Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
Author Message
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #41
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 11:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Say what? Try looking up at post 28 or 24. As you say, reply with an argument or don't reply at all.

I was pointing out your retort to John Bragg was woefully inaccurate, seeing as how the numbers show if the PAC 12 stadiums were bigger, the audience would not be (on average).

And I disproved that, in post #36. If you have an actual counter-argument for that, I'm all ears.

Counter-argument for what? You made the foolish statement that the B1G-PAC attendance gap only showed that the PAC stadiums were smaller. Big time college football is not something that just happened lately. If Oregon could sell 80,000 tickets, they'd built an 80,000 seat stadium. They don't, because they can't, because the demand for Oregon Ducks football is not as strong as the demand for Ohio STate football, which can and does sell out 100,000 seats.

Then you made a nonsensical reference to U of Houston should be selling 100,000 seats, I guess because they're in Houston.
--Ignoring that Houston is 90 minutes from College STation, which does sell 100,000 seats.
--Without realizing that UH football is a COUNTER-example to your point. They used to play in the Astrodome. They never (AFAIK) filled it. They "right-sized" first to Robertson Stadium (I think), and now to a new stadium that they like very much. Because there is less demand for UH football than there is for UT football or A&M football, or for that matter Purdue football or Oregon State football or Mississippi State football.

Just like there is less demand for U of Washington football than there is for Wisconsin football. Which is why the PAC networks are having a harder time getting carriage than the B1G networks did when they started.
12-07-2015 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #42
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 12:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 11:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Say what? Try looking up at post 28 or 24. As you say, reply with an argument or don't reply at all.

I was pointing out your retort to John Bragg was woefully inaccurate, seeing as how the numbers show if the PAC 12 stadiums were bigger, the audience would not be (on average).

And I disproved that, in post #36. If you have an actual counter-argument for that, I'm all ears.

Counter-argument for what? You made the foolish statement that the B1G-PAC attendance gap only showed that the PAC stadiums were smaller. Big time college football is not something that just happened lately. If Oregon could sell 80,000 tickets, they'd built an 80,000 seat stadium. They don't, because they can't, because the demand for Oregon Ducks football is not as strong as the demand for Ohio STate football, which can and does sell out 100,000 seats.

Then you made a nonsensical reference to U of Houston should be selling 100,000 seats, I guess because they're in Houston.
--Ignoring that Houston is 90 minutes from College STation, which does sell 100,000 seats.
--Without realizing that UH football is a COUNTER-example to your point. They used to play in the Astrodome. They never (AFAIK) filled it. They "right-sized" first to Robertson Stadium (I think), and now to a new stadium that they like very much. Because there is less demand for UH football than there is for UT football or A&M football, or for that matter Purdue football or Oregon State football or Mississippi State football.

Just like there is less demand for U of Washington football than there is for Wisconsin football. Which is why the PAC networks are having a harder time getting carriage than the B1G networks did when they started.

I have counters for the points you just made, but I actually think that's going down a tangential path to the point being made in the thread.

So let's just assume for a second that you are correct, there is less demand for PAC in PAC states/markets than there is for B1G in B1G states/markets.

The key word is less. Less is not zero.

So if the B1G "demand index" in its states/markets was determined to be 12.3%, then the "demand index" for PAC in its states/markets would be something like 10.7%. Not 2%, like you're trying to portray.

And then the point goes back to what I was saying. If B1G could force BTN onto every basic tier in its footprint, and if PAC had done the same with P12N, then there's no reason to think that P12N would be earning substantially less revenue.



And the counters to your points, if you wanted to pursue them further:

- some schools choose to restrict supply of seats, on purpose. Duke basketball and Oregon football are two clear examples

- he was trying to say that being proximate to a large population base should mean you have huge attendance, Houston is a counter example of that

- yes, of course there are dozens of factors that go into it, beyond such a simple analysis. You can cite TA&M for Houston and I can just as easily cite the Seahawks as competition for UWash, etc.
12-07-2015 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #43
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I have counters for the points you just made, but I actually think that's going down a tangential path to the point being made in the thread.

So let's just assume for a second that you are correct, there is less demand for PAC in PAC states/markets than there is for B1G in B1G states/markets.

