Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Author Message
Ring of Black Offline
Official Person to Blame
*

Posts: 28,421
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 722
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: Wichita, KS
Post: #1
Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
http://cfn.scout.com/2/766659.html

This guy is a hack. First off, he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to net bowl revenue. Per Omnicarrier yesterday:

SEC - $2,415,977 average per team
Big 10 - $2,217,664 average per team
Big 12 - $1,808,869 average per team
Big East - $1,774,628 average per team
Pac 10 - $1,764,701 average per team
ACC - $1,605,304 average per team

You'll see that the ACC is the clear bottom-feeder. Thus, contrary to Elliot's point, the BE and their five bowl teams did plenty to earn money, which not only exceeded the ACC, but was comparable to the Pac-10 and Big 12.

As far as the variety of conference champions, Elliot seems to selectively point out the teams that "push" (not BEAT) USC over in the Pac-10, while he completely ignores Rutgers pushing WVU in 2006, and both UC and UConn pushing WVU in 2007. In fact, completely lost on him is the fact that UConn TIED WVU for the conference championship, losing out on the BCS bowl due to a tie-breaker.

The returning all-Americans argument is also loudly laughable. Elliot states that the Big Ten has 5, the BE 4, and the ACC 3. He considers the 4 vs. 3 comparison in the BE and ACC "negligible", while the 5 vs. 4 for the B10 over the BE "dramatically more". Sounds like fuzzy math to me.

Taking it one step further, the Big Ten averages .455 returning AA's per school, while the ACC returns .250. The BE returns .500, wiping away both the B10 and ACC.

He may have a point about recruiting, but, really, doesn't it boil down to what you do with them? Despite the recruiting success over the past few years, the ACC's on the field performance has not stacked up. They've not won a BCS bowl since 1999, by the way.

Coaching analysis, again selective. While going out of his way to praise the "upcoming star" from Wisconsin, he doesn't even acknowledge Edsall, Leavitt, and Kelly of the BE. Those three aren't rising stars?? Also, what have JoPa and Bowden done lately?

Yeah, I'd say Tressel and Beamer are trump cards, but the difference in coaching isn't as significant as Elliot portrays.

All in all, a very opinionated analysis backed with selective facts.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2008 07:56 PM by Ring of Black.)
07-03-2008 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


Cubanbull Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,617
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 392
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
LOL. It was all how to spin it so the ACC would end up higher up and the Big East finiosh last because we all know thats how it should be. LOL
07-03-2008 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
Shannon Panther Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,877
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 370
I Root For: Pitt
Location: Nashville, TN

Donators
Post: #3
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
He also credited BC as the 2004 BE Champs. Pitt, WVU, Cuse, & BC were co-champs that year with Pitt being the BCS Rep, not BC. So using his own login against him since 2003 Miami, BC, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, UConn, & Louisville have been Champs or co-champs. That means 5/8 of the conference have won or shared a BE title in the last 5 years. I would argue that is probably as high a number as any conference in the country. This guy is a complete imbecile, or a hack with an agenda. My money is on the latter.
07-03-2008 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
PusherT Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,487
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Dewitt, New York
Post: #4
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
His analyst on the conference champions and All american really bothered me, we all know how was wrong but he was very biasis in these 2 criteria. Back in 2004 BC,SU,Pitt, and WVU were tied for 1st place same thing happened last season with Uconn and WVU
07-03-2008 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


frogman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,245
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Shannon Panther Wrote:He also credited BC as the 2004 BE Champs. Pitt, WVU, Cuse, & BC were co-champs that year with Pitt being the BCS Rep, not BC. So using his own login against him since 2003 Miami, BC, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, UConn, & Louisville have been Champs or co-champs. That means 5/8 of the conference have won or shared a BE title in the last 5 years. I would argue that is probably as high a number as any conference in the country. This guy is a complete imbecile, or a hack with an agenda. My money is on the latter.

:iagree:
07-03-2008 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #6
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
He must be a BU$H administration scientist. Only someone who cooks figures like they do could put the ACC above The BEast.
07-03-2008 05:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #7
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Alot of half truths and downright misusing of facts. This is the biggest load of bunk that I have seen in quite awhile.


