(03-12-2012 05:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 04:34 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  [quote='johnbragg' pid='7675328' dateline='1331576517']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7675094' dateline='1331574445']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675022' dateline='1331573285']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7674892' dateline='1331571706']
[quote='johnbragg']

No one else is fishing in the MWC-C-USA pond, either, with the exception of TCU to the Big 12.

Actually the PAC added Utah. TCU was occasionally mentioned as a possible BIG addition although who knows if there was anything official. Boise has been mentioned as a PAC add, Big XII add, etc. ECU isn't often mentioned as a consideration except on boards like this one.

Withdrawn. What I meant was that the top-level conferences have basically picked the non-AQ ranks clean--Utah, TCU, Boise plus Houston and UCF to the Big East, Air Force and BYU saying "no" to the Big 12 and the Big East. I'm saying that, of what's left, ECU is left.

But again, how is ECU what's left? There are still multiple schools in the east with as much or more to offer than ECU. USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo, Umass, Villanova. ECU has home attendance over these programs but otherwise each of those schools has more to offer in other areas including in the football world in some cases. Not sure what makes people feel ECU stands out above USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo, Umass, Villanova, etc. other than they currently get 40-50,000 out in the stands?

Quote:Reports have also shown the Big East to be advised in tv matters.

I think ESPN-Big East communications have broken down pretty badly. I tend to think that the first wave of pickups was driven by where Notre Dame wanted to play road basketball games to service their alumni (Texas, Florida) and the second wave was picked to help stitch the "I-A" and "Non-I-A" schools back together.

Quote:There really isn't verifiable data out in the public forum to suggest that ECU has either a statewide television audience in that state (NC) or spillover into others. .....
Also--stacking up "well" with certain UNC and NC State games in cherry picked categories in that state do not a good candidate for a BCS conference make.[/color]

As I said, if the numbers they listed as their average are legit, then they have a statewide audience. ECU's average rating was comparable to the cherry-picked rating for NC State or UNC. I think it's fair to say that in a higher-profile conference, they could establish themselves as North Carolina's #1 college football school. North Carolina is a pretty big state.

I wouldn't agree that #'s listed as their average are "legit" other than that they are cherry picked numbers and not a large enough sample (i.e. all games over multiple seasons over a period of time) and further are compared to the lowest cherry picked numbers from those other schools. I wouldn't agree and don't think anyone rationally looking at the situation would contend that ECU is going to overtake UNC, NC State or even the other ACC schools ever in that state in terms of popularity. Right now one could just as easily contend that Appalachian State would draw as many viewers if on in NC as ECU would and would be more recegnized nationally as well. A small portion of North Carolina's tv market is doubtfully considered a major "get" by tv executives and again--media types who deal in tv haven't identified ECU as a valuable entity to the Big East or another major conference and that speaks volumes.

ECU Cherry picked games because this is how they can say they rate higher than those more recognized in state programs. If we saw all the numbers then it simply is not the case. If it was then you would see ECU on tv much more, and those programs less--instead of games with ECU and BCS teams often only found on the internet as is the reality.

They gave a cherry picked number, the one I gave the ridiculous acronym, but they also gave a number as the average for all games.

All games over what period of time and including just regular season games or also bowl games? Including bowl games which garner a certain amount of viewership no matter who is playing is not a good indicator of a teams popularity--rather the bowl's popularity and affected by numerous things.

Quote:None of those schools has been playing ECU. The ones that used to haven't considered it since they left CUSA. That says that they don't consider it important to play ECU, let alone be associated with them in a conference.

They weren't playing UCF or Memphis or Temple or SMU or Houston, either.

Yes, but they were apparently interested in and agreeable to bringing those schools into their conference as well--as were those advising them on television and finances.

Quote:why then the constant and continual pushing for them? What do people feel they would bring that other schools don't --or is it simply that because they have 40-50,000 butts in seats people feel they should be added?

Quote:
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

Would have to get out ratings for all such programs and determine what "big" means to know. Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers. Temple also probably has a better demographic for advertisers. There isn't any way to get over the facts that most people in NC are watching ACC games and most of ECU or any teams viewers come from their home DMA.

Quote:
To pretend that ECU brings in "close to what the Rutgers package brings in" is simply laughable. Rutgers is located in one of the largest media markets--in fact TWO of the largest media markets in the nation and has been demonstrated to be the top college football tv draw in NYC for ratings.