The key word is less. Less is not zero.

So if the B1G "demand index" in its states/markets was determined to be 12.3%, then the "demand index" for PAC in its states/markets would be something like 10.7%. Not 2%, like you're trying to portray.

It's not 6:1, but it's not 6:5.
Merchandise numbers from Walmart

Quote:And then the point goes back to what I was saying. If B1G could force BTN onto every basic tier in its footprint, and if PAC had done the same with P12N, then there's no reason to think that P12N would be earning substantially less revenue.

Gee, why didn't the PAC think of that?

Y'know, I think they did think of that. And the cable companies said, No thanks.

And the PAC said "Fear the wrath of our enraged fanbases!" And the cable companies said, "Meh."

And here we are.
12-07-2015 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #44
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I have counters for the points you just made, but I actually think that's going down a tangential path to the point being made in the thread.

So let's just assume for a second that you are correct, there is less demand for PAC in PAC states/markets than there is for B1G in B1G states/markets.

The key word is less. Less is not zero.

So if the B1G "demand index" in its states/markets was determined to be 12.3%, then the "demand index" for PAC in its states/markets would be something like 10.7%. Not 2%, like you're trying to portray.

It's not 6:1, but it's not 6:5.
Merchandise numbers from Walmart

Quote:And then the point goes back to what I was saying. If B1G could force BTN onto every basic tier in its footprint, and if PAC had done the same with P12N, then there's no reason to think that P12N would be earning substantially less revenue.

Gee, why didn't the PAC think of that?

Y'know, I think they did think of that. And the cable companies said, No thanks.

And the PAC said "Fear the wrath of our enraged fanbases!" And the cable companies said, "Meh."

And here we are.

Low grade knockoff replicas from Walmart are what dictates it?

I was never arguing about where we were. Go back and read what I wrote. I was always coming from a viewpoint of P12N being on all basic tiers. Hence why I said "if done correctly".
12-07-2015 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #45
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
lets get back to some real world FACTS here

1. revenue is a function of not only subscribers, but also FEES PAID by subscribers

there is no reason or any credible evidence to suggest that even IF (and that is IF) the PAC12n was able to gain carriage on the basic tier of cable MSOs and dish companies and fiber MSOs that they would command the same per subscriber fees as the Big 10

2. it is a proven fact that Stanford significantly shrunk the size of their stajium when they built new

it is also a proven fact that Cal significantly cut capacity with their renovations 2010 71,799 to 2013 62,467

it is a proven fact that UW shrank their stajium by nearly 2,500 with the renovations

it is a proven fact that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum have shrunk over time and USC AND UCLA do not care one bit

it is a proven fact that Sun Devil Stajium has shrank from 71,706 2013 to 64,248

it is a proven fact that the AU stajium has shrunk from 2010 57,400 to 56,029

CU has lowered or is lowering the capacity of their stajium

so right there is 8 of the 12 teams in the PAC 12 that have shrank the size of their stajium several of them significantly and most of them was very recent and WSU and OSU have made major renovations and added next to no new seats in their extremely small stajiums

and lastly

3. it is well known and a published fact that the AD of Utah was advised by many other PAC 12 ADs to give up and consideration of expansion of their stajium because it would not pay off

so 8 of the 12 teams have lowered seating and 4 of them have given little or no consideration to adding seats in a renovation and one was told NOT TO

so there is absolutely no evidence that the PAC 12 comes close to drawing live fans like the Big 10 does and there is no evidence that the PAC 12 would get the same carriage rates as the Big 10 IF they were able to get onto basic packages and in fact there is all evidence to suggest they would not....mainly because cable companies are not doing it and a major sat company is not offering them on ANY tier and no one seems to care
12-07-2015 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #46
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  lets get back to some real world FACTS here

1. revenue is a function of not only subscribers, but also FEES PAID by subscribers

there is no reason or any credible evidence to suggest that even IF (and that is IF) the PAC12n was able to gain carriage on the basic tier of cable MSOs and dish companies and fiber MSOs that they would command the same per subscriber fees as the Big 10

