So do I have this right: the battle to expand is driven by inventory and demographics– getting to 16 provides more inventory for both a conference and national network and at the same time broadens the potential customers for both to view this inventory.
The counter is that this delivery method won’t exist in the future (how long into the future?). We’ll get our “TV” through the “internet connection” and therefore be able to select only those channels we really want at a certain price per channel, rather than having to “pay” for Lifetime because we really wanted ESPN News.
I guess what I don’t understand is that it simply comes down to a matter or price and if you’re in large markets, the probability (even if you’re paying a la carte) increases with the population (and the demographics of that population). So, while “no one cares about college football in new york” might be true, even if 10% only “care” in NYC, then they still get 820K viewers….which is double what KC would be if everyone (100%) cared enough to pay. I don’t see how the big 10’s model is wrong either way. Maybe the big 10 doesn’t make as much as it does now, but relatively speaking compared to other conferences (which you would assume would have a similar “deflation” in viewers) they will still lead.
