Nation Passion vs Domestic Circus - 2009 edition
Mohan
Nation Passion:
Matches Hours Avg Rating Rating-hours
Tests 6 180 0.1* 18
ODIs 31 217 3.4 658
T20Is 12* 48 5.3 255
Total 445 2.1 931
Domestic Circus:
Matches Hours Avg Rating Rating-hours
IPL 57 228 4.6 1050
CL 23 92 1.0 90
Total 320 3.6 1140
So Domestic Circus had about 70% of the air time compared to Nation
Passion, delivered 70% higher average rating and ended up with more
cumulative eyeball-hours than the latter.
Mohan
Notes:
1. Only four sessions from 6 Tests had enough rating to make it to the
available records.
2. 12 T20Is include 2 warm-up matches played by India.
Mohan
calculation.
Nation Passion:
Matches Hours Avg Rating Rating-hours
Tests 6 180 0.1* 18
ODIs 31 217 3.4 730
T20Is 12* 48 5.3 255
Total 445 2.2 1003
arahim
From what you have presented it may be more a format issue than a
Domestic vs. Nation issue.
shankar.data
Armed with this data, what would you do if you were:
1) TV exec,
2) BCCI,
3) (CA, ECB, CSA),
4) Indian international player,
5) Indian domestic dada,
6) Non-Indian international player,
7) Non-Indian domestic bully,
8) Retired international cricketer,
9) RSC expert
etc.......
-sn
shankar.data
add IPL owner to the list.
arahim
Get the limit on number of international players removed.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
shankar.data
How does that help the IPL owner? I am assuming you think an IPL owner
will act in his/her self interest and not do it to benefit any one
else.
arahim
The same way that it now helps them to sign up international players.
Why not completely remove international players from IPL? From the
perspective of business: The best talent is the best talent without
restriction.
Mohan
Maybe. But couple of reasons for presenting it this way:
a. No one was supposed to care for these Domestic Circuses. People
were supposed to be interested only when Nation Passion was involved.
Less than two years after its launch, it is heartening to see DC beat
NP so comprehensively.
b. DC is almost fully owned by BCCI (IPL 100% and CL 50%). The NP
matches listed here aren't just bcci's. Most of the matches played by
India this year were owned by ICC, NZC and SLC. So if you look at
"where did BCCI earn its eyeballs this year", then DC comes out even
more ahead of NP.
c. It is not just format alone. IPL and CL had 80 matches between
them. If the Indian team were to play that many T20Is, it will take up
the entire year and even then, I doubt those matches can maintain a 4+
rating throughout. Key advantage DC has over NP is the number of teams
they have to play with, which allows them to schedule 80 matches in 8
weeks and keep the people interested.
Mohan
Mohan
>
> Armed with this data, what would you do if you were:
> 1) TV exec,
Push for expanded IPL.
> 2) BCCI,
Push for expanded IPL.
> 3) (CA, ECB, CSA),
Pray.
> 4) Indian international player,
> 5) Indian domestic dada,
> 6) Non-Indian international player,
> 7) Non-Indian domestic bully,
Hope that BCCI succeeds.
> 8) Retired international cricketer,
Get on BCCI's good books.
> 9) RSC expert
Depends.
Mohan
shankar.data
Obviously, IPL biz dev guys want to sell the on two dimensions.
Marquee talent is one, local connection is another. Empirically,
champions league ratings seem to indicate that the viewing public seem
to want a local connection and marquee talent. Not just one or the
other.
arahim
Why not include Ranji matches if you are going to include tests and
the domestic List A if you are going to include ODIs. Also why not
include "completely" domestic 2Ts.
Also if you really want to make a domestics vs internationals
comparison shouldn't you consider all domestics around the world or
state BCCI domestics vs. internationals even though to call IPL
domestics is if not false is not the entire truth either.
> a. No one was supposed to care for these Domestic Circuses. People
> were supposed to be interested only when Nation Passion was involved.
> Less than two years after its launch, it is heartening to see DC beat
> NP so comprehensively.