2. it is a proven fact that Stanford significantly shrunk the size of their stajium when they built new

it is also a proven fact that Cal significantly cut capacity with their renovations 2010 71,799 to 2013 62,467

it is a proven fact that UW shrank their stajium by nearly 2,500 with the renovations

it is a proven fact that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum have shrunk over time and USC AND UCLA do not care one bit

it is a proven fact that Sun Devil Stajium has shrank from 71,706 2013 to 64,248

it is a proven fact that the AU stajium has shrunk from 2010 57,400 to 56,029

CU has lowered or is lowering the capacity of their stajium

so right there is 8 of the 12 teams in the PAC 12 that have shrank the size of their stajium several of them significantly and most of them was very recent and WSU and OSU have made major renovations and added next to no new seats in their extremely small stajiums

and lastly

3. it is well known and a published fact that the AD of Utah was advised by many other PAC 12 ADs to give up and consideration of expansion of their stajium because it would not pay off

so 8 of the 12 teams have lowered seating and 4 of them have given little or no consideration to adding seats in a renovation and one was told NOT TO

so there is absolutely no evidence that the PAC 12 comes close to drawing live fans like the Big 10 does and there is no evidence that the PAC 12 would get the same carriage rates as the Big 10 IF they were able to get onto basic packages and in fact there is all evidence to suggest they would not....mainly because cable companies are not doing it and a major sat company is not offering them on ANY tier and no one seems to care

And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.
12-07-2015 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #47
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  lets get back to some real world FACTS here

1. revenue is a function of not only subscribers, but also FEES PAID by subscribers

there is no reason or any credible evidence to suggest that even IF (and that is IF) the PAC12n was able to gain carriage on the basic tier of cable MSOs and dish companies and fiber MSOs that they would command the same per subscriber fees as the Big 10

2. it is a proven fact that Stanford significantly shrunk the size of their stajium when they built new

it is also a proven fact that Cal significantly cut capacity with their renovations 2010 71,799 to 2013 62,467

it is a proven fact that UW shrank their stajium by nearly 2,500 with the renovations

it is a proven fact that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum have shrunk over time and USC AND UCLA do not care one bit

it is a proven fact that Sun Devil Stajium has shrank from 71,706 2013 to 64,248

it is a proven fact that the AU stajium has shrunk from 2010 57,400 to 56,029

CU has lowered or is lowering the capacity of their stajium

so right there is 8 of the 12 teams in the PAC 12 that have shrank the size of their stajium several of them significantly and most of them was very recent and WSU and OSU have made major renovations and added next to no new seats in their extremely small stajiums

and lastly

3. it is well known and a published fact that the AD of Utah was advised by many other PAC 12 ADs to give up and consideration of expansion of their stajium because it would not pay off

so 8 of the 12 teams have lowered seating and 4 of them have given little or no consideration to adding seats in a renovation and one was told NOT TO

so there is absolutely no evidence that the PAC 12 comes close to drawing live fans like the Big 10 does and there is no evidence that the PAC 12 would get the same carriage rates as the Big 10 IF they were able to get onto basic packages and in fact there is all evidence to suggest they would not....mainly because cable companies are not doing it and a major sat company is not offering them on ANY tier and no one seems to care

And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

and yet there is even less evidence that shrinking stajium size and the inability to even sell out smaller venues somehow supports the notion that the PAC12n has the same demand and viability and profit potential as the Big 10 "if only" (insert a million factually and real world refuted scenarios here)
12-07-2015 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #48
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

You made the claim that suggested that PAC stadium size restricted their potential attendance as compared to the Big Ten, and that otherwise they had the same, or larger, fanbases as Big Ten schools. That was YOUR claim. And not only is there is no evidence to support this, Todge's post directly proves it wrong. Yet every response for the last ten posts or so is a derivative of that point YOU made, which was wrong. This was proven false, even at the same time you demanded a counter argument, that refuted your statement. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2015 03:01 PM by adcorbett.)
12-07-2015 02:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #49
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  lets get back to some real world FACTS here

1. revenue is a function of not only subscribers, but also FEES PAID by subscribers

there is no reason or any credible evidence to suggest that even IF (and that is IF) the PAC12n was able to gain carriage on the basic tier of cable MSOs and dish companies and fiber MSOs that they would command the same per subscriber fees as the Big 10