Being the top CFB draw in NYC isn't worth much. What is worth something is that Rutgers delivers a TV audience in the state of NJ. NJ and NC have comparable populations. If ECU got into a better conference, it would be very plausible that they'd be the top CFB program in North Carolina. They'd also be a non-threatening little brother program to the ACC fans.

Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly, while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets. ECU has a winning record maybe against Duke if any of the NC programs and there is nothing to reasonably suggest they'd ever suddenly improve to overtake the multiple schools in that state. Rutgers on the other hand doesn't have to overtake anyone (perhaps explains their less than outstanding on field performances over time).

Quote:ECU on the other hand is the 5th or 6th school in a state whose markets are dominated by ACC sports. Not sure what would make you believe that but it simply isn't remotely close to that and television and network decision makers are obviously more than aware of this.

If the number that ECU gave as their average is a real number and not a flat-out lie (it wasn't qualified at all) then they have an audience across NC.

ECU may have SOME audience across NC--this doesn't mean it is a significant audience or would be big enough numbers to get even a depleted league like the Big East to take an interest--any more than they might take interest in several other programs with positives and negatives.

(03-12-2012 06:35 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 05:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='buckaineer' pid='7676279' dateline='1331588076']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675328' dateline='1331576517']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7675094' dateline='1331574445']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675022' dateline='1331573285']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7674892' dateline='1331571706']
[quote='johnbragg']

But again, how is ECU what's left? There are still multiple schools in the east with as much or more to offer than ECU. USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo,

Have all been around basically forever without taking off in FBS. ECU seems to have expanded dramatically over the last few decades, which has created a large alumni base, and that alumni base will keep growing. Making up numbers, but ECU was maybe 5,000 students in 1970, 25,000 now.

Quote:Umass, Villanova.

UMass definitely has potential. They only have BC to compete with, they're a large public, lots of alumni, NFL stadium. Villanova IMO is a terrible FBS candidate--small enrollment, small alumni base, in a CFB backwater where they share Philadelphia with a large enrollment large alumni base school that's already in FBS.

Quote:ECU has home attendance over these programs but otherwise each of those schools has more to offer in other areas including in the football world in some cases. Not sure what makes people feel ECU stands out above USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo, Umass, Villanova, etc. other than they currently get 40-50,000 out in the stands?

If they also deliver decent TV ratings across North Carolina, that's more than Temple does in Philadelphia.

From their fact sheet: "Playing a BCS non-AQ conference schedule," .... "Average ratings for the combined 2009–2010 football seasons:
#24 Charlotte 3.7, #26 Raleigh-Durham 4.9, #43 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va. 2.8, #46 Greensboro-High Point 3.5"

Quote:I wouldn't agree that #'s listed as their average are "legit" other than that they are cherry picked numbers and not a large enough sample (i.e. all games over multiple seasons over a period of time)

I don't see how the average is cherry picked.

Quote:and further are compared to the lowest cherry picked numbers from those other schools.

For the ACC schools, though, taking their ESPN games agaisnt BCS AQ opponents is a pretty good sample.

lumes.

ECU Cherry picked games because this is how they can say they rate higher than those more recognized in state programs. If we saw all the numbers then it simply is not the case. If it was then you would see ECU on tv much more, and those programs less--instead of games with ECU and BCS teams often only found on the internet as is the reality.

They gave a cherry picked number, the one I gave the ridiculous acronym, but they also gave a number as the average for all games.

All games over what period of time and including just regular season games or also bowl games? Including bowl games which garner a certain amount of viewership no matter who is playing is not a good indicator of a teams popularity--rather the bowl's popularity and affected by numerous things.

Quote:None of those schools has been playing ECU. The ones that used to haven't considered it since they left CUSA. That says that they don't consider it important to play ECU, let alone be associated with them in a conference.

They weren't playing UCF or Memphis or Temple or SMU or Houston, either.

Yes, but they were apparently interested in and agreeable to bringing those schools into their conference as well--as were those advising them on television and finances.

Quote:why then the constant and continual pushing for them? What do people feel they would bring that other schools don't --or is it simply that because they have 40-50,000 butts in seats people feel they should be added?

Quote:
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

Would have to get out ratings for all such programs and determine what "big" means to know. Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers. Temple also probably has a better demographic for advertisers. There isn't any way to get over the facts that most people in NC are watching ACC games and most of ECU or any teams viewers come from their home DMA.

Quote:
To pretend that ECU brings in "close to what the Rutgers package brings in" is simply laughable. Rutgers is located in one of the largest media markets--in fact TWO of the largest media markets in the nation and has been demonstrated to be the top college football tv draw in NYC for ratings.

