(12-04-2015 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  My point is that BTN is on every basic tier in B1G states.

"If done correctly" meant the same for P12N. They "should" be like that in PAC states.

Having attended both a Big 10 and a Pac 10 school, there is a big difference in fan passion. I would not draw up a business plan that assumes the same passion to exist in both demographic areas.

I think the basketball point is really interesting, and quite accurate. It really is basketball that drives the conference networks, and where they provide more value.

(12-04-2015 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 08:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 04:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 09:37 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 09:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  OK. That seems like an indirect consequence, to me.

In other words, if P12N was able to get the same distribution then it would be giving the same money out as SECN and BTN.

Yeah. Partnering is part of the issue, bigger issue is that college sports aren't as important in PAC states as they are in (old) Big Ten and SEC states. I wasn't paying attention, but I doubt that Fox had to hold Bulls or White Sox games hostage to get BTN on basic in Illinois. (Frank?)

That shouldn't matter. If done correctly,

What exactly does that mean? I remember months-long battles in the NY area over carriage for the Yankees' network when it started.

None of the PAC schools have the market clout of the Yankees in New York, so I don't see how a PAC network (or two) is a lock on basic cable.

Quote: P12N should be on the standard tier of every cable system and every sat customer in the Pacific and Mountain timezones. Or at least, in the PAC states.

Then there should be enough PAC alumni tuning in to the games to get the ratings they need.

Should, being the key word.

My point is that BTN is on every basic tier in B1G states.

"If done correctly" meant the same for P12N. They "should" be like that in PAC states.

Well, they're not. College sports is not as important in CAlifornia as it is in SEC or old Big TEn country. That means the PAC networks have less leverage.

(12-04-2015 11:28 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  And the resistance to the Dodgers, that is what I was talking about. Granted they are probably asking for more money and better placement, but the Dodgers have considerable more clout than USC or UCLA do for their tier 3 games

The Dodgers problems are price (TWC is asking for $4.90/month/subscriber) and overestimating demand. They may have thought there was as much demand for Dodgers telecasts as Lakers telecasts. There isn't.

(12-04-2015 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  My point is that BTN is on every basic tier in B1G states.

"If done correctly" meant the same for P12N. They "should" be like that in PAC states.

The problem is, that ignores that when the Big Ten Network was set up, Fox still owned DirecTV. And DirecTV put the Big Ten Network on Basic at launch, because they could (and they were essentially corporate siblings), which jump started their quest. They were given a big leg up that no future RSN would ever get.

(12-04-2015 02:45 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I think the basketball point is really interesting, and quite accurate. It really is basketball that drives the conference networks, and where they provide more value.

Yup. The big issue the Big Ten had, even with DirecTV in its back packet, was there was not enough demand from fans of Ohio State or Michigan, or only had 1-2 games on B1G Network to start, to bother changing cable providers to DirecTV to get B1G Network, when the games they were *missing* were against FCS schools and MAC schools. But when basketball season rolled around, and people were missing 15-20 games by not having B1G, THAT caused some issues, and people began switching in droves, and then cable companies gave in.

I was actually surprised that the SEC Network had such a good launch (and frankly I think they were too) because of this. But I think the combination of having to deal with ESPN, and the fact that ESPN gives cable companies so much ad time to sell on their networks (just watch a game on Watch ESPN and see how few commercials they have: it is because many of the commercials aired during their programming are sold by the cable companies themselves), and the viewer demand for it, made it a much easier sell than anyone thought.

I'm not going to debate on practicalities or current realities. That's beyond what I know.

I was just saying, the P12 "should" ...

If you want to say such a thing is impossible, fine.

(12-04-2015 04:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 08:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 04:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 09:37 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Yeah. Partnering is part of the issue, bigger issue is that college sports aren't as important in PAC states as they are in (old) Big Ten and SEC states. I wasn't paying attention, but I doubt that Fox had to hold Bulls or White Sox games hostage to get BTN on basic in Illinois. (Frank?)

That shouldn't matter. If done correctly,

What exactly does that mean? I remember months-long battles in the NY area over carriage for the Yankees' network when it started.

None of the PAC schools have the market clout of the Yankees in New York, so I don't see how a PAC network (or two) is a lock on basic cable.

Quote: P12N should be on the standard tier of every cable system and every sat customer in the Pacific and Mountain timezones. Or at least, in the PAC states.

Then there should be enough PAC alumni tuning in to the games to get the ratings they need.

Should, being the key word.

My point is that BTN is on every basic tier in B1G states.

