Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 1051033, member: 622"]
I like your posts but will have to disagree with your source's math.  He was VERY generous in comparing the NYC media willingly paying $1.00/subscriber when that is the average for the BTN in BTN centric states.  Below fifty cents would be far more believable, perhaps as low as 10 cents/.

As for Rutgers paying for themselves, I again must disagree as there is more interest in the other BTN schools than Rutgers so the BTN could have had this deal without Rutgers and without paying for a patsy game.

Further, the writer assumes every east coast city/state will also pay the BTN premium.  This is especially generous as Philly is already a "BTN" town, DC never cared about Maryland football and so and so on.

We should probably wait for the real numbers to come out before we crown the BTN the sweepstakes winner this writer believes them to be.

Food for thought: If the BTN can get such a good deal, why isn't ESPN fast tracking the SECN and ACCN to at least capitalize on the generosity of the cable networks in NYC and the northeast?  Why is ESPN ceding ground (NYC, Northeast) to the BTN when ESPN (owned by Disney and partnered by ABC) could easily make things happen if it was that advantageous?

Edit: Another point, the BTN is still 51% owned by Fox, so the B1G is getting slightly less than half of any deal.  Even with the generous math the writer used (back of the napkin, I think is the term he used), the BTN would receive less than $24MM, if I recall, which is less than each team earned last season without Rutgers.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?