01-wingedeagle
07-03-2008 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #8
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
You must not visit CFN much... 03-banghead
07-04-2008 07:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Shannon Panther Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,877
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 370
I Root For: Pitt
Location: Nashville, TN

Donators
Post: #9
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
I sent the following email to Brent. I'll post his reply if he has the sack to email me back.

Quote:Brent,



I see you aren’t one to allow facts to get in the way of a good conclusion. There are several mistakes or purposeful misstatements in your “analysis”.



First is your analysis of Bowl games. You said, “While the Big East does have fewer teams than the ACC and Big Ten, three fewer bowl teams is still a substantial amount, just ask Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese about the difference in income.“



The reality is the ACC sent 66.7% of their conference to bowls while the Big East sent 62.5% of the teams to the post season. Louisville was bowl eligible making 75% of the Big East bowl eligible vs. 66.7% for the ACC. Maryland went to a bowl with a 6-6 record. If there wasn’t an auto tie in they would have sat home like Louisville did. As far as the dollars go, yes, the ACC made more money overall, but the Big East made more per team. The figures on a per team basis are:



SEC - $2,415,977 average per team
Big 10 - $2,217,664 average per team
Big 12 - $1,808,869 average per team
Big East - $1,774,628 average per team
Pac 10 - $1,764,701 average per team
ACC - $1,605,304 average per team



As you can see the Big East finished 4th ,above both the Pac 10 and the ACC. The ACC finished dead last. They have several low paying bowls on the bottom end.



Second is your analysis of Conference champions. You said, ”Parity is the goal of every conference because it indicates a balance of power. A quality conference is depreciated if the same team wins every season.” You credit BC as the 2004 champion. In 2004 Pitt represented the BE in the Fiesta Bowl as the BE Champs. In reality WVU, Syracuse, Pitt and BC shared the conference championship with Pitt winning the tie breaker. In 2007 WVU and UConn were co champions. So since realignment the BE has seen 62.5% of current conference members win or share the conference championship. As opposed to the ACC who has seen 25% of its membership win a conference championship. Your conclusion is the exact opposite of the of your supposition. Furthermore, in the last 4 years every member of the current Big East has gone to a bowl. Syracuse and Pitt haven’t been in the last three, but NC and NC State have only been to 1 bowl in the last 4 years and Duke hasn’t sniffed a bowl since 1994.

Feel free to do a little research before you do any more "analysis".
07-04-2008 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #10
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Great note, SP. I wonder if they'll print it? 07-coffee3
07-04-2008 04:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


frogman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,245
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Shannon Panther Wrote:I sent the following email to Brent. I'll post his reply if he has the sack to email me back.

Brent (the Idiot) Elliott probably won't reply. I think your e-mail made him cry.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2008 05:03 PM by frogman.)
07-04-2008 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
Shannon Panther Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,877
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 370
I Root For: Pitt
Location: Nashville, TN

Donators
Post: #12
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
He actually replied much to my surprise. He talked around my points without really refuting any of them. He completely skipped over the fact that the BE had 75% of their teams bowl eligible as opposed to 66.7% of the ACC. Oh and the spelling mistakes are original. Nothing like being a condescending jerk with several misspellings in your opening paragraph.

Quote:Hey Chris,

Thanks for you clevor retorts. You provide a much more unique rebutle than most claiming that "West Virginia is awesome!" and thus the Big East cannot be the worst conference. You are a smart college football fan, and more fans should follow your lead, however I do take exception to your "several mistakes you found."

1. I'm on board with the angry fan, I get it. No one shows more passion than you now watch how you yell and scream about how right you are. I've been in your shoes more times than I should have been, but the word "several" means more than two.

2. Revenue gained by bowl teams is split by the entire conference and as such, the conference is treated as a business. If business A made 40 million dollars and business E made 30 million dollars, Forbes is going to list business A ahead of business E. Conference winnings are also only a contribution to each teams revenue, and I will guarantee you that Miami, FSU, VT, Clemson, and BC will generate more than WVU, USF, Uconn, Cincinnati and Rutgers. The point is moot however, because no one really cares how much money a team makes overall, only the quality of bowls and the amount they appear in.

