Sure, but at the same time discussion is going to dry up every time somebody says \"wouldn\'t it be great if GSN did a thing?\" and the answer is \"they won\'t because it costs money to do that.\"
Right. My point is that not nearly as many discussions would dry up if the OP would demonstrate that very basic understanding in the first place.
(And, actually, \"wouldn\'t it be great if?\" is a totally valid construction for that. But you will agree that we get far more \"Hey, here\'s an idea\"s and \"You know, they should\"s, and those are the posts I am referring to.
but Sale of the Century slid under the limbo bar.
That\'s true. But GSN also has no analog to $otC that is a free alternative.
That said, Bill Cullen > Dylan Lane in the same sense that Dick Clark > everyone else, so there *might* be an argument there. But I\'m not convinced that GSN knows that or that it would grab the audience the same way $otC (surprisingly, delightedly so) seems to have.
But part of their model should also be picking up new stuff, whether that\'s Greed, Win Lose or Draw or Pyramid: 2002.
Why do you hate Pyramid so much? 
Here\'s the deal: a network that deals mostly in slightly-used programming (whether it\'s GSN or TBS) is going to obtain new and different shows to shake up their lineup when they see that viewership of what\'s there is stagnating. They are not leasing a season of Pyramid; they are leasing X00,000 pairs of eyeballs for $Y00,000. If that X/Y ratio isn\'t a number they can live with, they shouldn\'t do it, bottom line. It\'s awfully hard to come up with a competitive ratio when you have one that returns a divide-by-zero error.
