(06-01-2012 08:28 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:18 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  Well it does not really matter how far you go back with the ACC because it has always been a $hitburger football conference so it evens itself out pretty well.

I suggest you check out 2007, 2008, and 2009. What the ACC has lacked is the dominant program at the top.

Go to this site the College BCS.com site and Click the history down tab, choose by season, and then go to Conference Ratings.

I went to that site (thanks, btw - neat site!), and here's what i found. Since there were 6 BCS conferences those years, it stands to reason that a conference should place 1 team in BCS top 6, 2 in top 12, 3 in top 18, 4 in top 24, 5 in top 30, and 6 in top 36. That would be "average" performance for the conference.

ACC teams ranked in BCS top 36:

2007: 3, 14, 15, 20, 35
2008: 14, 19, 24, 26, 28, 33
2009: 9, 11, 15, 33

What do we see? The ACC hasn't just had a problem at the top, the top 6 and top 12 standards, but in the middle/bottom as well. On our 6 evaluation points, here are the results:

2007: success (top 6, top 18, top 24), failure (top 12, top 30, top 36)
2008: success (top 30, top 36), failure (top 6, top 12, top 18, top 24)
2009: success (top 12, top 18), failure (top 6, top 24, top 30, top 36)

So even in these years you think were good, the ACC was weak at the top (1/3 in hitting top 6 and top 12 metrics) but also in the bottom (1/3 in hitting top 30 and top 36 metrics).

Overall, the ACC was only able to hit the metrics 7 of 18 times, and remember, hitting all 18 would just mean "average", not exceptional, performance*. Those three years, it hit no metric all 3 times, and only on the top 18 metric did it do so 2/3 years.

BTW, in 2010 and 2011, the ACC failed on all six standards each year. So what has really happened is that 2010 and 2011 were just even more dismal than usual for the past 5 years. But 2007-2009 were still bad as well.

In contrast, the SEC met, and often exceeded, all 6 standards the past three seasons.

* "exceptional" would mean exceeding a standard, like placing 2 teams in the top 6. By my reckoning, the ACC hasn't exceeded any of these standards since 2005, when it exceeded the top 24 and top 30 standards that year.

If the leagues were using relegation this would be more valid

What is saving the ACC is they are Top 3 in TV audience in both FB and BB...but Bottomline the ACC Kings need to start winning BCS Bowls and other Tier One Bowls again.

The ACC is not the #3 TV conference in football. PERIOD. Don't give me that CRAP study- because that's all it was.... This thread showing how good their OOC schedule PROVES it. ACC conference games don't draw flies. The ACC title game hasn't drawn better than a 2 for the last 3 years in a row. Hell, CUSA drew a 3.1 last year.

(06-01-2012 08:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:28 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:18 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  Well it does not really matter how far you go back with the ACC because it has always been a $hitburger football conference so it evens itself out pretty well.

I suggest you check out 2007, 2008, and 2009. What the ACC has lacked is the dominant program at the top.

Go to this site the College BCS.com site and Click the history down tab, choose by season, and then go to Conference Ratings.

I went to that site (thanks, btw - neat site!), and here's what i found. Since there were 6 BCS conferences those years, it stands to reason that a conference should place 1 team in BCS top 6, 2 in top 12, 3 in top 18, 4 in top 24, 5 in top 30, and 6 in top 36. That would be "average" performance for the conference.

ACC teams ranked in BCS top 36:

2007: 3, 14, 15, 20, 35
2008: 14, 19, 24, 26, 28, 33
2009: 9, 11, 15, 33

What do we see? The ACC hasn't just had a problem at the top, the top 6 and top 12 standards, but in the middle/bottom as well. On our 6 evaluation points, here are the results:

2007: success (top 6, top 18, top 24), failure (top 12, top 30, top 36)
2008: success (top 30, top 36), failure (top 6, top 12, top 18, top 24)
2009: success (top 12, top 18), failure (top 6, top 24, top 30, top 36)

So even in these years you think were good, the ACC was weak at the top (1/3 in hitting top 6 and top 12 metrics) but also in the bottom (1/3 in hitting top 30 and top 36 metrics).

