Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
ACC ACC ACC
Comments
-
Here's to hoping that ALL your favorite sportsbars start televising non revenue sports.Sandra6 said:whlinder said:
I am referring to all the other mindless and menial content which is constantly on from the B1G, not their prime football property. It’s on. ACC is not.Sandra6 said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Do you seriously think that games like Ohio State v Michigan are "constantly on in bars in the DC Metro" because Maryland is in the Big Ten?
Practically every sports bar in all 50 states of the US gets the BTN. It's not like sports bars in the DC Metro are only getting the BTN because Maryland is in the league. I'm not sure what your point is.
You seriously go to DC area sports bars that show college non-revenue sports? You must go to really strange sports bars.
Even if it's a a rare day where no live sports event that anybody will care about is taking place, every sports bar I've gone to will show replays of a 41-10 NFL blowout or 8-0 MLB blowout long before they'd show water polo. (Or any other college non-revenue sport.) Or else they might just not have the TVs on at all that day.
If I ever saw a sports bar televising a college non-revenue sport, I'd never go to that sports bar again. -
Good night IrenePurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
Gadz( • )Y( • )ks!DerekJohnson said:
Good night IrenePurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
I, for one, have always appreciated ASCII art.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Gadz( • )Y( • )ks!DerekJohnson said:
Good night IrenePurpleThrobber said:whlinder said:
Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.Sandra6 said:UW_Doog_Bot said:
Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.Sandra6 said:rodmansrage said:
thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.Sandra6 said:
PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)
And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.
People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
Need more ACC content. -
-
id take it and be happy about it at this pointrodmansrage said: -
I did a cursory search on Forbes and found only a grammatically deficient article, vague on any details. Wondering if there is a clear source that some talks are happening... until I see it assuming this is going nowhere
-
Actually Forbes is overrated... I see they published editorials from a guy I know who fancies himself an expert in something
-
I give you the Apostle of Grammar.AOG said:I did a cursory search on Forbes and found only a grammatically deficient article, vague on any details. Wondering if there is a clear source that some talks are happening... until I see it assuming this is going nowhere
