Sorry, nothing wrong with my methods. Funny how you didn't respond the inaccuracies I pointed out in your last post
Does BC continue to do stay in P5?
- Thread starter steeleer
- Start date
Sorry, nothing wrong with my methods. Funny how you didn't respond the inaccuracies I pointed out in your last post
I owe you nothing. No one on this board owes you anything. You deal with it or leave. You will never earn any respect or credit here. You are an invader.
I'll post as much as I like, and you won't do anything about it.
Regarding your other point, you can't respond because you were wrong, and I proved it conclusively. You claimed that the figures were totals, when in fact they were averages.
I haven't provided tainted proof. I provided ratings from several years, and documented exactly where I got them from. You just don't like what the numbers say, so you shoot the messenger. You're simply being dishonest.
Yea, I'm the liar.. ..I've been called worse... ..and for much better reasons.
You are being dishonest. This all started because another poster claimed the ACC wouldn't get a network due to bad ratings. Mind you, he never provided any evidence to back up his point. He simply claimed the ACC got bad ratings, and wasn't challenged. You personally didn't post anything questioning his conclusion or evidence (or lack thereof).
Well, I researched the guy's claim, and nothing I found supported it. Everything I found consistently showed the ACC 3rd in the ratings. Ahead of the Big 12, in fact. So that calls into question his assertion. If he was right, and the ACC had such poor ratings, then I should have found that somewhere, but I didn't. Well, that's a legitimate point on my part. You can't argue that. Well, instead of questioning the other guy's assertion, you (and everyone else) say I'm wrong. Well sorry, I'm not. I could not find one single source that had the ACC's ratings lower than 3rd. I could not find one single source that listed the Big 12's ratings ahead of the ACC. I searched all the way back to 2010, and found nothing. So explain to me what conclusion is to be drawn from that.
Last edited:
So I guess we should naturally see ESPN finally eagerly starting the ACC Network for 2016? With those kind of ratings for BC, Pitt, WF, and several others, how could they pass it up? I don't buy your numbers, apparently neither do the broadcast networks that signed the network deal with the ACC.
Ok, so show me your numbers.
I didn't just make up the numbers I posted. I researched it, and these are the numbers I found. Nobody has provided any other numbers to contradict what I posted. You and others simply just say, "I don't believe it." Again, you don't have any conflicting numbers, you just say you don't believe the numbers I posted, simply because you don't like them.
Explain something to me. Why is it so hard to find the "real" numbers? I found these fairly easily. Where are the "real" ones?
So what you're saying is, when I provide actual numbers, it's ok to disregard them, but you claims are supposed to be taken as fact, even when you have no evidence backing them up? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Again, the only reason you don't believe the numbers I posted is because you don't like them.
Tiger, I don't care about the raw numbers, therefore I don't research them. I'm not contradicting what you found and make no judgement regarding your numbers. I'm basing my conclusions on the number of butts not in stadium seats and the apparent broken promise of an ACC network. This is about BC and the realities it is facing as far as athletics. As tempting as it may be, my posts on this thread are not an attack on the ACC and it's success or failure in the long run.
There is a reason ESPN has stalled on the ACC Network, and it's all about their own numbers regarding potential profit. I appreciate the search time you spent gathering the limited numbers available to the public. My conclusions are based strictly on results. The results are, BC is struggling terribly with athletics as a small private Jesuit school. Empty seats logically mirror a lack of interest regarding broadcast media of the school's athletic events.
Not winning a single conference game in football or basketball obviously effects fan interest. BC is currently a drain on the conference instead of an asset, despite average TV audiences for all of the conference games.
There is a reason ESPN has stalled on the ACC Network, and it's all about their own numbers regarding potential profit. I appreciate the search time you spent gathering the limited numbers available to the public. My conclusions are based strictly on results. The results are, BC is struggling terribly with athletics as a small private Jesuit school. Empty seats logically mirror a lack of interest regarding broadcast media of the school's athletic events.
Not winning a single conference game in football or basketball obviously effects fan interest. BC is currently a drain on the conference instead of an asset, despite average TV audiences for all of the conference games.