Overall, the ACC was only able to hit the metrics 7 of 18 times, and remember, hitting all 18 would just mean "average", not exceptional, performance*. Those three years, it hit no metric all 3 times, and only on the top 18 metric did it do so 2/3 years.

BTW, in 2010 and 2011, the ACC failed on all six standards each year. So what has really happened is that 2010 and 2011 were just even more dismal than usual for the past 5 years. But 2007-2009 were still bad as well.

In contrast, the SEC met, and often exceeded, all 6 standards the past three seasons.

* "exceptional" would mean exceeding a standard, like placing 2 teams in the top 6. By my reckoning, the ACC hasn't exceeded any of these standards since 2005, when it exceeded the top 24 and top 30 standards that year.

If the leagues were using relegation this would be more valid

What is saving the ACC is they are Top 3 in TV audience in both FB and BB...but Bottomline the ACC Kings need to start winning BCS Bowls and other Tier One Bowls again.

The ACC is not the #3 TV conference in football. PERIOD. Don't give me that CRAP study- because that's all it was.... This thread showing how good their OOC schedule PROVES it. ACC conference games don't draw flies. The ACC title game hasn't drawn better than a 2 for the last 3 years in a row. Hell, CUSA drew a 3.1 last year.

Don't let Facts get in you way:

Average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen (2011)
1. SEC: 4,447,000
2. Big Ten: 3,267,000
3. ACC: 2,650,000
4. Big 12: 2,347,000
5. Pac-12: 2,108,000
6. Big East: 1,884,000

Average basketball viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen (2010-11)
1. Big Ten: 1,496,000
2. ACC: 1,247,000
3. SEC: 1,222,000
4. Big 12: 1,069,000
5. Big East: 1,049,000
6. Pac-12: 783,000

You just proved that the ratings mean nothing....Just by reviewing the Basketball numbers by conference you can tell that. The Big East has been, by far, the best overall conference in college basketball for years. To say that the Big 10, ACC or SEC is higher is just a farse.

(06-01-2012 08:50 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:28 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I suggest you check out 2007, 2008, and 2009. What the ACC has lacked is the dominant program at the top.

Go to this site the College BCS.com site and Click the history down tab, choose by season, and then go to Conference Ratings.

I went to that site (thanks, btw - neat site!), and here's what i found. Since there were 6 BCS conferences those years, it stands to reason that a conference should place 1 team in BCS top 6, 2 in top 12, 3 in top 18, 4 in top 24, 5 in top 30, and 6 in top 36. That would be "average" performance for the conference.

ACC teams ranked in BCS top 36:

2007: 3, 14, 15, 20, 35
2008: 14, 19, 24, 26, 28, 33
2009: 9, 11, 15, 33

What do we see? The ACC hasn't just had a problem at the top, the top 6 and top 12 standards, but in the middle/bottom as well. On our 6 evaluation points, here are the results:

2007: success (top 6, top 18, top 24), failure (top 12, top 30, top 36)
2008: success (top 30, top 36), failure (top 6, top 12, top 18, top 24)
2009: success (top 12, top 18), failure (top 6, top 24, top 30, top 36)

So even in these years you think were good, the ACC was weak at the top (1/3 in hitting top 6 and top 12 metrics) but also in the bottom (1/3 in hitting top 30 and top 36 metrics).

Overall, the ACC was only able to hit the metrics 7 of 18 times, and remember, hitting all 18 would just mean "average", not exceptional, performance*. Those three years, it hit no metric all 3 times, and only on the top 18 metric did it do so 2/3 years.

BTW, in 2010 and 2011, the ACC failed on all six standards each year. So what has really happened is that 2010 and 2011 were just even more dismal than usual for the past 5 years. But 2007-2009 were still bad as well.

In contrast, the SEC met, and often exceeded, all 6 standards the past three seasons.

* "exceptional" would mean exceeding a standard, like placing 2 teams in the top 6. By my reckoning, the ACC hasn't exceeded any of these standards since 2005, when it exceeded the top 24 and top 30 standards that year.