2. it is a proven fact that Stanford significantly shrunk the size of their stajium when they built new

it is also a proven fact that Cal significantly cut capacity with their renovations 2010 71,799 to 2013 62,467

it is a proven fact that UW shrank their stajium by nearly 2,500 with the renovations

it is a proven fact that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum have shrunk over time and USC AND UCLA do not care one bit

it is a proven fact that Sun Devil Stajium has shrank from 71,706 2013 to 64,248

it is a proven fact that the AU stajium has shrunk from 2010 57,400 to 56,029

CU has lowered or is lowering the capacity of their stajium

so right there is 8 of the 12 teams in the PAC 12 that have shrank the size of their stajium several of them significantly and most of them was very recent and WSU and OSU have made major renovations and added next to no new seats in their extremely small stajiums

and lastly

3. it is well known and a published fact that the AD of Utah was advised by many other PAC 12 ADs to give up and consideration of expansion of their stajium because it would not pay off

so 8 of the 12 teams have lowered seating and 4 of them have given little or no consideration to adding seats in a renovation and one was told NOT TO

so there is absolutely no evidence that the PAC 12 comes close to drawing live fans like the Big 10 does and there is no evidence that the PAC 12 would get the same carriage rates as the Big 10 IF they were able to get onto basic packages and in fact there is all evidence to suggest they would not....mainly because cable companies are not doing it and a major sat company is not offering them on ANY tier and no one seems to care

And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

and yet there is even less evidence that shrinking stajium size and the inability to even sell out smaller venues somehow supports the notion that the PAC12n has the same demand and viability and profit potential as the Big 10 "if only" (insert a million factually and real world refuted scenarios here)

Doesn't have to be exactly equal.

Like I said, 12% to 10%.
12-07-2015 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #50
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I have counters for the points you just made, but I actually think that's going down a tangential path to the point being made in the thread.

So let's just assume for a second that you are correct, there is less demand for PAC in PAC states/markets than there is for B1G in B1G states/markets.

The key word is less. Less is not zero.

So if the B1G "demand index" in its states/markets was determined to be 12.3%, then the "demand index" for PAC in its states/markets would be something like 10.7%. Not 2%, like you're trying to portray.

It's not 6:1, but it's not 6:5.
Merchandise numbers from Walmart

Quote:And then the point goes back to what I was saying. If B1G could force BTN onto every basic tier in its footprint, and if PAC had done the same with P12N, then there's no reason to think that P12N would be earning substantially less revenue.

Gee, why didn't the PAC think of that?

Y'know, I think they did think of that. And the cable companies said, No thanks.

And the PAC said "Fear the wrath of our enraged fanbases!" And the cable companies said, "Meh."

And here we are.

Low grade knockoff replicas from Walmart are what dictates it?

I was never arguing about where we were. Go back and read what I wrote. I was always coming from a viewpoint of P12N being on all basic tiers. Hence why I said "if done correctly".

OK, sure. If the PAC schools had similar levels of fanbase size and commitment as the B1G, or why not go all the way and say the SEC, PAC networks would be on basic cable throughout the PAC states for RSN-level carriage fees, and on basic cable in the rest of the country for cheap.

But since they don't.....

Tell you what. Go look up the FBS athletic budget numbers, knock off each conference's TV revenue, and see if the PAC schools stack up to the B1G.

College sports is an arena in which the rich/strong/powerful are able to make moves that make themselves richer/stronger/more powerful. In the last decade, one of those moves is "create a conference network." You'll notice that the two strongest conferences made it happen. One conference made it happen and it was a catastrophic failure--the MWC. One conference has made it happen, but with limited success.

In terms of conference strength, the PAC is on a level with the ACC and Big 12. But geography is in their favor, in that it's hard to see the B1G or SEC raiding USC and/or UCLA away from the PAC.
12-07-2015 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #51
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

You made the claim that suggested that PAC stadium size restricted their potential attendance as compared to the Big Ten, and that otherwise they had the same, or larger, fanbases as Big Ten schools. That was YOUR claim. And not only is there is no evidence to support this, Todge's post directly proves it wrong. Yet every response for the last ten posts or so is a derivative of that point YOU made, which was wrong. This was proven false, even at the same time you demanded a counter argument, that refuted your statement. 07-coffee3

First of all, if you actually read my post, I said the alumni bases were the same size and had the same wealth. That is true.