According to that source. "National ratings unavailable for games on SEC Network, CBS Sports Network, the Big Ten Network and the Pac-12 Network, as none are Nielsen-rated." No mention of what they do about games only on the Longhorn Network, I would assume those are missing also. In the comments section, several people talk about games that are not included in the listing. No obvious direct tie in to the Nielsen ratings (which are also sample based estimates) and the SMW site seems to be operated by one guy named Paulsen who may or may not get around to listing missing games. Just too many issues to be confident in this data. I wouldn't waste my time on it.
I was talking about how the four different sources for the different years compiled the statistics, not what Nielsen did or even what SMW did. However Nielsen has its own problems as far as being accurate and the SMW site is admittedly incomplete. I believe now that the inflated 2015 numbers are because of the 3 playoff games were included although as I said, your yearly sources do not say what methodology they used when they compiled the statistics. I wouldn't put complete faith in those data even though I find the SMW numbers interesting. SMW definitely lists all the bowl games and all the playoff games. What those other 4 separate reporting agencies did to compile their charts is not obvious. What is absolutely clear though from the SMW numbers is the importance of making the playoffs and what a potential cash cow they are. Tremendous viewership for those games and likely way higher than what Nielsen calculates. Only the Rose Bowl came close to the numbers posted for the playoff games. Pretty interesting also to look at the numbers for potential Big12 candidates.
Here's the thing. Let's start with Neilson. You mentioned that they are not accurate, being that they are samples. Ok, so who IS accurate? Neilson ratings are the ones the TV industry goes by. If you are telling me the Neilson ratings can't be trusted, then there isn't anything that can be trusted. Well, the TV industry has to have SOMETHING to go off of to compare viewership between shows. It's a little disingenuous to suggest that Neilson aren't the standard in the TV industry, because it's pretty evident they are. As I said, the TV industry has to have some means of comparing shows. They do that by ratings. Neilson is the standard they use. To suggest otherwise is again disingenuous.
Regarding SMW, I disagree. It clearly points out that games from SECN, for example, aren't included, because they don't have a Neilson ratings. Well, it's pretty obvious that the games there were included are there because they have a Neilson rating. You brought up the issue that not every game was included. Well, a couple of things. Every game is not rated. For example, if Texas Tech plays Sam Houston St., that game may not even receive a rating in the first place, most likely because it wasn't broadcasted on a network. Also, if you notice in the comments section, those games people pointed out were missing were during the course of the year. As the year went on, they were added to the list. I simply disagree with you. It's pretty clear where the numbers came from. This business of doubting the validity of the numbers is just because some people don't like the implication of the numbers. Again, if these same figures showed the Big 12 #1, nobody on here would question their validity.
To your point about how the numbers were calculated, I was also referring to the websites, not Neilson or SMW. Neither Neilson or SMW compiled the numbers for each conference. The websites individually did that independently, using the raw data from SMW. I agree with your conclusion that the 2015 numbers probably included the bowl games, which resulted in an inflated total. I went back and added up the numbers myself for 2015 (from the SMW figures), using only the regular season. This resulted in lower numerical totals, but the result was the same: SEC/Big Ten on top, ACC in the middle, Big 12/Pac 12 at the bottom. I also calculated the averages for the ACC and Big 12 in 2014 & 2013, again using SMW. Both years, the ACC came out on top. (I haven't compiled the other leagues yet.) When I compared my numbers to the 2014 website, they were almost spot on. The weekly average were almost the same, as were the yearly averages. Given all this, I think anyone being honest has to admit that this is probably correct.
The numbers matter. You can't equate stadium attendance to TV ratings. Two completely different things. You can't base your conclusions simply on butts in the seats, because there are literally hundreds of other factors that you aren't considering. The reality is, you are basing your conclusion on a pure guess, not verifiable information or data.
There are a couple of problems with your analysis. First, you keep insisting this is all about interest in BC itself. I keep trying to tell you it isn't. It's also dependent on interest in other teams in the league (Florida St, Clemson, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, Miami, etc.) A conference network does not hinge on BC. Also, the Boston market is not the be all, end all of an ACC network. If you look at a map, you will see a variety of markets in the ACC's territory. The Boston market by itself isn't going to make or break an ACC network.