>
> b. DC is almost fully owned by BCCI (IPL 100% and CL 50%). The NP
> matches listed here aren't just bcci's. Most of the matches played by
> India this year were owned by ICC, NZC and SLC. So if you look at
> "where did BCCI earn its eyeballs this year", then DC comes out even
> more ahead of NP.
>
> c. It is not just format alone. IPL and CL had 80 matches between
> them. If the Indian team were to play that many T20Is, it will take up
> the entire year and even then, I doubt those matches can maintain a 4+
> rating throughout. Key advantage DC has over NP is the number of teams
> they have to play with, which allows them to schedule 80 matches in 8
> weeks and keep the people interested.
>
Yet ICL died even though it could have provided many more games.
> Mohan- Hide quoted text -
Mohan
<snip>
> Why not include Ranji matches if you are going to include tests and
> the domestic List A if you are going to include ODIs. Also why not
> include "completely" domestic 2Ts.
Thought of that, but very few domestic games are telecast. In any
case, it might bring down the average, but it won't change the fact
that in terms of gross revenues (or eyeballs), bcci earns more from
its domestic tournaments than from its international commitments.
> Yet ICL died even though it could have provided many more games.
They didn't have talent.
Mohan
arahim
The contention could be valid but the argument you present for it is
not sufficient. CL was even more limited in presenting the top
international talent than the IPL.
If we are to accept your reasoning then there is no reason for having
a limit on the international players. The IPL owners will get the
locals for this "local connection" advantage by themselves. Putting
that restriction is basically an acceptance of the stance that if
there was no limit the IPL owners would buy more international talent.
Same as in the counties. Just look at the whole Kolpaks issue.
shankar.data
> On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, "shankar.data" <narashan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Armed with this data, what would you do if you were:
> > 1) TV exec,
>
> Push for expanded IPL.
How many months? Six?
> > 4) Indian international player,
> > 5) Indian domestic dada,
> > 6) Non-Indian international player,
> > 7) Non-Indian domestic bully,
>
> Hope that BCCI succeeds.
I would hone specialized T20 skills. Learn to hit a boundary off the
first ball.
Mohan
> a limit on the international players. The IPL owners will get the
> locals for this "local connection" advantage by themselves. Putting
> that restriction is basically an acceptance of the stance that if
> there was no limit the IPL owners would buy more international talent.
Not really. The IPL owners, being in it for the short term, might look
at short term success and hire more international players, but that
could end up killing the concept itself as the tournament fails to
build a local connection. BCCI as the party interested in the long
term success of the league has placed a limit so that the league can
build a fan base and grow.
Mohan
arahim
> On Dec 31, 1:55 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Why not include Ranji matches if you are going to include tests and
> > the domestic List A if you are going to include ODIs. Also why not
> > include "completely" domestic 2Ts.
>
> Thought of that, but very few domestic games are telecast. In any
> case, it might bring down the average, but it won't change the fact
> that in terms of gross revenues (or eyeballs), bcci earns more from
> its domestic tournaments than from its international commitments.
>
Now you are talking about something altogether different:) Perhaps
this has more to do with BCCIs monoply on a business industry
domestically(and internationally)...not with passion...
> > Yet ICL died even though it could have provided many more games.
>
> They didn't have talent.
>
Because of monoplistic business practices.
> Mohan
arahim
This is like arguing that the Tata's always look for the short term.
Why do you consider BCCI alone to be so altruistic? :)
> Mohan
arahim
It seems that you agree that this local connection thing does not
really exist but needs to be developed. Sounds much like that argument
about saving test cricket.
> Mohan
shankar.data
Actually, you can make the inference. The non-IPL teams had overall
better talent than IPL teams, if you were to go by the results. That I
do not think resulted in them attracting larger viewership. I somehow
doubt that NSW Blues team as is were just called Trivandrum Cyclones
would change the viewership by that much.
>
> If we are to accept your reasoning then there is no reason for having
> a limit on the international players. The IPL owners will get the
> locals for this "local connection" advantage by themselves. Putting
> that restriction is basically an acceptance of the stance that if
> there was no limit the IPL owners would buy more international talent.
> Same as in the counties. Just look at the whole Kolpaks issue.