If the leagues were using relegation this would be more valid

What is saving the ACC is they are Top 3 in TV audience in both FB and BB...but Bottomline the ACC Kings need to start winning BCS Bowls and other Tier One Bowls again.

The ACC is not the #3 TV conference in football. PERIOD. Don't give me that CRAP study- because that's all it was.... This thread showing how good their OOC schedule PROVES it. ACC conference games don't draw flies. The ACC title game hasn't drawn better than a 2 for the last 3 years in a row. Hell, CUSA drew a 3.1 last year.

Don't let Facts get in you way:

Average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen (2011)
1. SEC: 4,447,000
2. Big Ten: 3,267,000
3. ACC: 2,650,000
4. Big 12: 2,347,000
5. Pac-12: 2,108,000
6. Big East: 1,884,000

Average basketball viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen (2010-11)
1. Big Ten: 1,496,000
2. ACC: 1,247,000
3. SEC: 1,222,000
4. Big 12: 1,069,000
5. Big East: 1,049,000
6. Pac-12: 783,000

Dude- STFU. It's a flawwed statistical report. It counts the rating for all games the conference participates in. So basically, it counts the 7 million viewers for the FSU/Oklahoma(which was a top 5 rated game last year) game in the same fashion that it counts the 2 million viewers for the Miami/BC game. That's not statistically the same at all. Considering that the ACC plays the most games of any conference right now vs other AQ conferences- that's huge.

Basically though- if the ACC were really #3 in TV ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract, by a wide margin?

If nothing happens and the ACC remains at 14 and continues their move to a 9 game conference schedule we are going to see just how real those numbers are or if they are leached off of the OOC contests.

The ACC will be having one less ooc game every year and very likely they will lose a strong ooc game because they will have to try and make 2 out of their 3 ooc games home games. That is hard to do with more strong ooc games than weak ones due to those generally being home/home arrangements. Weaker teams will give you two for ones.

(06-01-2012 08:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If nothing happens and the ACC remains at 14 and continues their move to a 9 game conference schedule we are going to see just how real those numbers are or if they are leached off of the OOC contests.

The ACC will be having one less ooc game every year and very likely they will lose a strong ooc game because they will have to try and make 2 out of their 3 ooc games home games. That is hard to do with more strong ooc games than weak ones due to those generally being home/home arrangements. Weaker teams will give you two for ones.

That's a great phrase for them- leached off the OOC contests....

Heck, this year will be more realistic even- given that they won't have a top 5 game as an OOC matchup....

Basically though- no conference that has gotten for their title game less than a 2 for 3 straight years- is seen by TV folks as being a strong football conference.

(06-01-2012 08:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:50 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:28 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I went to that site (thanks, btw - neat site!), and here's what i found. Since there were 6 BCS conferences those years, it stands to reason that a conference should place 1 team in BCS top 6, 2 in top 12, 3 in top 18, 4 in top 24, 5 in top 30, and 6 in top 36. That would be "average" performance for the conference.

ACC teams ranked in BCS top 36:

2007: 3, 14, 15, 20, 35
2008: 14, 19, 24, 26, 28, 33
2009: 9, 11, 15, 33

What do we see? The ACC hasn't just had a problem at the top, the top 6 and top 12 standards, but in the middle/bottom as well. On our 6 evaluation points, here are the results:

2007: success (top 6, top 18, top 24), failure (top 12, top 30, top 36)
2008: success (top 30, top 36), failure (top 6, top 12, top 18, top 24)
2009: success (top 12, top 18), failure (top 6, top 24, top 30, top 36)

So even in these years you think were good, the ACC was weak at the top (1/3 in hitting top 6 and top 12 metrics) but also in the bottom (1/3 in hitting top 30 and top 36 metrics).

Overall, the ACC was only able to hit the metrics 7 of 18 times, and remember, hitting all 18 would just mean "average", not exceptional, performance*. Those three years, it hit no metric all 3 times, and only on the top 18 metric did it do so 2/3 years.

BTW, in 2010 and 2011, the ACC failed on all six standards each year. So what has really happened is that 2010 and 2011 were just even more dismal than usual for the past 5 years. But 2007-2009 were still bad as well.

In contrast, the SEC met, and often exceeded, all 6 standards the past three seasons.