On that note, there were no broken promises about an ACC network. There was no guarantee of a network in the first place. The ACC has a clause in the contract for an extra $2 million if ESPN decided not to start a network. Well, that shows you right there that there was never a 100% promise of a network in the first place. That said, ESPN was planning to start the network in 2017. The asked for a delay in the launch back in October. This was done because they want to ensure full distribution before they launch. That's because Disney read ESPN the riot act, so they are trying to cut costs. Georgia Tech president talked about it last year. http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/co...rnallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral
Also, here is a piece about BC from 2012. http://www.bcinterruption.com/2012/12/12/3757602/2012-acc-football-tv-ratings-roundup
Last edited:
I do appreciate your reasoning, exhaustive research and numbers. You can tell me BC had less than 30k in the stadium for several games while they enjoyed high TV ratings all day but I'm not buying it. When you say this is not all about BC, you are not looking at the title of the thread. As a long time copy editor, I admit it is grammatically flawed. However, the poster made it clear he was speaking only about BC. I hope they get their network and it either succeeds or fails. Only that will determine the 'winner' of this debate.
No, see, that's not what I'm telling you. I have not said BC gets high TV ratings. What I have been trying to tell you is, it doesn't matter if BC gets good TV ratings. The only point of having BC in the conference is so that Florida St, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, etc. can get into Boston, and it's up to those schools to generate the ratings. BC is nothing more than the Rutgers of the ACC. The Big Ten didn't pick Rutgers because of Rutgers being good. The only, literally the only, reason the Big Ten picked Rutgers was so that the other schools could get into the New York/New Jersey market. Rutgers was nothing more but a gateway for the BTN into the New York/New Jersey market. That's the exact same thing with Boston College.
Regarding the title of the thread, YOU are the one who brought up the ACC network, not me. You are the one who veered off of the subject line by bringing up the ACC network. If you want to strictly stick to the title of the thread, then the only subject that can be discussed is whether or not BC stays in the P5. Well, the ACC getting a network has nothing to do with BC staying in the P5. BC could leave the conference, and the ACC could still get a network. If you are going to be that strict about the subject matter, then you are the one who took the discussion off course.
Sorry for voicing my opinion on something that pushes your buttons, I should know better by now. At least you remained civil, thank you for that. If it were important to me I would have a copy of anything related to the matter, but it's not. I am not naive enough to expect this to be the final word on the subject, but it is my final word. FSU only drew 39,000 fans in 45,000 seat Alumni Stadium. Notre Dame managed to sell out Fenway Park with 38,000 fans. People in Florida and many parts of the nation may have tuned in to those games to see FSU and ND, but the fans in Massachusetts apparently no longer care.
FSU and Notre Dame will draw a significant TV viewership regardless of where they play. Massachusetts is apparently the exception. Boston does not help the ACC, nor would it likely help any other conference. They would probably do better playing at Temple with the Philadelphia TV market.
I would remind you that you are a guest on this board and while I have no way to limit your access, Vernon certainly does. He is a very tolerant man. He is going to give more leeway in being nasty to you, but I doubt he will give you the same. He may not be interacting in this thread but trust me, he watches it and you. If you wish to continue to come here and spout half-truthes and veiled sleights, I would suggest you be more polite to others on this board even if they are not the same with you. This is OUR turf, not yours, never forget that.
I'll remind you that you aren't going to do anything. I'll also remind you that I'm not the one dealing in half-truths or veiled slights. You said something earlier in the threat the was completely false, and I proved it so. Again, I'll say what I want, when I want, where I want, and you won't do anything about it.
Sorry, your still wrong. You can't just claim stadium attendance has any bearing on TV ratings. Let me give you one example. In the last link I posted, the Boston College/Notre Dame game was Notre Dame's #2 rated game in 2012. Well, you can't just automatically assume that people in Massachusetts weren't watching the game. You have no basis for that. Unless you have some ratings that specifically show that Massachusetts got lower-than-average ratings for that game, you can't make that assumption, just based off stadium attendance.
