[NU Sports] TV and sports

[Mike Nolan]

> There are lots of channels in the basic package that far less than 39% 
> of the subscribers view.  You'd have to be a TV addict to watch even a 
> majority of the channels.  In Big Ten country I would expect the BTN to 
> be one of the higher rated channels.

The Wall Street Journal site had an article recently talking about how the
NFL may finally have bitten off more than it can chew with their new
NFL Network channel, which many cable operators are not carrying because
of the high cost and low perceived demand.  

This article also mentioned ESPN's (mostly) successful strategy of paying
top-dollar (and in the process redefining what 'top dollar' means) for 
events then jacking up the per-subscriber fee to cable operators
to carry the ESPN family of channels.  (I think it's ironic that now
that my cable operator has finally added ESPNU to the mix, there may not
be any games on it I'm interested in this season.)

It also cited problems that the Big 10 Network is having with cable
operators balking at carrying it.  If that's true, it isn't likely to
be one of the higher rated channels even in Big 10 country.

I'm not convinced ala carte pricing will save me anything on my cable bill,
which currently adds up to several hundred dollars a month.  I've already
decided I will NOT purchase ESPN Game Plan this season, last year I think
I got TWO games I was really interested in on Game Plan all season, and 
fewer games overall than in 2005.

Personally, I think the cable operators should have to pay ME for including 
the shopping channels.  
--
Mike Nolan