I do think that not having a limit would change team compositions only
on the margins. You seem to think otherwise. The limit exists I think
for political viability. If you didn't have a limit, the whole
enterprise may be in political jeopardy. Not a prudent business
decision, if you are an IPL chairman. They most probably didn't want
neophyte owners making bumbling blunders and hence the limit.
The power is now concentrated with the IPL chairman. That most
probably will change in a few years, where owners will gain greater
control in the running of the game.
arahim
I don't know about that but the IPL certainly had the bigger
international names overall.
> do not think resulted in them attracting larger viewership. I somehow
> doubt that NSW Blues team as is were just called Trivandrum Cyclones
> would change the viewership by that much.
>
>
>
> > If we are to accept your reasoning then there is no reason for having
> > a limit on the international players. The IPL owners will get the
> > locals for this "local connection" advantage by themselves. Putting
> > that restriction is basically an acceptance of the stance that if
> > there was no limit the IPL owners would buy more international talent.
> > Same as in the counties. Just look at the whole Kolpaks issue.
>
> I do think that not having a limit would change team compositions only
> on the margins. You seem to think otherwise. The limit exists I think
> for political viability. If you didn't have a limit, the whole
> enterprise may be in political jeopardy. Not a prudent business
> decision, if you are an IPL chairman. They most probably didn't want
> neophyte owners making bumbling blunders and hence the limit.
>
I like the argument somesaults going on in this thread:) Now we are on
to political viability. First you claim it would change composition on
the margins only which then makes the limit redundant. Then you argue
that the owners are neophites who would presumably change the
composition drastically hence requiring the curbs.
Was the icon player strategy part of this grand IPL Chairman plan? The
limit comes from the BCCI. The same institution that had the foresight
to start IPL after ICL started it.
> The power is now concentrated with the IPL chairman. That most
> probably will change in a few years, where owners will gain greater
> control in the running of the game.
>
In that case ... Well you asked what they should do and I told you
what I think they should.
>
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mohan
One is a start-up, the other is a dying concern. One has turned
profitable from its very first year, the other is relying on subsidies
from its sister concerns. I don't see in what way the two arguments
are similar.
Mohan
arahim
Well read again:) I was not comparing IPL with Tests.
> Mohan- Hide quoted text -
arahim
To elaborate further in your terms ... these "local connections" are
making money off their international brothers.
>
>
> > Mohan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mohan
> > Well read again:) I was not comparing IPL with Tests.
>
> To elaborate further in your terms ... these "local connections" are
> making money off their international brothers.
I don't understand. Money is Indian to start with. We are importing
just enough foreign talent to make the league appealing to Indian
viewers, by paying a price that the players are happy with. How is
that making money off their international brothers? Are American
workers making money off theie imported Indian/Pakistani colleagues?
"Without us, your industries wouldn't have survived [otherwise, why
else would you have imported us?], so you are making money off us"?
Mohan
shankar.data
It is your prerogative to characterize the argument as a somersault. I
am agreeing with you that the limit is redundant. Even so the limit I
think is unlikely to be lifted. Your contention if not explicitly,
certainly implicitly is that the best team irrespective of local
affinity is in the best interest of an IPL owner and that an IPL owner
should think that. I obviously disagree. I disagree because IPL will
be run out of town if they did not have some thing that is manifestly
having a local connection. IPL owners may agree with you in that it is
best to lift the limit. I disagree because of the political angle.
Perhaps you would rather I not mention that.
If you read a little carefully, you would have noticed that I am not
saying that they are neophytes. I am saying that the chairman may not
trust the owners to do the right thing by the league, them not being
experienced in the business of cricket, the political implications of
their choices and this being a new venture. Owners may be perfect
rational agents, and still the chairman may wonder about their
capacity to make the right calls all the time. I do not have a way to
divine this about their thinking any more than you do. In some time if
every one agrees with you, they will relax the rule. Somehow I don't
see that happening. I don't see it happening because of the politics,
not because IPL and its owners are interested in making significantly
less money by fielding a less marketable product. Why do you think
they have the limit?
>
> Was the icon player strategy part of this grand IPL Chairman plan? The
> limit comes from the BCCI. The same institution that had the foresight
> to start IPL after ICL started it.