"If done correctly" meant the same for P12N. They "should" be like that in PAC states.

Well, they're not. College sports is not as important in CAlifornia as it is in SEC or old Big TEn country. That means the PAC networks have less leverage.

College football isn't as popular anywhere as it is the deep south.

Certainly not in B1G states, the northeast or in the West.

The West shouldn't be any more difficult than the great lakes.

(12-04-2015 02:45 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  My point is that BTN is on every basic tier in B1G states.

"If done correctly" meant the same for P12N. They "should" be like that in PAC states.

Having attended both a Big 10 and a Pac 10 school, there is a big difference in fan passion. I would not draw up a business plan that assumes the same passion to exist in both demographic areas.

I think the basketball point is really interesting, and quite accurate. It really is basketball that drives the conference networks, and where they provide more value.

Your first paragraph is completely beside the point. That's not how cable channels work.

They get $X per subscriber, regardless if a single subscriber ever tunes in the channel.

(12-06-2015 09:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm not going to debate on practicalities or current realities. That's beyond what I know.

Keep this in mind...

(12-06-2015 10:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 02:45 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Having attended both a Big 10 and a Pac 10 school, there is a big difference in fan passion. I would not draw up a business plan that assumes the same passion to exist in both demographic areas.

Your first paragraph is completely beside the point. That's not how cable channels work.

They get $X per subscriber, regardless if a single subscriber ever tunes in the channel.

Oh, it very much matters. When cable companies say 'no, we are not paying that much" or "we won't carry you on basic" or something along those lines, the recourse the networks have is their audience either demanding the channel, or switching to other cablers who carry it. That was precisely what the Big Ten Network had that forced cablers to carry them, when they said no for a couple of years. With the SEC network, the cable companies down there didn't even try to fight it, because they knew they would lose subscribers (and ESPN had other clout to help). That passion and audience size very much is the deciding factor in network vs. cable disputes.

Your line about getting paid per subscriber is true, but that is only after you have gotten on, and gotten your price. His point is about HOW you get on, AND how you get the price you want. Audience size (and fan passion) very much matters. These are very much "practicalities or current realities."

(12-06-2015 10:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 02:45 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  My point is that BTN is on every basic tier in B1G states.

"If done correctly" meant the same for P12N. They "should" be like that in PAC states.

Having attended both a Big 10 and a Pac 10 school, there is a big difference in fan passion. I would not draw up a business plan that assumes the same passion to exist in both demographic areas.

I think the basketball point is really interesting, and quite accurate. It really is basketball that drives the conference networks, and where they provide more value.

Your first paragraph is completely beside the point. That's not how cable channels work.

No, the first paragraph is the ENTIRE point. It is crucial to how cable companies work. You can only charge a premium price for your channel if there is significant consumer demand backing you up. That's why Fox News Channel can charge more per subscriber than MSNBC can. If Fox News goes dark on Raytown Cable Systems, Raytown CAble systems is going to be fielding lots of angry calls from RAytown CAble subscribers screaming and cancelling subscriptions. MSNBC goes off the air for a carriage dispute, there isn't nearly as much pushback.

B1G, SEC are Fox News, a product that a big chunk of the customer base will cancel service over. PAC is MSNBC, a nice extra to have but not a necessity.

Quote:They get $X per subscriber, regardless if a single subscriber ever tunes in the channel.

That $X isn't a number pulled out of thin air. That $X is passed on to the cable customer, and there is a demand curve where for every increase X in subscription cost, a certain number of customers Y decide they don't need cable. It's not an exact science, but it's there.

If you want to charge a premium price for your channel, you need to be able to tell
cable carriers that you have a large, loyal audience who will change carriers or just cancel if you don't carry their channel.

IF no one is tuning in to the channel, that $X per subscriber is not supportable.

PAC alumni bases and fan bases are the same size as B1G schools. No reason they wouldn't get similar ratings ... if those fans actually had access to the channels without having to pay for a sports package.