And as viewership for the regular season is mostly alumni (though I admit, some non-alumni are fans) then it stands to reason that viewership potential should be similar to that of the B1G.

His post doesn't even come close to disproving that.
12-08-2015 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #52
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-07-2015 03:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I have counters for the points you just made, but I actually think that's going down a tangential path to the point being made in the thread.

So let's just assume for a second that you are correct, there is less demand for PAC in PAC states/markets than there is for B1G in B1G states/markets.

The key word is less. Less is not zero.

So if the B1G "demand index" in its states/markets was determined to be 12.3%, then the "demand index" for PAC in its states/markets would be something like 10.7%. Not 2%, like you're trying to portray.

It's not 6:1, but it's not 6:5.
Merchandise numbers from Walmart

Quote:And then the point goes back to what I was saying. If B1G could force BTN onto every basic tier in its footprint, and if PAC had done the same with P12N, then there's no reason to think that P12N would be earning substantially less revenue.

Gee, why didn't the PAC think of that?

Y'know, I think they did think of that. And the cable companies said, No thanks.

And the PAC said "Fear the wrath of our enraged fanbases!" And the cable companies said, "Meh."

And here we are.

Low grade knockoff replicas from Walmart are what dictates it?

I was never arguing about where we were. Go back and read what I wrote. I was always coming from a viewpoint of P12N being on all basic tiers. Hence why I said "if done correctly".

OK, sure. If the PAC schools had similar levels of fanbase size and commitment as the B1G, or why not go all the way and say the SEC, PAC networks would be on basic cable throughout the PAC states for RSN-level carriage fees, and on basic cable in the rest of the country for cheap.

But since they don't.....

Tell you what. Go look up the FBS athletic budget numbers, knock off each conference's TV revenue, and see if the PAC schools stack up to the B1G.

College sports is an arena in which the rich/strong/powerful are able to make moves that make themselves richer/stronger/more powerful. In the last decade, one of those moves is "create a conference network." You'll notice that the two strongest conferences made it happen. One conference made it happen and it was a catastrophic failure--the MWC. One conference has made it happen, but with limited success.

In terms of conference strength, the PAC is on a level with the ACC and Big 12. But geography is in their favor, in that it's hard to see the B1G or SEC raiding USC and/or UCLA away from the PAC.

Cal, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado ... these aren't strong, rich, powerful schools?? What world do you live in??

These are the same thing, in their respective states and markets as Minnesota, Wisc, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, etc. are in their states and markets.
12-08-2015 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #53
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-08-2015 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

You made the claim that suggested that PAC stadium size restricted their potential attendance as compared to the Big Ten, and that otherwise they had the same, or larger, fanbases as Big Ten schools. That was YOUR claim. And not only is there is no evidence to support this, Todge's post directly proves it wrong. Yet every response for the last ten posts or so is a derivative of that point YOU made, which was wrong. This was proven false, even at the same time you demanded a counter argument, that refuted your statement. 07-coffee3

First of all, if you actually read my post, I said the alumni bases were the same size and had the same wealth. That is true.

And as viewership for the regular season is mostly alumni (though I admit, some non-alumni are fans) then it stands to reason that viewership potential should be similar to that of the B1G.

His post doesn't even come close to disproving that.

Except that in old Big Ten country, and in SEC country, viewership is not mostly alumni. It's mostly "Walmart fans." Which the Big Ten has, and the PAC largely does not.
12-08-2015 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #54
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-08-2015 09:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

You made the claim that suggested that PAC stadium size restricted their potential attendance as compared to the Big Ten, and that otherwise they had the same, or larger, fanbases as Big Ten schools. That was YOUR claim. And not only is there is no evidence to support this, Todge's post directly proves it wrong. Yet every response for the last ten posts or so is a derivative of that point YOU made, which was wrong. This was proven false, even at the same time you demanded a counter argument, that refuted your statement. 07-coffee3

First of all, if you actually read my post, I said the alumni bases were the same size and had the same wealth. That is true.