* "exceptional" would mean exceeding a standard, like placing 2 teams in the top 6. By my reckoning, the ACC hasn't exceeded any of these standards since 2005, when it exceeded the top 24 and top 30 standards that year.

If the leagues were using relegation this would be more valid

What is saving the ACC is they are Top 3 in TV audience in both FB and BB...but Bottomline the ACC Kings need to start winning BCS Bowls and other Tier One Bowls again.

The ACC is not the #3 TV conference in football. PERIOD. Don't give me that CRAP study- because that's all it was.... This thread showing how good their OOC schedule PROVES it. ACC conference games don't draw flies. The ACC title game hasn't drawn better than a 2 for the last 3 years in a row. Hell, CUSA drew a 3.1 last year.

Don't let Facts get in you way:

Average football viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen (2011)
1. SEC: 4,447,000
2. Big Ten: 3,267,000
3. ACC: 2,650,000
4. Big 12: 2,347,000
5. Pac-12: 2,108,000
6. Big East: 1,884,000

Average basketball viewership totals by conference according to Nielsen (2010-11)
1. Big Ten: 1,496,000
2. ACC: 1,247,000
3. SEC: 1,222,000
4. Big 12: 1,069,000
5. Big East: 1,049,000
6. Pac-12: 783,000

Dude- STFU. It's a flawwed statistical report. It counts the rating for all games the conference participates in. So basically, it counts the 7 million viewers for the FSU/Oklahoma(which was a top 5 rated game last year) game in the same fashion that it counts the 2 million viewers for the Miami/BC game. That's not statistically the same at all. Considering that the ACC plays the most games of any conference right now vs other AQ conferences- that's huge.

Basically though- if the ACC were really #3 in TV ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract, by a wide margin?

Yes, when you are wrong, the insults fly. Class act buddy.

You didn't answer the question. If ACC is really #3 in football ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract by a wide margin?

(05-31-2012 11:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:21 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:14 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  We should compare the ACC non-conference to the SEC non-Conference.

Go right ahead but I am wondering if I am the only one who realizes how bad it must be getting for you guys when your soapbox to stand upon is your OOC schedule and not your in conference schedule.

A conference should be rated on more than just playing conference foes. SEC get's too much of a pass for wins against Kentucky, Vandy, Miss, Miss St. etc.

You know that it's almost impossible to play all 4 of those teams- even moreso now than before.

SEC's OOC schedule with the rivalry games vs Clemson, GT, and FSU- does just fine. Half the league plays at least 1 top 25 team OOC.

The poster child for overrating a team because they "s'posed to be SEC" is the 2011 Georgia Bulldogs.

Boise State- Loss. Pretty much got dominated in Atlanta. Two 80 yard plays keep it from being even worse on the scoreboard.
South Carolina- Loss.

They then play 10 consecutive games against average to bad football teams, highlighted by wins over 8-5 Auburn/Georgia Tech. They don't play any of Alabama, LSU, or Arkansas. Despite that, they rise to #12.

They then play LSU in the SECCG and get blasted by 32, and follow it up by actually losing to a Big Ten team on New Year's Day, which is basically a sign of failure as a SEC program.

(06-01-2012 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  You didn't answer the question. If ACC is really #3 in football ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract by a wide margin?

You said they were not the #3 TV Conference in Football. They are in viewers. TV Contract dollars don't count in the ratings. And with Pitt and Syracuse coming in those viewers are increasing. Where the Big 12 is declining with the loss of Texas A&M and Missouri.

(06-01-2012 09:11 AM)bronconick Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:21 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:14 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  We should compare the ACC non-conference to the SEC non-Conference.

Go right ahead but I am wondering if I am the only one who realizes how bad it must be getting for you guys when your soapbox to stand upon is your OOC schedule and not your in conference schedule.

A conference should be rated on more than just playing conference foes. SEC get's too much of a pass for wins against Kentucky, Vandy, Miss, Miss St. etc.

You know that it's almost impossible to play all 4 of those teams- even moreso now than before.

SEC's OOC schedule with the rivalry games vs Clemson, GT, and FSU- does just fine. Half the league plays at least 1 top 25 team OOC.

