Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 2173327, member: 622"]
The writer makes a reasonable argument and a valid point if the whole ESPN earnings issue was the only issue.  When you consider that ESPN does NOT have to earn the same amount as they were before, that very high profits (the reason Disney wanted the property in the first place!)  can be lowered to a more modest level, top end exec and talent salaries can be trimmed, production costs can be trimmed (use more local techs vs. flying around technical personnel across the country - I had a neighbor that would be sent everywhere in the U.S. but nothing within 200 miles).

I agree that full a la carte may not be the most desirable for the top end consumers (those of us who need ESPN for our live game action - Read SEC, ACC, B1G, Big 12, many small conferences, MLB, NFL, etc. fans), but in truth, the average person who does not watch sports will be benefited by dropping their highest expense in viewing TV.  Because something may benefit me better in this manner does not mean it is best for everyone.  Besides, in the long run, the rights markets will be squeezed a bit (does anyone really believe the B1G is worth their projected $40-50Mil/year/team?) or that MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL needs to pay extremely generous salaries to guys getting paid to do what we can only dream of doing for a job?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?