Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
What pushes the interest of the ever so valuable "casual" fan, is not so easily pinned down.


For example: this week I'm a mere casual fan, as the Gophs are done until a bowl.

Oklahoma is a supposed "move the needle" program. Will I be tuning in to their game against OK St? Certainly not.
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2016 05:34 PM by MplsBison.)
11-29-2016 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 7,336
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 301
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #62
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(11-27-2016 10:44 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With the Big 12's inevitable playoff snub this year I think Oklahoma's frustration with the league is further exacerbated and they will once again be contemplating their exit strategy. Personally I think a reunion with Nebraska in the Big Ten would be the ideal landing spot for the Sooners if the Big Ten would be willing to overlook the fact that they don't quite measure to the same academic standards as their other members. For 16 I'd like to see Missouri, if they could be convinced that the Big Ten was a better fit, but I'd settle for Kansas, crummy football and all.

I think this move brings some balance to the Big Ten divisions as the West would get another true heavy weight to balance the trio of Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St and a Mich St program that has been performing well recently, the current season excluded.

It was OU's mind change why they didn't expand. They're part of the problem so they have no reason to complain.
11-29-2016 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(11-29-2016 11:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Minnesota was there from the beginning. Don't have to earn anything.

And you haven't. You guys haven't sniffed a conference championship since LBJ was president. (1967). Pathetic.
11-29-2016 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(11-29-2016 06:11 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  And you haven't.

Nonsequitor
11-29-2016 07:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(11-29-2016 07:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(11-29-2016 06:11 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  And you haven't.

Nonsequitor

I'd est? Claudi! 07-coffee3
12-01-2016 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
I'm glad you agree that Minnesota, being a founding member of the Big Ten, can sit back and not do ___ without having to worry about being kicked out of the conference.

Also painfully obvious that Nebraska has not earned its membership, in any sense.


I'm glad we can agree on these things.
12-01-2016 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-01-2016 03:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm glad you agree that Minnesota, being a founding member of the Big Ten, can sit back and not do ___ without having to worry about being kicked out of the conference.

Also painfully obvious that Nebraska has not earned its membership, in any sense.


I'm glad we can agree on these things.

With the exception of brand name, I never understood Nebraska to the Big 10 at all. At least not solo. If they had come with Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa State that would have made some sense. But just 1 Big 8 school by itself never seemed to be a good move to me. Nebraska was a brand defined against another brand, Oklahoma. Together they might have made some sense. However the Sooners probably have stronger ties now to Texas, and Okie State has become an issue.

Every time I see the Husker mascot now I can't think of anything but "The Red Headed Step Child of the Big 10" even though the mascot has Corn colored hair.
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2016 05:58 PM by JRsec.)
12-01-2016 05:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
I guess that Nebraska was supposed to be a Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St equivalent football program in the West, to help give Wisconsin and Iowa some competition.

That was apparently worth looking the other way on a school with sub-par research (by Big Ten standards), and a school whose state brought very little in the way of cable subscribers for the BTN.



Thus far, it has not been delivered. Other than the women's volleyball program. Ranked #1, right now.
12-01-2016 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-01-2016 06:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that Nebraska was supposed to be a Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St equivalent football program in the West, to help give Wisconsin and Iowa some competition.

That was apparently worth looking the other way on a school with sub-par research (by Big Ten standards), and a school whose state brought very little in the way of cable subscribers for the BTN.



Thus far, it has not been delivered. Other than the women's volleyball program. Ranked #1, right now.

You aren't losing money by having Nebraska. They're also not hurting the perception of B1G football.

I know you didn't explicitly say anything to the contrary, but it's still worth pointing out.
12-02-2016 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,789
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #70
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-01-2016 05:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-01-2016 03:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm glad you agree that Minnesota, being a founding member of the Big Ten, can sit back and not do ___ without having to worry about being kicked out of the conference.

Also painfully obvious that Nebraska has not earned its membership, in any sense.


I'm glad we can agree on these things.

With the exception of brand name, I never understood Nebraska to the Big 10 at all. At least not solo. If they had come with Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa State that would have made some sense. But just 1 Big 8 school by itself never seemed to be a good move to me. Nebraska was a brand defined against another brand, Oklahoma. Together they might have made some sense. However the Sooners probably have stronger ties now to Texas, and Okie State has become an issue.

Every time I see the Husker mascot now I can't think of anything but "The Red Headed Step Child of the Big 10" even though the mascot has Corn colored hair.

The Nebraska add almost feels like it was a first strike at trying to draw Big 12 AAU schools into the Big Ten fold. Texas and Texas A&M would have been the big prizes but you could have Mizzouri and Kansas in there for 16 or get real crazy and add Iowa St and Colorado for 18.
12-03-2016 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lance99 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,121
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Akron Zips
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-01-2016 06:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that Nebraska was supposed to be a Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St equivalent football program in the West, to help give Wisconsin and Iowa some competition.

That was apparently worth looking the other way on a school with sub-par research (by Big Ten standards), and a school whose state brought very little in the way of cable subscribers for the BTN.



Thus far, it has not been delivered. Other than the women's volleyball program. Ranked #1, right now.

It was never about that in this add. Keep in mind that Nebraska has that massive Radio Network and that gives the B1G Access to cities way out of their Footprint(i.e Phoenix).

As a Fan of College Sports however, I keep asking myself "Yeah they made the move, but was it a move worth making?" Forget the $$$ for a moment and ask are you really happy at the end of the day with the move(question for Nebraska fans).
12-03-2016 09:54 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-03-2016 09:54 AM)lance99 Wrote:  
(12-01-2016 06:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I guess that Nebraska was supposed to be a Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St equivalent football program in the West, to help give Wisconsin and Iowa some competition.