You some how seem to think that I think BCCI is perfect. Let me
disabuse you of that notion. Even if I thought they were borderline
good, I certainly would not expect them to get everything right in
version 1.0. I am sure they will tweak things forever. I am sure they
had icon player in the interest of IPL and the teams, because they
thought they will be able to sell the product better. If they have
evidence to the contrary, I am sure they will make changes.
>
> > The power is now concentrated with the IPL chairman. That most
> > probably will change in a few years, where owners will gain greater
> > control in the running of the game.
>
> In that case ... Well you asked what they should do and I told you
> what I think they should.
I am trying to see, in whose interest are you recommending this to
them? You as a viewer who wants to see the best cricket or you as an
IPL owner interested in stakeholder value.
arahim
Again I will suggest a reread:) Now you are starting a whole new
discussion which has nothing to do with the original discussion.
I will only make the breif comment that IPL franchise owners would be
willing to hire more internationals because it will make them more
money because it will give them an even bigger Indian as well as
international audience.
Now if you want a discussion of labour markets and the pros and cons
of protecting domestic workers it is a whole different discussion. The
question was asked what should IPL owners do. People with your brand
of economic thinking in the US would say US jobs have been outsourced
at the expense of the workers for the benefit of the business owners.
The business owners on the other hand try to maximize their profits
either through finding cheaper labour or hiring talent that will make
them more money. Again the question was what should the IPL owners do.
> Mohan
arahim
No, this is not my contention implicitly or explicitly:)
Mohan
> willing to hire more internationals because it will make them more
> money because it will give them an even bigger Indian as well as
> international audience.
But that was already addressed. IPL administration obviously felt that
such free-for-all would lead to the league collapsing even before it
has started and hence placed a limit. What is your problem? If you are
saying franchise owners would have preferred to not have the limit,
maybe. Then they should not have bought the franchise, because the
limit was known from the beginning.
As Shankar has argued, I don't see the limit going away either.
But you still haven't explained the "making money off their foreign
brothers" comment.
Mohan
arahim
> On Dec 31, 3:55 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I will only make the breif comment that IPL franchise owners would be
> > willing to hire more internationals because it will make them more
> > money because it will give them an even bigger Indian as well as
> > international audience.
>
> But that was already addressed. IPL administration obviously felt that
> such free-for-all would lead to the league collapsing even before it
Why would it lead to a collapse?
> has started and hence placed a limit. What is your problem? If you are
> saying franchise owners would have preferred to not have the limit,
> maybe. Then they should not have bought the franchise, because the
> limit was known from the beginning.
Yes that is what I am saying that they would rather not have the limit
and figure out what mix works best for them.
On your second point: A business may not like all the hoops that let's
say a foriegn country may put in its way and may want better rules
that does not mean they will not enter the environment if they still
feel they can make money and they can also lobby for changes in rules
at the same time. Besides this is a restriction that not even the
local government is putting on the business.
My problem?:) None. A fairly simple question was asked and i gave my
response to it.
>
> As Shankar has argued, I don't see the limit going away either.
>
> But you still haven't explained the "making money off their foreign
> brothers" comment.
>
What's there to explain. In the context of the discussion it is plain.
Go back and read the analogy which you keep on jumbling up with a
hundred different things but for what it said.
> Mohan
Mohan
> On Dec 31, 3:03 am, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 3:55 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > I will only make the breif comment that IPL franchise owners would be
> > > willing to hire more internationals because it will make them more
> > > money because it will give them an even bigger Indian as well as
> > > international audience.
>
> > But that was already addressed. IPL administration obviously felt that
> > such free-for-all would lead to the league collapsing even before it
>
> Why would it lead to a collapse?
Because the Indian public will not have any local players to connect
with. Because the franchises, in their short term interest, will pack
the teams with all foreigners, more interested in the $5 million prize
money than the long term survival of the league. (Franchises only pay
an annual fee, and this is not even their main business, so they don't
have as much stake in the success of the league as bcci does).
> What's there to explain. In the context of the discussion it is plain.
> Go back and read the analogy which you keep on jumbling up with a
> hundred different things but for what it said.
