I think I already get the BTN in KC on TWC
but I don't really like mediocre football so I've never actually watched it
It's on the basic DirecTV package, too. You'd think the east coast would already have it.
have it on cox in MHK
It's not whether you have the BTN. It's how much you pay for it. Subscribers that live in the Big Ten market areas pay a much higher rate than subscribers that are not in the Big Ten market areas. That's why Rutgers was so valuable to them. Most of the people in New Jersey likely already had the BTN, but now the BTN will be able to quadruple (or more) the rates they charge in that state. The people in New Jersey don't get anything new or different... they just get to pay more for it.
New Jersey has roughly 8.8 million people. At an average of 3.5 people per household, there are roughly 2.5 million households in that state. Assume that every one of them is a cable/satellite subscriber and that every one of them already have BTN in their channel lineup. Instead of charging $0.10 per month per household, the Big Ten will now be able to charge $0.50 per month per household or more. It doesn't matter how many balls Rutgers sucks, the Big Ten conference will get a ton of money from the BTN simply by bringing Rutgers into the fold.
This is one of the reasons why people are talking about the idea of the Big Ten expanding beyond 16. Why not 18? or 20? or more? As long as they keep adding schools in high population areas, they keep growing their revenue from the network.
As for KU, does the state of KS and the KC metro area qualify as "high population"? Doubtful. Especially if the Big Ten could simply add Mizzou and get the KC area plus St Louis and the rest of the much more highly populated state of Missouri. I admit, the thought of this makes me laugh. KU fans act so giddy about the interest from the Big Ten, so for them to have to watch their bitter rival get 'their' spot... boy, I don't know. Would be good for an epic meltdown or two.