(12-06-2015 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  PAC alumni bases and fan bases are the same size as B1G schools. No reason they wouldn't get similar ratings ... if those fans actually had access to the channels without having to pay for a sports package.

real world evidence does not support this in fact it refutes it

satellite is available to pretty much anyone in the USA anywhere even where cable or fiber TV is not

direct TV refuses to carry the PAC12n while Dish carries it.....the PAC 12 even tried a marketing campaign to get people to switch because of that and it was completely meaningless to direct TV and their subscriber numbers

even after AT&T bought direct TV and with AT&T knowing what their own cable and fiber subscribers feel about the PAC12n they made little to no effort to get the PAC12n onto direct TV

people can switch with the drop of a hat to get the PAC12n if they desire it and it has long passed the amount of time that any single subscriber would be waiting out their old cable or direct TV contract to end before they could switch without a buyout payment and yet no one is leaving direct TV or their local cable companies to go to dish to get the PAC12n and it is long past the time when those subscribers might be thinking "I am missing the PAC12n and I want it I am switching" and yet they do not switch in any significant amount of numbers to have any meaning at all to direct TV

along with that total cable subscribers are dropping more and more each quarter and at a faster pace which means people in general are not concerning themselves with new sports channel offerings or it is not enough of a concern to have them go ahead and drop cable or drop down to lower tier less expensive packages

all real world evidence supports the notion that the PAC12n is what it is now and they have the subscribers that WANT the network wrapped up and there are few if any others looking for a way to get it or making a switch to get it and there is little incentive for any cable company or sat or fiber company to force it on their subscribers or for a "partner" to take on the PAC12n (unless they are handed a piece of ownership for FREE along with a portion of profits and marketing cost) and try and force it on cable MSOs and fiber and sat companies

On thing conference networks did, inadvertently, is by advertising how much money they were making, they made the general public more aware of how much they pay for certain networks. They were not the only ones (NFL Network, professional RSN's), but they were a big part of it.

(12-06-2015 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  PAC alumni bases and fan bases are the same size as B1G schools.

What's your evidence for that? Because the attendance figures tell a different story.
College Football Attendance 2014

Of the top 30 schools in football attendance, 7 B1G schools, 3 PAC schools (and 11 13 SEC schools--ye gods).

Average attendance B1G 66,869 vs PAC 52,702.

(12-06-2015 09:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  PAC alumni bases and fan bases are the same size as B1G schools.

What's your evidence for that? Because the attendance figures tell a different story.
College Football Attendance 2014

Of the top 30 schools in football attendance, 7 B1G schools, 3 PAC schools (and 11 13 SEC schools--ye gods).

Average attendance B1G 66,869 vs PAC 52,702.

That only proves B1G stadiums are larger than PAC stadiums.

Alumni bases provide the vast bulk of potential viewership for regular season games. PAC alumni bases are just as large, and wealthy, as B1G alumni bases.

(12-07-2015 09:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 09:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  PAC alumni bases and fan bases are the same size as B1G schools.

What's your evidence for that? Because the attendance figures tell a different story.
College Football Attendance 2014

Of the top 30 schools in football attendance, 7 B1G schools, 3 PAC schools (and 11 13 SEC schools--ye gods).

Average attendance B1G 66,869 vs PAC 52,702.

That only proves B1G stadiums are larger than PAC stadiums.

Using those numbers, average capacity of PAC 12 schools is 80%, average capacity of Big Ten schools is 93%. So no it is not just that. The average Big Ten school has a 71,879 capacity. The average Pac 12 schools has a 65,659 capacity. Further the PAC 12 schools are in larger metropolitan areas, and larger markets, on average, so they should have the advantage.

(12-07-2015 10:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 09:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  PAC alumni bases and fan bases are the same size as B1G schools.

What's your evidence for that? Because the attendance figures tell a different story.
College Football Attendance 2014

Of the top 30 schools in football attendance, 7 B1G schools, 3 PAC schools (and 11 13 SEC schools--ye gods).

Average attendance B1G 66,869 vs PAC 52,702.

That only proves B1G stadiums are larger than PAC stadiums.

Using those numbers, average capacity of PAC 12 schools is 80%, average capacity of Big Ten schools is 93%. So no it is not just that. The average Big Ten school has a 71,879 capacity. The average Pac 12 schools has a 65,659 capacity. Further the PAC 12 schools are in larger metropolitan areas, and larger markets, on average, so they should have the advantage.

So U of Houston should be averaging 100k per game, right?

Come on, you know that's a bunk argument.


They have more competition for entertainment.


What the heck else is someone who lives in Columbus, OH going to do??

Little bit different in Seattle, San Fran, LA, etc.

Your entire argument is based on "I don't know anything about the business side of it, but it should be this." That is as bunk an argument as it gets. Especially after you already admitted you don't know the details of how it works. We do!

(12-07-2015 11:05 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Your entire argument is based on "I don't know anything about the business side of it, but it should be this." That is as bunk an argument as it gets. Especially after you already admitted you don't know the details of how it works. We do!

I just disproved your counter-argument ... and this is what you reply with?

Come on.


Either reply with an argument or don't reply at all all.

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).

(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.