Comcast partnering with the Big East

Submitted by bleedscarlet on July 24th, 2008 at 5:58 AM

I wrote a post today detailing the Big East's new partnership with Comcast. There are a couple parallels and contrasts to the ongoing Big Ten Network saga that may be of interest to anyone who's followed the coverage of the BTN's attempts to get itself up off the ground.

Would the Big Ten have been better off partnering with Comcast/Versus from the start, instead of bickering for a year?



July 24th, 2008 at 9:49 AM ^

So in essence, this is not so much a partnership between the Big East and Comcast as a partnership between Rutgers and SNY, correct? Will FSNY be available (on expanded basic or saturated digital cable) in markets like Louisville, Morgantown, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Syracuse and Miami? If the answer is "No", then why would you even broach the question if the Big Ten should have done the same thing? Leaving aside the little detail of "money" what is the coverage? You seem to assume that Comcast is going to place this programming outside of the immediate Manhattan market, i don't see that impression anywhere in the Big East press release.So if I am a fan of South Florida and live in the Pittsburgh area, will I get to see USF @ Rutgers on my basic cable system (and in HD?) I get that this is a good deal for the Rutgers fan living in Jersey/Southern New York State, but outside of there?? To answer your question about the Big Ten, the answer is no. The Big Ten got a 10 year deal from Comcast that more than makes up (financially) for sitting out for a year. This is the future of television/conference broadcasting and the SEC details with ESPN about killing off Raycom regional telecasts proves the point.