The poster child for overrating a team because they "s'posed to be SEC" is the 2011 Georgia Bulldogs.

Boise State- Loss. Pretty much got dominated in Atlanta. Two 80 yard plays keep it from being even worse on the scoreboard.
South Carolina- Loss.

They then play 10 consecutive games against average to bad football teams, highlighted by wins over 8-5 Auburn/Georgia Tech. They don't play any of Alabama, LSU, or Arkansas. Despite that, they rise to #12.

They then play LSU in the SECCG and get blasted by 32, and follow it up by actually losing to a Big Ten team on New Year's Day, which is basically a sign of failure as a SEC program.

Last year was one of the weirdest years I ever can remember. There were really only about 8-10 really good teams. It's hard to say anything about Georgia because there weren't many that had done any thing more than they did.

(06-01-2012 09:06 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude- STFU. It's a flawwed statistical report. It counts the rating for all games the conference participates in. So basically, it counts the 7 million viewers for the FSU/Oklahoma(which was a top 5 rated game last year) game in the same fashion that it counts the 2 million viewers for the Miami/BC game. That's not statistically the same at all. Considering that the ACC plays the most games of any conference right now vs other AQ conferences- that's huge.

Basically though- if the ACC were really #3 in TV ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract, by a wide margin?

Yes, when you are wrong, the insults fly. Class act buddy.

Telling somebody to shut up is NOT an insult, dude. It's not exactly polite. But it isn't an insult. So let's not go there...

(06-01-2012 09:13 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  You didn't answer the question. If ACC is really #3 in football ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract by a wide margin?

You said they were not the #3 TV Conference in Football. They are in viewers. TV Contract dollars don't count in the ratings. And with Pitt and Syracuse coming in those viewers are increasing. Where the Big 12 is declining with the loss of Texas A&M and Missouri.

TV Contract dollars don't count in the ratings? Are you serious? That's a load of you know what. They are not the #3 TV conference in even viewers. That study is absolute and total crap.

And- Pitt and Syracuse- what football games have they had with good ratings?

(06-01-2012 09:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:13 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  You didn't answer the question. If ACC is really #3 in football ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract by a wide margin?

You said they were not the #3 TV Conference in Football. They are in viewers. TV Contract dollars don't count in the ratings. And with Pitt and Syracuse coming in those viewers are increasing. Where the Big 12 is declining with the loss of Texas A&M and Missouri.

TV Contract dollars don't count in the ratings? Are you serious? That's a load of you know what. They are not the #3 TV conference in even viewers. That study is absolute and total crap.

And- Pitt and Syracuse- what football games have they had with good ratings?

Again, it doesn't support you, so it must be crap.

Does the ACC get some sort of a special dispensation for losing some of those tough OOC games that it has "leached"? Does it at least get credit for scheduling tougher than everyone else? Let me take a wild stab and guess that the answer to that question is "no" in this particular kangaroo court. I'm guessing that this metric only works one way - which ever way suits your position at the time.

Further, and I have asked this question before but nobody bothered to answer - I would presume that's because it is self-explanatory - why would any network care if the ACC was "leaching" games? Let's take the Florida State / Florida game for example. If the game was in Tallahassee and ESPN was getting the revenue, why would the four-letter care which conference Florida actually plays in? Now apply that to Clemson / South Carolina, Georgia Tech / Georgia, etc. If we can safely assume that those rivalry games are likely to continue going forward, and by all accounts those games will continue, they will always be a part of ESPN's ACC package even if some of those teams aren't ACC schools. So why should or would ESPN care as long as they are making money off of those games?

Duh.

I guess I just don't understand the logic behind this criticism at all. I think it comes off as a ridiculous excuse when confronted with an unassailable reality. It's not quite as ridiculous as the one where someone - perhaps it was you - claimed that the B12's ratings weren't as good because rained during some of that league's games, but it is pretty damn close to that level of, uh, reasoning(?).

Further, using your asinine logic, if the C-USA title game is consistently out-drawing the ACC title game, why is that league's television contract so poor as compared with the ACC's deal? That too seems inexplicable especially considering all of the games C-USA teams "leach" off of teams from the SEC and B12. One would imagine that league's ratings would be through the roof.