I think it would be easier if you explain. This is what I see: "To
elaborate further in your terms ... these "local connections" are
making money off their international brothers." Who are these "local
connections" and their "international brothers"? How is one making
money off the other?
Mohan
Mohan
>
> Because the Indian public will not have any local players to connect
> with. Because the franchises, in their short term interest, will pack
> the teams with all foreigners, more interested in the $5 million prize
> money than the long term survival of the league. (Franchises only pay
> an annual fee, and this is not even their main business, so they don't
> have as much stake in the success of the league as bcci does).
And even if the franchises are interested in long-term success, they
will try to free-ride. Each franchise will think that just by one
franchise packing all foreigners, the league won't collapse, because
there will always be other franchises with local players. Ultimately
they will all end up with all-foreign teams. In order to avoid such a
scenario, it is better to place regulations.
Mohan
arahim
> On Dec 31, 4:15 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 3:03 am, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 3:55 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > I will only make the breif comment that IPL franchise owners would be
> > > > willing to hire more internationals because it will make them more
> > > > money because it will give them an even bigger Indian as well as
> > > > international audience.
>
> > > But that was already addressed. IPL administration obviously felt that
> > > such free-for-all would lead to the league collapsing even before it
>
> > Why would it lead to a collapse?
>
> Because the Indian public will not have any local players to connect
> with. Because the franchises, in their short term interest, will pack
I thought it was not about national passion anymore:) That the
audiences would fully get on with the foreign players because they are
now part of "their" team.
> the teams with all foreigners, more interested in the $5 million prize
> money than the long term survival of the league. (Franchises only pay
> an annual fee, and this is not even their main business, so they don't
> have as much stake in the success of the league as bcci does).
>
> > What's there to explain. In the context of the discussion it is plain.
> > Go back and read the analogy which you keep on jumbling up with a
> > hundred different things but for what it said.
>
> I think it would be easier if you explain. This is what I see: "To
> elaborate further in your terms ... these "local connections" are
> making money off their international brothers." Who are these "local
> connections" and their "international brothers"? How is one making
> money off the other?
>
Even you have argued it here that the teams would pack themselves with
foreign players. Meaning at least as of yet this local connection does
not exist that much and will be fostered on the money earned through
having foreign players. This was a direct analogy to your test cricket/
sister analogy:)
> Mohan
Mohan
arahim wrote:
>
> I thought it was not about national passion anymore:) That the
> audiences would fully get on with the foreign players because they are
> now part of "their" team.
Yes. But you need to build that loyalty first.
> Even you have argued it here that the teams would pack themselves with
> foreign players. Meaning at least as of yet this local connection does
> not exist that much and will be fostered on the money earned through
> having foreign players. This was a direct analogy to your test cricket/
> sister analogy:)
Except, foreign players aren't participating in ipl as a subsidy. They
are getting paid for their appearance.
Mohan
arahim
> arahim wrote:
>
> > I thought it was not about national passion anymore:) That the
> > audiences would fully get on with the foreign players because they are
> > now part of "their" team.
>
> Yes. But you need to build that loyalty first.
>
I thought through your numbers you were showing that loyalty was
already better than for international games:)
> > Even you have argued it here that the teams would pack themselves with
> > foreign players. Meaning at least as of yet this local connection does
> > not exist that much and will be fostered on the money earned through
> > having foreign players. This was a direct analogy to your test cricket/
> > sister analogy:)
>
> Except, foreign players aren't participating in ipl as a subsidy. They
> are getting paid for their appearance.
>
Of course they are not participating as a subsidy. Why would that be
the case? Nor does the analogy imply that. If anything it would be the
opposite. If you must induce a subsidy it is for the local connection.
If there was no limit on the international players more would be hired
(assuming the argument position now not what it was originally and
neither is this my contention infact you are arguing that that would
happen or at least could happen hence the limit) and get a larger part
of the players' salaries. Right now the "local connection" gets
subsidized just as you imply that tests are subsidized (Though I am
not arguing any of these positions just pointing some rather dubious
analysis on your part).
