You address a great point here. Every TV in the flat, forgettable state of nebraska will be tuned to any husker football game. Similarly, every set will be tuned to pre-game and post game analysis, so long as the huskers are mentioned in some positive context.
But, here's something else to consider. The Gilligan factor. Back when Gilligan's Island aired new episodes, it actually gathered rather impressive ratings. Impressive enough for writers to keep the crew and guests of the USS Minnow on the island for numerous seasons. Then someone had the bright idea to perform a little demographics research. It turns out, when the dust settled and the real audience of Gilligan's Island was finally revealed to the advertisers who pumped dollars into the show, only Ronco was left with a dog in that fight. That's why the show was cancelled; despite decent ratings, nobody wanted to waste money selling products to the riff-raff that was watching (or at least that's what some professor told us about 20 years ago).
So, while nobody disputes that nebraska fans will adjust their rabbit ears in droves just to catch a glimpse of faded glory, the question remains whether or not anybody wants to spend money courting the business of husker fans. Can Zebco, adult diapers, harvester international and cough syrup dollars really justify the inclusion of this team into a conference TV bid?
I don't know the answers...I'm just asking the questions.
I see where you are coming from, but you are still only looking at the direct benefit from adding the State of Nebraska. My point was which team (Nebraska, Missouri, or Rutgers), will "move the meter" within the existing conference footprint? Will Michigan vs Missouri be pretty much an "average" rating? Would Nebraska vs Michigan? And not just within the hometowns market, but across all DMA's within the footprint. In Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh? Will anyone else in the conference care about Missouri vs Penn State besides Missouri and Penn State? What about Nebraska vs Penn State?
My position is that the Big Ten Network has already grown to represent 75 million TV households. They are already on the expanded cable tier in St. Louis. At this point the BTN can increase revenues in 2 ways: add more TV sets and collect the carrier fee from expanded cable subscribers within that market, or maximize the revenue they get from advertisers by having great ratings of their games. Having higher ratings also puts them in position to increase the monthly carrier charge (from the current $0.75 or so). If the ratings are high enough then they could increase that fee to $1.00 or $1.10 and no market out there could match that type of revenue increase.
Let's say that the BTN currently has 30 million TV sets within it's footprint that it collects the $0.75 per month from. That is $270 million annually.
Adding Missouri might bring in 2,190,000 (KC & StL), which is very debatable that they would bring that much. That would bring an additional $19.7 million annually.
My assumption is that Missouri's TV ratings across the board will be "Big Ten average" and therefore will result in status quo of their advertising and carrier charges.
Now, adding Nebraska will bring in 691,000 (Omaha/Lincoln) which is certainly a safe assumption. That would bring an additional $6.2 million annually. My assumption is that the higher TV ratings for the Fuskers in all the TV markets of the BTN might make it possible for a 10% increase in advertising and carrier charges across the board. (I am not someone with a TV marketing background so do not think I am an "expert" just pencil-whipping this). A 10% increase across the board would be an additional $27 million.
So even if the BTN can get a 5% increase ($13.5 million) + their own DMA of $6.2 million then it is a $19.7 million total, making both schools "equal" from a TV standpoint. That leaves the other factors to be discussed, which I think favors Nebraska over Missouri.
I hate trying to "pump up" the corn here, just looking at things objectively. It isn't so much about what Nebraska brings to the table, but that Missouri doesn't benefit the Big Ten as much as people think.