And as viewership for the regular season is mostly alumni (though I admit, some non-alumni are fans) then it stands to reason that viewership potential should be similar to that of the B1G.

His post doesn't even come close to disproving that.

Except that in old Big Ten country, and in SEC country, viewership is not mostly alumni. It's mostly "Walmart fans." Which the Big Ten has, and the PAC largely does not.

A) that is entirely your opinion, based on your own observations and experiences. Not based on any type of scientific polling.

B) if the PAC games were on all the basic tiers, maybe they'd have more casual fans?

Did the chicken come first? Or the egg? Hmmm...
12-08-2015 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #55
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
I think Bison has a goal to see how many times he can be proven wrong in a thread? If so, well done sir. Just because you counter with "it doesn't prove it" doesn't mean that is actually true. Nearly every post or point you have made the last four days, has unequivocally been proven incorrect. Every single one. And by 8 or 9 different posters.
12-08-2015 11:09 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #56
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-08-2015 10:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And there is no evidence that PAC stadium size creates an artificially low ceiling on PAC viewership.

You made the claim that suggested that PAC stadium size restricted their potential attendance as compared to the Big Ten, and that otherwise they had the same, or larger, fanbases as Big Ten schools. That was YOUR claim. And not only is there is no evidence to support this, Todge's post directly proves it wrong. Yet every response for the last ten posts or so is a derivative of that point YOU made, which was wrong. This was proven false, even at the same time you demanded a counter argument, that refuted your statement. 07-coffee3

First of all, if you actually read my post, I said the alumni bases were the same size and had the same wealth. That is true.

And as viewership for the regular season is mostly alumni (though I admit, some non-alumni are fans) then it stands to reason that viewership potential should be similar to that of the B1G.

His post doesn't even come close to disproving that.

Except that in old Big Ten country, and in SEC country, viewership is not mostly alumni. It's mostly "Walmart fans." Which the Big Ten has, and the PAC largely does not.

A) that is entirely your opinion, based on your own observations and experiences. Not based on any type of scientific polling.

B) if the PAC games were on all the basic tiers, maybe they'd have more casual fans?

Did the chicken come first? Or the egg? Hmmm...

1. Oregon is hardly a "wealthy school" the higher education funding in Oregon is not that high relative to other places and Oregon has a major issue with too many small universities located all over the state inefficiently using up limited state resources

Oregon might have a well funded athletics program thanks to the generosity of their alumni and one in particular, but the school itself is not on the level of the others mentioned when it comes to resources

2. are you really living in a pretend world where the Big 10 just suddenly had massive stajiums and filled them with huge numbers of fans every week during the season and that all happened in the last few years because the BTN has suddenly allowed them to grow massive numbers of casual fans and viewers

not to mention the SECn is only one year old and the SEC has been filling massive stajiums for decades and EXPANDING them for decades Vs SHRINKING THEM as the PAC 12 is CONSISTENTLY doing

3. alumni base does NOT equal "fans" one can ask north Texas state about that with their (claimed) 200,000 alumni in the DFW area and their inability to sell out a 32,000 seat stajium even a single time in several seasons and while they have "suck" as an excuse the PAC 12 for the most part does not have near that level of "suck" to use as an excuse and just like the Big 10 and SEC did not build their fan bases overnight and their viewership overnight north Texas state did not build their "suck" overnight nor did they run off most of their alumni as fans overnight

4. very CLEARLY what comes first is having a large and vocal fan base that WANTS your channel to be on their picture box because THAT is what has happened with the BTN and with the SECn and what HAS NOT happened with the PAC12n in spite of the fact that the PAC 12 and Dish trying to advertise to draw fans away from Direct TV because they do not even offer the PAC12n on any tier of service
12-08-2015 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #57
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-08-2015 11:09 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think Bison has a goal to see how many times he can be proven wrong in a thread? If so, well done sir. Just because you counter with "it doesn't prove it" doesn't mean that is actually true. Nearly every post or point you have made the last four days, has unequivocally been proven incorrect. Every single one. And by 8 or 9 different posters.