> Mohan
arahim
> On Dec 31, 4:15 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 3:03 am, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 3:55 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > I will only make the breif comment that IPL franchise owners would be
> > > > willing to hire more internationals because it will make them more
> > > > money because it will give them an even bigger Indian as well as
> > > > international audience.
>
> > > But that was already addressed. IPL administration obviously felt that
> > > such free-for-all would lead to the league collapsing even before it
>
> > Why would it lead to a collapse?
>
> Because the Indian public will not have any local players to connect
I thought your numbers were meant to show that the loyalty exists more
for IPL already:) Now this may have been due to internationals, local
connection or both. Yet we see the limit on one which presumably
suggests that the loyalty has happened without local connection:) ie
following through with your positions (again these are not my
positions).
arahim
If anything it is Mohan's position that the best talent in the leagues
is the way of the future rather than international games. Which he
also keeps negating with the over-rider of the local connection bit.
On one hand he wants people all over the world to follow this league
and then he wants to limit their access to it.
Mohan
> > Yes. But you need to build that loyalty first.
> >
>
> I thought through your numbers you were showing that loyalty was
> already better than for international games:)
All I showed was that cumulative ratings are better than for intl
games. It could be because of having the right mix of formats, better
balanced teams, more teams with Indian players, etc. And even if there
is loyalty for ipl teams, it is because of having those local players.
If those local players were not there to start with or you remove that
limit now, who knows what happens to the ratings.
> > Except, foreign players aren't participating in ipl as a subsidy. They
> > are getting paid for their appearance.
> >
> Of course they are not participating as a subsidy. Why would that be
> the case? Nor does the analogy imply that. If anything it would be the
> opposite. If you must induce a subsidy it is for the local connection.
> If there was no limit on the international players more would be hired
> (assuming the argument position now not what it was originally and
> neither is this my contention infact you are arguing that that would
> happen or at least could happen hence the limit) and get a larger part
> of the players' salaries. Right now the "local connection" gets
> subsidized just as you imply that tests are subsidized
Those running the league believe they need those local players for the
league to succeed and hence ensuring that they are there. Paying for
those who are crucial to your product cannot be called subsidy. That
is not the case with tests/odis. Boards can sell just odis and do away
with tests altogether. But they have not done that. They are taking
profits generated by odis and using it to subsidise test cricket.
Mohan
arahim
> arahim wrote:
> > > Yes. But you need to build that loyalty first.
>
> > I thought through your numbers you were showing that loyalty was
> > already better than for international games:)
>
> All I showed was that cumulative ratings are better than for intl
> games. It could be because of having the right mix of formats, better
> balanced teams, more teams with Indian players, etc. And even if there
> is loyalty for ipl teams, it is because of having those local players.
Then the IPL owners will realize this and the limits are not needed.
> If those local players were not there to start with or you remove that
> limit now, who knows what happens to the ratings.
>
Well let's stop arguments for now. Why don't you go do a survey in any
city (with an IPL team) and after naming the top seven known names on
the team roster ask them to name the rest of the squads.
> > > Except, foreign players aren't participating in ipl as a subsidy. They
> > > are getting paid for their appearance.
>
> > Of course they are not participating as a subsidy. Why would that be
> > the case? Nor does the analogy imply that. If anything it would be the
> > opposite. If you must induce a subsidy it is for the local connection.
> > If there was no limit on the international players more would be hired
> > (assuming the argument position now not what it was originally and
> > neither is this my contention infact you are arguing that that would
> > happen or at least could happen hence the limit) and get a larger part
> > of the players' salaries. Right now the "local connection" gets
> > subsidized just as you imply that tests are subsidized
>
> Those running the league believe they need those local players for the
> league to succeed and hence ensuring that they are there. Paying for
> those who are crucial to your product cannot be called subsidy. That
If they are so crucial why do you need to limit others? If they are so
crucial then they will make their own way.
> is not the case with tests/odis. Boards can sell just odis and do away
> with tests altogether. But they have not done that. They are taking
> profits generated by odis and using it to subsidise test cricket.
>
Perhaps you have been reading Fran's posts too closely recently and
think they are some model of reasoning to be followed.
