the SEC. The ACCN should be in line with what the SECN is since it's the same team negotiating the distribution. The difference would be in the subscriber rates for states with an ACC team. In that regard the ACC has a populous footprint.

"You do the math. If ESPN is helping drive expansion, 2 ACC teams to the SEC would have to move the future $100 Million per team average or be revenue neutral. Adding 2 ACC Teams to the SEC contract would have to raise the SEC’s deal. That would cost ESPN an additional $290 Million (2 more teams, at 105 Million a year, worth $90 Million to raise the per-team average by 5 million). Then the likely dissolution of the ACC Network would add a $120-$140 million loss and ESPN now just took a $400 million bottom line hit to increase the size of the SEC. A diminished ACC would still have a TV rights deal as well. The numbers simply don’t work in ESPN’s favor to push SEC expansion further – at least in the short term (next 5 years). Rather ESPN would be more well suited to simply restructure the ACC’s deal."

Not having that is the mistake the PAC12 made.

Not if you compared it to the SECN, which they had every provider on board months before it's launch. Not only did ESPN NOT bring the ACCN on board at the same time as the SECN, they seemed to "slow roll" getting cable providers on board. It took Comcast several years to add the ACCN, and there were others that trickled in after the launch. Disgusting!

ESPN presented the windows for each of the contracts they had in place with the cable providers and set the expectation that the distribution would occur during those renegotiation windows or before if the provider would act mid contract. Some did, but most happened in the window. Unfortunately Comcast refused until they reached the window. This is why ESPN made the ACC wait until 2019 to start so that they could get enough distribution to start and then secure the rest over the 3 years. Comcast was last at the end of 2021. It wasn't easy, but if we didn't have Disney we'd be like the PAC12, which still isn't on DIRECTV.