Football Fan base AAC>ACC Emory Report:

[ctchamps]

We all knew Clemson was number one and BC last in the ACC.
The analysts were quite surprised by the AAC beating out the AcC.

It is a weighted report but it has a lot of value imo.

From this report I would say UConn's fan base is more the problem than WM or SH.

And based on this report there is some credence that ESPN lowballed the BE on the amount for the contract pre break up.

https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/

 

[junglehusky]

Hmm I haven't gone into the methodology but from reading the post ranking the AAC it sure sounds like winning more games is a penalty and losing games is a bonus. Maybe with smaller revenues the w/l adjustment factor becomes disproportionately weighted?

 

[junglehusky]

Also... I wonder if this guy knows the fundraiser Herbst hired away from Emory.

 

[ctchamps]

Hmm I haven't gone into the methodology but from reading the post ranking the AAC it sure sounds like winning more games is a penalty and losing games is a bonus. Maybe with smaller revenues the w/l adjustment factor becomes disproportionately weighted?

They factor in performance but project what the winning should produce vs actual production. Check out the B12. Texas isn't penalized based on their winning %. Of course I'm not a statistician so the comparative weight is the issue. Anywho losing didn't help BC.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Basically they're saying ACC schools have dumped a ton of money and gotten mediocre results. Quantifies what we already knew. The ACC has reached it's ceiling and has maxed out it's resources.

The AAC has some big sleeper schools that have decent attendance and revenue for lower producing schools. SMU, UCF and Houston can be huge if they start winning. I disagree with Memphis being that high up the ladder.

 

[ctchamps]

Basically they're saying ACC schools have dumped a ton of money and gotten mediocre results. Quantifies what we already knew. The ACC has reached it's ceiling and has maxed out it's resources.

The AAC has some big sleeper schools that have decent attendance and revenue for lower producing schools. SMU, UCF and Houston can be huge if they start winning. I disagree with Memphis being that high up the ladder.

In these rankings TCU and WV are 3 & 4 in the BIG 12. Cuse and Pitt are 3 & 5 in the ACC. When ESPN offered the contract to the BE in April 2011 it was comparable to the ACC but still less to a conference with a better brand of bb and more than likely a better fan base for football. One can never prove collusion, but ESPN got away cheaply with that offer.

 

[UConnDan97]

It's hard to put much credence into a report that has Memphis's fanbase as #2. Also, having Memphis at #2 contradicts the author's final point about traditional basketball schools having difficulty building football fanbases (UConn, Ville), so......which one is it?

Blah...

 

[Adios]

Houston has a great potential. I know I've mentioned it before, but UH has been highly spoken of by SEC officials.

From how I see developments in the world of college athletics/affiliations, the AAC is ground to develop programs and schools. We can smash Tulane all we want. They shouldn't have left the SEC.

 

[kingdobbs]

It's hard to put much credence into a report that has Memphis's fanbase as #2. Also, having Memphis at #2 contradicts the author's final point about traditional basketball schools having difficulty building football fanbases (UConn, Ville), so......which one is it?

Blah...

It's a product of the weighting they're using, where they're looking at the value *relative* to on-field performance, and also the return on investment.

Memphis (and SMU above them) is getting a lot of credit in the ratings for having consistent crowds despite a product with wavering quality. In other words, they may be drawing bad numbers, but they aren't drawing any *less* when they have a bad team than when they have a decent one, and the small investment they're making off is providing a higher relative return.

Whereas the numbers they are using show that UConn and Louisville are both *underperforming* compared to their potential, and that both schools have some issues with the "fair weather" fan.

 

[UConnDan97]

It's a product of the weighting they're using, where they're looking at the value *relative* to on-field performance, and also the return on investment.

Memphis (and SMU above them) is getting a lot of credit in the ratings for having consistent crowds despite a product with wavering quality. In other words, they may be drawing bad numbers, but they aren't drawing any *less* when they have a bad team than when they have a decent one, and the small investment they're making off is providing a higher relative return.

Whereas the numbers they are using show that UConn and Louisville are both *underperforming* compared to their potential, and that both schools have some issues with the "fair weather" fan.

My point is that the analysis is worthless, and the conclusions that they are drawing from it are actually contrary to reality. Therefore....it's "blah"....

 

[junglehusky]

Butch, nobody cares that Tulane was in the SEC in the Eisenhower administration, just like nobody cares about how Yale was a powerhouse before WWII. Houston or UCF may be positioned to do well today but if they stink up the joint I guarantee nobody will care about them either.

I don't care about any of these teams, I want UConn to dominate the conference and compete for that one spot in the contract bowls with one other good team in our conference, it can be Cincy or Houston or UCF, and Boise or whoever comes from the MWC. I don't care who the good teams in the conference are as long as UConn dominates them. I don't even care if the conference continues to be dissed by ESPN or whoever, because they bashed the Big East and every team except us, Cincy and USF got paid. Let's win some trophies and get the duck* out of this place.

 

[BoatShow]

And Temple beat us in number of billboards.

 

[cardsfan123]

I guess it has more to do with a program's ceiling though. Louisville, for example, averaged about 90% capacity attendance wise and had a pretty great season so they're a lot closer to their "ceiling" than a program like Memphis or Temple, who both had horrid attendance and horrible records. UConn on the other hand averaged near capacity but finished with a subpar record so having a better record wouldn't increase attendance very much. It seems like it measures how volatile a program's attendance is to their team's performance on the field.

It's ranking of how much potential a program has, i.e. if you were buying stock then Louisville's couldn't go much higher while Memphis's and Temple's have nowhere to go but up simply because they can't get much worse.

 

[junglehusky]

Just to add to my previous comment, I think Kevin Duffy sums it up pretty well (emphasis mine):

There's also potential for the league to make waves within the first few weeks. UConn hosts Michigan; Central Florida has Penn State and South Carolina on the slate; South Florida has Miami and Michigan State; Southern Methodist has Texas A&M, Texas Tech and TCU.

If the league wins some of those games, the media will make a case for The American because The American will have made a case for itself.

If it loses an overwhelming majority of those games, as it has in recent years, the case will continue to sound like this.

"When you add teams like SMU and Houston, you know there's plenty of tradition, plenty of great football," said UConn coach Paul Pasqualoni. "Those teams have been at it for a long time. Nobody has to tell them how to play football, I promise you."

Unfortunately, it's not 1988 anymore. What matters is what's happening right now. And sadly for The American, the momentum for this new division seems to be moving really fast...right now.

There will be, Aresco conceded, more intense discussion "sooner rather than later." According to Aresco, one commissioner said the new football division -- if it comes to fruition -- could include 10 conferences. But, at the other media days, that number was always cut in half.