These arguments are incredibly flimsy and simply don't hold up to good old fashioned common sense.

(06-01-2012 09:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Does the ACC get some sort of a special dispensation for losing some of those tough OOC games that it has "leached"? Does it at least get credit for scheduling tougher than everyone else? Let me take a wild stab and guess that the answer to that question is "no" in this particular kangaroo court. I'm guessing that this metric only works one way - which ever way suits your position at the time.

Further, and I have asked this question before but nobody bothered to answer - I would presume that's because it is self-explanatory - why would any network care if the ACC was "leaching" games? Let's take the Florida State / Florida game for example. If the game was in Tallahassee and ESPN was getting the revenue, why would the four-letter care which conference Florida actually plays in? Now apply that to Clemson / South Carolina, Georgia Tech / Georgia, etc. If we can safely assume that those rivalry games are likely to continue going forward, and by all accounts those games will continue, they will always be a part of ESPN's ACC package even if some of those teams aren't ACC schools. So why should or would ESPN care as long as they are making money off of those games.

Ok, first off you have to look at the individual teams in the ACC and see their schedules rather than lumping it all together and saying the ACC teams as a whole have strong OOC schedules. The reason for that is not all ACC teams have strong ooc schedules. The teams in the South that have those particular strong rivalries against SEC teams have those strong OOC schedules. So why should we give them some bonus credit for simply maintaining strong rivalries? Everyone maintains their strong rivalries, it just happens for those schools that they have strong rivals in the SEC. Why do they deserve credit for keeping those? There really is no choice in that scheduling.

As far as any strong games above and beyond those yearly rival games, those ACC teams are having to schedule those because of their extremely weak strength of schedule within the ACC. That is a fact well proven by the numbers, I know you wouldn't dare refute such facts since you are big on facts right Yinzer? So in the past the ACC has had 4 ooc games to schedule. Those schools can schedule one more tough one to help build up their SOS that being part of the ACC weakens.

As far as this suiting MY position? I do not have a horse in this race, I could go with the outcome either way just fine but no way am I going to give the ACC some special consideration for their OOC scheduling considering the programs that want to be seen as big time national programs HAVE to schedule that way in order to be seen as such.

Programs in stronger football conferences don't have to schedule that way and they Still have stronger SOS ratings than these top football schools in the southern portion of the ACC.

(06-01-2012 09:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Does the ACC get some sort of a special dispensation for losing some of those tough OOC games that it has "leached"? Does it at least get credit for scheduling tougher than everyone else? Let me take a wild stab and guess that the answer to that question is "no" in this particular kangaroo court. I'm guessing that this metric only works one way - which ever way suits your position at the time.

Further, and I have asked this question before but nobody bothered to answer - I would presume that's because it is self-explanatory - why would any network care if the ACC was "leaching" games? Let's take the Florida State / Florida game for example. If the game was in Tallahassee and ESPN was getting the revenue, why would the four-letter care which conference Florida actually plays in? Now apply that to Clemson / South Carolina, Georgia Tech / Georgia, etc. If we can safely assume that those rivalry games are likely to continue going forward, and by all accounts those games will continue, they will always be a part of ESPN's ACC package even if some of those teams aren't ACC schools. So why should or would ESPN care as long as they are making money off of those games.

I guess I just don't understand the logic behind this criticism at all. I think it comes off as a ridiculous excuse when confronted with an unassailable reality. It's not quite as ridiculous as the one where someone - perhaps it was you - claimed that the B12's ratings weren't as good because rained during some of that league's games, but it is pretty damn close to that level of, uh, reasoning(?).

Further, using your asinine logic, if the C-USA title game is consistently out-drawing the ACC title game, why is that league's television contract so poor as compared with the ACC's deal? That too seems inexplicable especially considering all of the games C-USA teams "leach" off of teams from the SEC and B12. One would imagine that league's ratings would be through the roof.

These arguments are incredibly flimsy and simply don't hold up to good old fashioned common sense.