You are also wrong about Boston not helping the ACC. When Miami and Virginia Tech joined the ACC in 2004, the ACC's TV contract actually went down. Now think about that. At the time, Miami was still a national power, and Virginia Tech was a Top 10 program. Yet, the contract actually went down. That's because Miami and Virginia Tech were redundant markets. It wasn't until Boston College, with the Boston market, was added that the contract increased.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm pointing out that the facts simply don't support your conclusions.
These facts do:
- Florida State's league impact on television in 2011 was likely greater than the combined impact of Maryland, Wake Forest, and BC across basketball and football
- The impact of FSU and Clemson is almost equal to the combined impact of the five lowest ranked teams in the ACC (BC, Wake, Maryland, UVA, NCSt)
No it doesn't. By that logic, Maryland doesn't help the Big Ten either. We know that's not true.
Tiger, his research, methodology and formulas are sound. I feel no need to regurgitate them as that would be redundant to the link. FSU and Clemson bring far more value than most of the other schools. VTech pays it's own way, but they have about five schools whose share of broadcast revenue should be much lower than the top tier if the distribution was truly equitable. And you are spot on about Maryland, they bring very little revenue to the B1G and have nowhere near the economic value to the conference of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State and others.
You wanted facts and figures to support my conclusions, I provided them. You don't like them, therefore you reject them. Read the article objectively and tell me where it is flawed if you'd like. Sometimes it's better to simply agree to disagree regarding opposite viewpoints.
I'm not questioning the author's research. I'm questioning yours. You are making the argument that because Boston College doesn't bring in as much as Florida St or Clemson, they aren't beneficial to the ACC. Well, that's simply incorrect. That's proven by the fact the ACC's contract went up when Boston College was added. That also brings me to Maryland. Maryland was the 3rd worst in the ACC. They came in -21%. Yet, the Big Ten took them. Well, that makes no sense. It would be completely illogical for the Big Ten to take Maryland if Maryland didn't add any value to the league. Obviously they do, which is why the Big Ten chose them. Similarly with the ACC and Boston College. Explain to me why the Big Ten would take Maryland, if Maryland didn't make money.
Aside from that, you keep ignoring several points I brought up. The main one is that having Boston College in the league gets the other ACC teams into the Boston market, when they otherwise wouldn't. Take Florida St. They get good ratings, but they can't get good ratings if they aren't on TV in the first place. Well, that's the whole point. Many times, ACC games would not even be broadcasted in the Boston market, if the ACC didn't have a team there. THAT is the value Boston College provides. I have made that point several times, and you ignore it each time.
Another point. Over the last several years, attendance at college football games has been down across the board. However, the ratings have been up. Well, that shouldn't happen, according to your theory. TV ratings should track with attendance, according to your theory, but they don't.
If you are such a big believer in "agree to disagree," then why aren't you doing it?
topdecktiger is correct. It's amazing how several fans just cannot understand. On field success has little to do with these decisions. It doesn't matter about fan support either. It's about market size and forced cable/satellite provider fees placed on customers living in major metropolis areas. If you live in Boston, have a cable/satellite plan, you are paying for the ACC coverage. Maryland subscribers are paying for the big 10 network. It doesn't matter if those residents watch or follow sports at all. They're paying for it and IMO it should be illegal. That's another topic.
Not necessarily true. You are absolutely correct if a conference or broadcast entity can convince a cable/satellite company into subscribing to a conference network. The B1G worked very hard to sell their product nearly door to door with cable companies and had great success. The SEC pretty much sold itself and the PAC 12 is having problems. Just because you have a conference network does NOT mean a company has to buy it.
There is a reason ESPN has not started an ACC Network and it is purely financial. They are not punishing or slighting the ACC. With diminishing profits and viewership, they need to be convinced by their own research that it is a profitable venture. Just because you start a new network of any kind does not mean Comcast or others have to buy it and charge their customers for it.
Not so long ago, the contract between Dish Network and Fox expired. The negotiations had Dish making so called 'PSAs' asking viewers to call Fox and demand they come to terms with Dish Network to avoid program interruption. It's the same thing.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
RECRUITING UPDATE Possible portal additions for WVU basketball- Latest: AlmostHeaven2021
-
-
-
