What I'm saying is how many people out there are actually sports fans, and how many of them really care about ESPN. Average daily ratings instead of one time ratings for certain events gives you a better idea on those numbers.
I am saying they do not. Channels like ESPN are event driven. Not day to day watching driven. They peaks and valleys are tremendous. Look at NBC. They stink on a daily basis, but take away NBC the year they carry the Super Bowl and people will scream like greased pigs.
The same even holds for some regular channels. AMC's demand is almost totally driven by a couple of TV shows, not every day ratings.
Yeah maybe ESPN only costs $5 now (it very well might cost more) but when you look at the package prices you realize that can be as much as 10% of the package cost. And is that for all of the ESPN channels or just the main one? Also it may only cost $5 now, but next year it might be $6, then $7, etc. Meaning it is then 12% of the package cost, then 14%, etc. At some point it will reach a cost to where it is way too expensive to keep in the package since it's cost rises so much faster than all the other channels.
I don't have the numbers but I do remember that the main ESPN channel was much higher than the rest. The rest are more in the range of Viacom channels.
While ESPN is the whipping boy and they have set a trend of making sports expensive, they pay their way, so I will not pick on them for their price. The problem is not with ESPN. It is with all the RSNs that think they are worth as much or more than ESPN. The problem was set in place more by the Yankees and YES rather than ESPN, which delivers good value as an across the board station. But now we have the Lakers channel and the Dodgers channel and the Astros channel....and all of them think they are invaluable.