A few responses.
First, while the ratings of BSG by network standards are low, for a cable program they are phenomenal. The exposure of a major network guarantees a certain ratings number due to the fact that NBC is available in 100% of US households with television sets and the higher profile marketing and exposure. In addition, the Sci Fi Channel is a cable network catering to a single genre, so any advertisements on that network are preaching to a smaller target audience. NBC reaches a much broader range of viewers (not just science fiction geeks like us) and that, in turn, would guarantee a larger audience as not-traditional science fiction fans will be exposed to the adverts and may be willing to give the program a look, to which extent I do not know.
Second, why would NBC be interested in BSG? Well, BSG has been a HUGE hit with males aged 24-35 - that will get a network's attention! Males of this age make a lot more money than younger males and on average spend a lot more money than older males. There is no group that network advertisers want to target more. Just look at the NFL as an example. Fox, CBS, and ABC each pay billions to the league because it reaches this demographic. Many in the industry attribute Fox's growth and NBC's decline over the years to the NFC conference moving from NBC to Fox. That's why Fox had offered the NFL enough money to buy a small country for exclusive rights to the NFL (which was rejected by the league). NBC has tried with the Arena Football and racing to recoup some of it's lost male audience, but it hasn't happened. Perhaps they view BSG as a potential inroad. I'm telling you guys, the ratings that BSG has gotten with the 24-35 demographic, considering it is on a niche cable network on Friday nights at a relatively late hour, is phenomenal.
Third, as for the BSG mini-series ratings on NBC, the mini received little publicity, had been oft repeated, and I think most importantly was aired against a pivotal NFL playoff game that dominated the ratings. Remember, Battlestar Galactica has been a ratings hit with males in that 24-35 year old range and this same demographic area are largely NFL fans (I know I am!) so that hurt the ratings.
Fourth, regarding Sindatur's comment (That BSG is already an NBC-owned show so there is no logic to a budget increase if moved to NBC) I would say that it is because of the new stage upon which the show would be aired. For instance, Jerry Jones owns the Dallas Cowboys and an arena football team but he isn't going to put the same money into the operations for both teams because one team (Cowboys) play on a much larger stage and, therefore, it is more economically viable to spend more money because more money can be made in turn. Frankly, Sci Fi Network is like an arena football team compared to NBC as the NFL team. Again, no cable program can be as profitable as a hit program on the major networks, so if the show is a success on NBC there would be more money made, some of which COULD be reinvested into the program. Not that the show looks cheap, but perhaps a higher budget could mean more elaborate space battles and more shots of the robotic cylons. It could also allow for an expanding of the cast and we could see more sets. But remember that those already affiliated with the show would want a fee increase if a network move is made.
Personally, I hope the show remains with Sci Fi, but it's not about a fan vote. It's about whether or not NBC believes it can make money on the project. Having said that, if it did go to NBC and the creative direction of the show remains unchanged, perhaps that would be the best possible scenrio. It could open the doors for TV science fiction the why that Star Wars did for movie sci-fi and Star Trek: The Next Generation did for television sci-fi.
Off topic: I know that JMS likes to say that the sucess of TNG actually hurt getting B5 off the ground because "people didn't believe that a non-Star Trek show could make it on American television" but that is utter nonsense. So, if there wasn't a TNG potential suitors for B5 would have been more willing to invest in a VERY EXPENSIVE genre with ZERO success stories as opposed to looking at the loot that TNG and it's liscensing machine were pulling in and wanting a TNG of their own? That's one of the more nonsensical statements that JMS has made.
It's curious to me why so many science fiction creators are so catty when it comes to Star Trek. I don't believe JMS was necessarily being catty with his TNG comments, but he's not above getting into the fray with some, I believe, at times self-serving comments. (Frankly much of JMS's arguements against DS9 are laughable, though much of the controversy has been embellished by a few B5 fans with an obvious agenda, but I guess any dissent from JMS's recollection of things runs counter to the JMS hero worship by some on this and other B5-related boards. Too bad, really.) David Kemper of Farscape is the worst, with his knocking Star Trek as a means of framing his own self-praise, but he's an arrogant prick anyway.
