This is my last reply for this thread. Your post was hard to read it was so riddled with mistakes. (Here comes the name-calling argument from you).
Why did Big 12 and Pac 12 games do better on ESPN than Fox? Same content. Only variable is the channel.
Big12/Pac12 games do better on ESPN than Fox (let alone FS1). Look at my link, that's a fact. B1G games would conceivably do better on Fox than Big 12 games on Fox. This is part of your argument and I agree with it. So why wouldn't B1G games do better on ABC/ESPN than Fox/FS1? It's a simple chain of logic that you're just not grasping.
- Big12/Pac12 on ESPN > Big 12/Pac12 on Fox
- B1G viewers > Big12/Pac12 viewers
- B1G on ESPN > B1G on Fox
I can't simplify it any more than that. You're willingly docking yourself viewers by choosing Fox over ESPN.
And what worst (what's worse is) Fox never showed any BIG12 games on Fox it's (its) flag ship during a Saturday after noon, well it wasn't in there (their) contract either.
They had numerous primetime 7:30 kickoffs and still got their ass kicked in the ratings by ESPN's afternoon slate. Again, that's a cable company beating a nearly universally broadcast channel in Fox. Compare apples to apples with FS1 and ESPN and it's a joke. Big 12 football is entertaining to watch. Casual fans love scoring and the Big 12 throws the ball around more than anyone. Yet they're still not migrating to FS1 in droves. Here is another point you're completely whiffing on. Imagine what ESPN's ratings would be if they kept their content off of ABC like Fox kept a lot of their content on FS1 to boost ratings.
Now spit out more "ESPiN, ESECPN, SEC Bias", and whatever is today's super high-brow acronym. Walk away feeling like you won the debate despite your argument being based on your emotional opinion of ESPN.