> Mohan
Mohan
>
> If anything it is Mohan's position that the best talent in the leagues
> is the way of the future rather than international games. Which he
> also keeps negating with the over-rider of the local connection bit.
There is no negation. If ipl removes the limit, I am all for it. But
if they want to keep it because they feel people will lose interest
otherwise, I can understand. There is at least some talent mobility
which is better than passport system with zero mobility.
>
> On one hand he wants people all over the world to follow this league
> and then he wants to limit their access to it.
That will happen over the long run. Maybe we will add Lahore, Karachi,
Colombo as franchises. A separate southern hemisphere league and so
on.
Mohan
Mohan
> > All I showed was that cumulative ratings are better than for intl
> > games. It could be because of having the right mix of formats, better
> > balanced teams, more teams with Indian players, etc. And even if there
> > is loyalty for ipl teams, it is because of having those local players.
>
> Then the IPL owners will realize this and the limits are not needed.
We already discussed this. Individual franchise owners may not care
for loyalty. Tv revenue is common and distributed equally. So each
franchise will think that others will pick indian players and help
generate that loyalty/tv revenue, so let me pack my team with
foreigners and maximize my chances of winning. If all franchises think
and act like that,there won't be any viewership. To avoid that, ipl as
governing body has placed a restriction. This is a fairly well known
problem in economics. Common good, free riding or some thing.
> > If those local players were not there to start with or you remove that
> > limit now, who knows what happens to the ratings.
> >
>
> Well let's stop arguments for now. Why don't you go do a survey in any
> city (with an IPL team) and after naming the top seven known names on
> the team roster ask them to name the rest of the squads.
Why would I do that? I am not claiming one way or the other. I am just
trying to explain what could be the ipl's rationale. If you think
local players are not necessary, you do the survey and prove them
wrong.
> > > > Except, foreign players aren't participating in ipl as a subsidy. They
> > > > are getting paid for their appearance.
> >
> > > Of course they are not participating as a subsidy. Why would that be
> > > the case? Nor does the analogy imply that. If anything it would be the
> > > opposite. If you must induce a subsidy it is for the local connection.
> > > If there was no limit on the international players more would be hired
> > > (assuming the argument position now not what it was originally and
> > > neither is this my contention infact you are arguing that that would
> > > happen or at least could happen hence the limit) and get a larger part
> > > of the players' salaries. Right now the "local connection" gets
> > > subsidized just as you imply that tests are subsidized
> >
> > Those running the league believe they need those local players for the
> > league to succeed and hence ensuring that they are there. Paying for
> > those who are crucial to your product cannot be called subsidy. That
>
> If they are so crucial why do you need to limit others? If they are so
> crucial then they will make their own way.
See above.
> > is not the case with tests/odis. Boards can sell just odis and do away
> > with tests altogether. But they have not done that. They are taking
> > profits generated by odis and using it to subsidise test cricket.
> >
>
> Perhaps you have been reading Fran's posts too closely recently and
> think they are some model of reasoning to be followed.
I don't know what you are talking about.
Mohan
Mohan
> arahim wrote:
>
> > > All I showed was that cumulative ratings are better than for intl
> > > games. It could be because of having the right mix of formats, better
> > > balanced teams, more teams with Indian players, etc. And even if there
> > > is loyalty for ipl teams, it is because of having those local players.
> >
> > Then the IPL owners will realize this and the limits are not needed.
>
> We already discussed this. Individual franchise owners may not care
> for loyalty. Tv revenue is common and distributed equally.
Actually, not only are tv revenues centralised, but they are committed
in advance for 10 years. So are all central sponsorship deals. Given
that, none of the franchises have any incentive to care about loyalty
or viewership. (Except their local revenues, but that's a small part
anyway). So it is almost guaranteed that they will go for maximizing
their chances of winning without worrying about viewership. But to
sign that 10-year deal, broadcasters and sponsors would have needed
some guarantee on Indian participation without having to rely on the
franchises doing the right thing. Hence this limit of 4 foreigners per
team. So unless the ipl, broadcasters, sponsors, franchise owners all
agree that the limit can be done away with, it is going to stay for 10
years (or whatever period was specified in the contract with
broadcasters).
Mohan