the big 10 absolutely did. the pac-12 and big 10 deal are virtually identical except that the pac 12 charged less per subscriber.
Dish has to take those channels in a pathetic, desperate attempt to compete against a vastly superior product.
comcast and time warner and uverse. i was surprised direct tv gave it the middle finger given the fact that los angeles is it's headquarters and still is a very large percentage of their base.
i've had both and the only superiority is the nfl ticket and maybe the dvr (not by much though). 10 years ago you would be correct.
The Big 10 merits what they asked for. Their ratings justify it, as well as the access Rutgers and Maryland give them to the New York and DC markets. Also, it's part of the sports package. It's not part of any basic package. The PAC 12 and SEC have both asked to be treated like one of the ESPNs or FS1. That's ludicrous.
and the mountain west got a deal too despite absolutely no one wanting it. i'd say the difference is direct tv has decided the cost isn't worth the lost number of subscribers. before they wanted to be known as the sports providor. obviously they've changed their mind.
they certainly care about the dodgers and they didn't get that one either and btw college football is the nfl in LA.
i agree the pac-12 asked for too much money. my only point is the big 10 asked for too much money as well (as evidenced by the fact direct tv was virtually the only providor that had it in it's first year), but direct tv still payed for it.
Or, they realize the truth. The Big 10 merits inclusion on the terms they have and the PAC 12 and the SEC can accept those or be excluded.
People actually watch the Big 10. The fact everyone joined in adding them behind DirecTV should tell you something.
All of whom can get every meaningful game played in their league on CBS or ESPN. The SEC Network, like the PAC 12, is a money grab praying on the fringe element of fandom.