Nonsense. None of you have proven the main point that is driving the discussion, one way or the other.

But as typical on internet message boards, when you run out of counter-arguments, you just insult the other people, declare victory and walk away.
12-08-2015 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #58
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-08-2015 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 10:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-07-2015 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You made the claim that suggested that PAC stadium size restricted their potential attendance as compared to the Big Ten, and that otherwise they had the same, or larger, fanbases as Big Ten schools. That was YOUR claim. And not only is there is no evidence to support this, Todge's post directly proves it wrong. Yet every response for the last ten posts or so is a derivative of that point YOU made, which was wrong. This was proven false, even at the same time you demanded a counter argument, that refuted your statement. 07-coffee3

First of all, if you actually read my post, I said the alumni bases were the same size and had the same wealth. That is true.

And as viewership for the regular season is mostly alumni (though I admit, some non-alumni are fans) then it stands to reason that viewership potential should be similar to that of the B1G.

His post doesn't even come close to disproving that.

Except that in old Big Ten country, and in SEC country, viewership is not mostly alumni. It's mostly "Walmart fans." Which the Big Ten has, and the PAC largely does not.

A) that is entirely your opinion, based on your own observations and experiences. Not based on any type of scientific polling.

B) if the PAC games were on all the basic tiers, maybe they'd have more casual fans?

Did the chicken come first? Or the egg? Hmmm...

1. Oregon is hardly a "wealthy school" the higher education funding in Oregon is not that high relative to other places and Oregon has a major issue with too many small universities located all over the state inefficiently using up limited state resources

Oregon might have a well funded athletics program thanks to the generosity of their alumni and one in particular, but the school itself is not on the level of the others mentioned when it comes to resources

2. are you really living in a pretend world where the Big 10 just suddenly had massive stajiums and filled them with huge numbers of fans every week during the season and that all happened in the last few years because the BTN has suddenly allowed them to grow massive numbers of casual fans and viewers

not to mention the SECn is only one year old and the SEC has been filling massive stajiums for decades and EXPANDING them for decades Vs SHRINKING THEM as the PAC 12 is CONSISTENTLY doing

3. alumni base does NOT equal "fans" one can ask north Texas state about that with their (claimed) 200,000 alumni in the DFW area and their inability to sell out a 32,000 seat stajium even a single time in several seasons and while they have "suck" as an excuse the PAC 12 for the most part does not have near that level of "suck" to use as an excuse and just like the Big 10 and SEC did not build their fan bases overnight and their viewership overnight north Texas state did not build their "suck" overnight nor did they run off most of their alumni as fans overnight

4. very CLEARLY what comes first is having a large and vocal fan base that WANTS your channel to be on their picture box because THAT is what has happened with the BTN and with the SECn and what HAS NOT happened with the PAC12n in spite of the fact that the PAC 12 and Dish trying to advertise to draw fans away from Direct TV because they do not even offer the PAC12n on any tier of service

1 - fair point. So take Oregon off the list. Point still stands.

2 & 3 - nothing more than your inability to decouple the concepts of attendance and viewership. They are entirely separate.

4 - not clear at all. Too many examples to list of where supply drives demand. Econ 101
12-08-2015 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #59
RE: SBJ: The complicated case of the Pac-12 Networks
(12-08-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(12-08-2015 11:09 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think Bison has a goal to see how many times he can be proven wrong in a thread? If so, well done sir. Just because you counter with "it doesn't prove it" doesn't mean that is actually true. Nearly every post or point you have made the last four days, has unequivocally been proven incorrect. Every single one. And by 8 or 9 different posters.

Nonsense. None of you have proven the main point that is driving the discussion, one way or the other.

But as typical on internet message boards, when you run out of counter-arguments, you just insult the other people, declare victory and walk away.

Let's make one thing clear. I post under my own name. So there is no "internet message board" mantra of hiding behind a screen name, which i what you are aiming at. That is you, not me. Two, I didn't declare victory and walk off: I actually showed it. YOU though, do it religiously. Just like now.
12-08-2015 07:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.