3. The ACC has more auto-tie-ins because the general consensus of the media and marketers (not my opinion, mind you) is that the ACC has better depth than the Big East. Thats why Maryland goes, and not Louisville, though both could be considered dissapointments last season.

4. Champion is supposed to represent the best of the conference. BC was part champion, ok, fine. Either way, it cannot be said that those teams were "better" by virtue of a tie at the top. More importantly, anytime the list of co-champions is the same length as the list of non-winners, the conference has a problem. Variety of champions is good, half the league wins is just ridiculous.


Thanks for the argumentative email Chris. Stay strong in your fanhood and feel free to contineu comenting on any of my articles.

Brent Elliott
Scout.com
collegefootballnews.com
07-05-2008 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
Crimsonelf Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,568
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Cardinals
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Shannon Panther Wrote:He actually replied much to my surprise. He talked around my points without really refuting any of them. He completely skipped over the fact that the BE had 75% of their teams bowl eligible as opposed to 66.7% of the ACC. Oh and the spelling mistakes are original. Nothing like being a condescending jerk with several misspellings in your opening paragraph.

Quote:Hey Chris,

Thanks for you clevor retorts. You provide a much more unique rebutle than most claiming that "West Virginia is awesome!" and thus the Big East cannot be the worst conference. You are a smart college football fan, and more fans should follow your lead, however I do take exception to your "several mistakes you found."

1. I'm on board with the angry fan, I get it. No one shows more passion than you now watch how you yell and scream about how right you are. I've been in your shoes more times than I should have been, but the word "several" means more than two.

2. Revenue gained by bowl teams is split by the entire conference and as such, the conference is treated as a business. If business A made 40 million dollars and business E made 30 million dollars, Forbes is going to list business A ahead of business E. Conference winnings are also only a contribution to each teams revenue, and I will guarantee you that Miami, FSU, VT, Clemson, and BC will generate more than WVU, USF, Uconn, Cincinnati and Rutgers. The point is moot however, because no one really cares how much money a team makes overall, only the quality of bowls and the amount they appear in.

3. The ACC has more auto-tie-ins because the general consensus of the media and marketers (not my opinion, mind you) is that the ACC has better depth than the Big East. Thats why Maryland goes, and not Louisville, though both could be considered dissapointments last season.

4. Champion is supposed to represent the best of the conference. BC was part champion, ok, fine. Either way, it cannot be said that those teams were "better" by virtue of a tie at the top. More importantly, anytime the list of co-champions is the same length as the list of non-winners, the conference has a problem. Variety of champions is good, half the league wins is just ridiculous.


Thanks for the argumentative email Chris. Stay strong in your fanhood and feel free to contineu comenting on any of my articles.

Brent Elliott
Scout.com
collegefootballnews.com

He wants variety, just not too much? I fail to see how it's a problem when so many of the teams win or share the conf. title. What is his rationale here? Or is he just making it up as he goes along?
07-06-2008 01:17 AM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


CollegeCard Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,102
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 317
I Root For: UofL
Location: Ohio
Post: #14
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Typical CFN bunk. I see they now let college kids write feature articles for them. Only 2 years ago this kid was walking around with his hat on backwards and a popped collar. Heck, who am I kidding...Brent probably still dresses like that and doesn't know sh&t about football other than what he hears around the frat house.
07-06-2008 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #15
RE: Have fun with this - Ranking the BCS conferences per CFN
Some kids write some pretty good stuff. I should know. I was the assistant editor of the school newspaper my freshman year, and took over as editor as a sophomore. I probably should have stuck with it, since my father had tons of contacts that could have helped me get my start as a writer. But I ended up taking a different path. I even did a graduate level research project correlating the incidence of age related diseases in the presence of chemical contaminants in West Virginia, and did all the writing, as well as the data analysis and SAS programming.
07-07-2008 03:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.