1st off- as someone said, we'll see how good ACC football really is when they go to 9 conference games. Whereas before- ACC would have had 96 football games(-12 for FCS game for each school)- so 84 games, ACC will now have 105 football games(-14 for FCS game for each game)- so 91 games.

Before 48/84 games conference games 57%
new 63/91 games conference games 69%

So it's going to be a lot more conference oriented- 12% more.

The reason why OOC vs Conference matters- a majority of the games shown are actually conference games. If a team draws 2 mil viewers every game in conference, but 6 mil viewers in a OOC game- did the team all of a sudden get good tv wise? No way.

The weather- I did bring it up. One of the games the Big 12 had- was Oklahoma St/Tulsa. The game didn't start due to weather until 1:15am et. Yet, that would be counted in the Big 12's ratings. Big 12 had a number of weather delayed games similar to that. ACC didn't. That would impact the TV ratings.

CUSA gets bad ratings the rest of the year because they're buried on regional networks and CBSSN.

I hate to brag like this but I think it's time to set the record straight on some issues.

Two years ago, when the B1G was kicking off realignment-palooza, this chart appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News analyzing all of the league's serious expansion candidates. You will note that Nebraska, the B1G's ultimate choice, drew the highest national ratings among the candidates. Take a wild stab as to who was No. 2 on that list?

I'll give you three guesses but the first two don't count...



I will also point out that, according to the chart, Pitt was rated the highest academically by US News & World Report and boasted BY FAR the largest endowment of the bunch - more than doubling the research dollars of the next highest rated school. Not sursprisingly, Pitt also easily out-distanced the others in research dollars. Anyone who is remotely familiar with Pitt would not be surprised by that fact as Pitt is neither a "basketball school" or a "football school," but rather a "research school" that churns out successful doctors, dentists and attorneys by the thousands (which is one of the reasons why the endowment is so healthy).

I think when one then factors in Pitt's many football achievements, its credentials are pretty much above reproach for just about any league. Pitt's overall package is among the most complete out there and really shouldn't even be questioned at this point. I would guess that is why the B12 reached out to Notre Dame, Arkansas and Pitt before being spurned by those three and settling for TCU and WVU.

I just think Pitt's history of national championships, Heisman Trophy and other major award winners, College Football HOFers (24 - fifth best nationally), Pro Football HOFers (8 - third best nationally), etc., have made the Panthers very attractive to broadcasters and why they continue to draw good ratings even during what has admittedly been a prolonged dry spell.

As I said, I don't mean this to come off the wrong way, but you have to admit that is one helluva profile for a so called "basketball school" (mostly by people who have been following college football for about 15 minutes). I'd be interested in seeing exactly how many "football schools" can match that profile?

(06-01-2012 09:14 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:06 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude- STFU. It's a flawwed statistical report. It counts the rating for all games the conference participates in. So basically, it counts the 7 million viewers for the FSU/Oklahoma(which was a top 5 rated game last year) game in the same fashion that it counts the 2 million viewers for the Miami/BC game. That's not statistically the same at all. Considering that the ACC plays the most games of any conference right now vs other AQ conferences- that's huge.

Basically though- if the ACC were really #3 in TV ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract, by a wide margin?

Yes, when you are wrong, the insults fly. Class act buddy.

Telling somebody to shut up is NOT an insult, dude. It's not exactly polite. But it isn't an insult. So let's not go there...

It's an insult if I take it as one.

(06-01-2012 09:14 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:06 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 08:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude- STFU. It's a flawwed statistical report. It counts the rating for all games the conference participates in. So basically, it counts the 7 million viewers for the FSU/Oklahoma(which was a top 5 rated game last year) game in the same fashion that it counts the 2 million viewers for the Miami/BC game. That's not statistically the same at all. Considering that the ACC plays the most games of any conference right now vs other AQ conferences- that's huge.

Basically though- if the ACC were really #3 in TV ratings, why do they have the #5 TV contract, by a wide margin?

Yes, when you are wrong, the insults fly. Class act buddy.

Telling somebody to shut up is NOT an insult, dude. It's not exactly polite. But it isn't an insult. So let's not go there...

Not an insult, but it is insulting.