That was apparently worth looking the other way on a school with sub-par research (by Big Ten standards), and a school whose state brought very little in the way of cable subscribers for the BTN.



Thus far, it has not been delivered. Other than the women's volleyball program. Ranked #1, right now.

It was never about that in this add. Keep in mind that Nebraska has that massive Radio Network and that gives the B1G Access to cities way out of their Footprint(i.e Phoenix).

As a Fan of College Sports however, I keep asking myself "Yeah they made the move, but was it a move worth making?" Forget the $$$ for a moment and ask are you really happy at the end of the day with the move(question for Nebraska fans).

Arbitrary state lines/geography don't directly affect TV money. Fans do, and Nebraska has plenty of those.
12-03-2016 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
Nope. The BTN only gets to add every cable network within a state.
12-03-2016 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-03-2016 02:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nope. The BTN only gets to add every cable network within a state.

....and the BTN gets to use an instate rate that is a weighted average of the supply and demand balance for each state.

...and the out of state rates are .... yet another weighted average of the balance between supply and demand.

Assuming that the guys at the networks who negotiate these contracts have an implicit or explicit 5th grade understanding of math and a high school understanding of economics, random geographic lines do not matter, nor have they ever. Interest, and only interest, matters.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 02:39 PM by nzmorange.)
12-03-2016 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
And so, you agree that adding Nebraska resulted in a very minor expansion of BTN's distribution networks. Thus proving my point.
12-03-2016 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
(12-03-2016 02:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And so, you agree that adding Nebraska resulted in a very minor expansion of BTN's distribution networks. Thus proving my point.

...no.

Nebraska significantly added to the value of the network's value, and it probably significantly added to the overall customer base (once our of footprint subscribers are taken into account).
12-03-2016 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
I don't think that you understand the underlying economics.

Profit = Revenue - Costs

Costs = Fixed Costs + Variable Costs
*Fixed costs stayed the same w/ the Neb add
*Variable costs increased w/ the Neb add

Revenue = Quantity sold * Price

*In this case the quantity sold is 1 channel, and the price is an approximation of the nexus of the cable company's willingness to pay and the network's willingness to sell its content (as dictated by it's above-mentioned costs).

**The cable company's willingness to pay is a function of it's ability to generate revenue w/ the content. As explained earlier, Revenue = Quantity Sold * Price. In this case, there are 2 price points, in-footprint and out-of-footprint, so there are 2 quantities sold (in-state subscribers and out of state subscribers). Those quantities and those price points are determined by the network's best approximation of the point where: # of subscribers at a given price point * that price point = maximum amount (supply and demand)

Bundling complicates some of these equations, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change any of the formulas, only the elasticities (shapes of the demand curves).

And my point that I think you're missing is that geography plays no direct role in that. At best, it's a proxy for fan support, but it's a weak proxy, and Nebraska clearly has great fan support, so it's a clear outlier.
12-03-2016 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Oklahoma and ?????? to the Big Ten
On of the things that bundling can do when it shifts demand curves, it almost create custom prices.

I there are 3 people, Person A, B, and C, and 3 channels, Channel X, Y, and Z, you could get this situation:

WILLINGNESS TO PAY
. X Y Z
A 5 1 1
B 1 5 1
C 1 1 5

Then, if X, Y, and Z were bundled together, each of A, B, and C would receive 3 channels and pay up to 7 (vs 1 channel at 5 if the channels were a la carte), but, economically speaking, they would really only be paying 5 for one channel and 1 for other two channels. It would look like a single bill of 7 dollars from the subscriber, but the cable co would then break it up based on their negotiate rates (which are derived from subscriber willingness to pay - explained in my last post). In this case, the cable company would probably pay each network equally, but there are scenarios (like real life) where that isn't the case. Here's one:

WILLINGNESS TO PAY
. X Y Z
A 5 1 1
B 0 6 1
C 0 2 5

In this case, the bundle would still go for 7, so the subscriber might think that they're paying 2.67 (7/2) per channel, but the cable company would probably break up they payments unequally, favoring Y, then Z, and then X (i.e. X gets 1 share, Z gets 1.4 shares, and Y gets 1.8 shares).

But that's only for one geography.

Next assume that there are 3 geographies, Geography @, #, and $. Then assume that they're all the same size. Then if the share are such that:

@ --> X gets 1 share, Z gets 1.4 shares, and Y gets 1.8 shares
# --> X gets 1.8 share, Z gets 1 shares, and Y gets 1.4 shares
$ --> X gets 1.4 share, Z gets 1.8 shares, and Y gets 1 shares

Then it would probably make more sense to only negotiate once and pay each network something that approximated an equal payout.

If # was twice as big as @ and $ (i.e. the areas aren't all the same size, like in real life), they the approximate payouts would be:
X = 1.5 (1.5=[1*.25]+[1.8*.5]+[1.4*.25])
Z = 1.3 (1.3=[1.4*.25]+[1*.5]+[1.8*.25])
Y = 1.4 (1.4=[1.8*.25]+[1.4*.5]+[1*.25])

This is slightly oversimplified because it only covered carriage fees (as opposed to things that impact advertising revenue, or non-media revenue factors), and I didn't jump into covariances (off setting covariances are more valuable than procyclical values). But those final numbers are the number that you see when you see in-footprint/out-of-footprint rates. But as you can see, it's all derived from fan interest, not people in a state. If nobody cares about your product, then you could be in NYC and utterly worthless.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 03:34 PM by nzmorange.)
12-03-2016 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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.