Being the top CFB draw in NYC isn't worth much. What is worth something is that Rutgers delivers a TV audience in the state of NJ. NJ and NC have comparable populations. If ECU got into a better conference, it would be very plausible that they'd be the top CFB program in North Carolina. They'd also be a non-threatening little brother program to the ACC fans.

Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly, while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets. ECU has a winning record maybe against Duke if any of the NC programs and there is nothing to reasonably suggest they'd ever suddenly improve to overtake the multiple schools in that state. Rutgers on the other hand doesn't have to overtake anyone (perhaps explains their less than outstanding on field performances over time).

Quote:ECU on the other hand is the 5th or 6th school in a state whose markets are dominated by ACC sports. Not sure what would make you believe that but it simply isn't remotely close to that and television and network decision makers are obviously more than aware of this.

If the number that ECU gave as their average is a real number and not a flat-out lie (it wasn't qualified at all) then they have an audience across NC.

ECU may have SOME audience across NC--this doesn't mean it is a significant audience or would be big enough numbers to get even a depleted league like the Big East to take an interest--any more than they might take interest in several other programs with positives and negatives.

Buckaineer:

Let's imagine a school called NC Tech. If they were getting the same ratings in Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro for their games against UCF, Memphis, UAB, Houston and UTEP than NC State was getting for games against Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, BC, Maryland and Virginia, would NC Tech be a good candidate for the Big East?

(03-12-2012 07:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Buckaineer:

Let's imagine a school called NC Tech. If they were getting the same ratings in Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro for their games against UCF, Memphis, UAB, Houston and UTEP than NC State was getting for games against Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, BC, Maryland and Virginia, would NC Tech be a good candidate for the Big East?

I don't believe for a second that ECU games against the opponents you mentioned are getting better ratings across NC than NC state was getting for their games against all the opponents you mentioned on a week to week basis. ECU compared all of their games over two seasons and averaged that out to compare to some games--they don't say which for UNC and NC State in a few markets in NC. We don't have enough data to know what this even means. UNC and NC State may have had many more games on--some with higher ratings by far than any of ECU's and then their games with non conference opponents also on but with marginal ratings. ECU may have had fewer games on, but those on were against higher ranked opponents and include bowl games. None may have been higher ranked than the UNC or NC State highest ranked games, but since there were fewer the average is higher overall--who knows--its impossible to tell.

(03-12-2012 06:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 06:35 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 05:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='buckaineer' pid='7676279' dateline='1331588076']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675328' dateline='1331576517']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7675094' dateline='1331574445']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675022' dateline='1331573285']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7674892' dateline='1331571706']
[quote='johnbragg']

But again, how is ECU what's left? There are still multiple schools in the east with as much or more to offer than ECU. USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo,

Have all been around basically forever without taking off in FBS. ECU seems to have expanded dramatically over the last few decades, which has created a large alumni base, and that alumni base will keep growing. Making up numbers, but ECU was maybe 5,000 students in 1970, 25,000 now.

ECU's school may have grown but so have some of the others as well. Regardless, their success on the field has been sporadic and is declining. Their value to television sources and conferences doesn't seem to be changing for the positive either.

Quote:Umass, Villanova.

UMass definitely has potential. They only have BC to compete with, they're a large public, lots of alumni, NFL stadium. Villanova IMO is a terrible FBS candidate--small enrollment, small alumni base, in a CFB backwater where they share Philadelphia with a large enrollment large alumni base school that's already in FBS.

I'd say both of these schools have potential. Nearly every school has some potential if in a BCS league. What separates these two from others is likely the large television markets they can attract viewers from and attract advertisers to.

Quote:ECU has home attendance over these programs but otherwise each of those schools has more to offer in other areas including in the football world in some cases. Not sure what makes people feel ECU stands out above USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo, Umass, Villanova, etc. other than they currently get 40-50,000 out in the stands?

If they also deliver decent TV ratings across North Carolina, that's more than Temple does in Philadelphia.

Temple football is on in Philadelphia every year. This means they are making someone money there. Don't have numbers in front of me, but if I'm an advertiser I'm likely going to be more interested in gaining tv viewers from the Philly/NJ region and the whole state of PA than maybe some from parts of NC. Head to head on an ESPN game you are likely to get more viewers in Philly and PA for Temple than from the state of NC for ECU.

From their fact sheet: "Playing a BCS non-AQ conference schedule," .... "Average ratings for the combined 2009–2010 football seasons:
#24 Charlotte 3.7, #26 Raleigh-Durham 4.9, #43 Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va. 2.8, #46 Greensboro-High Point 3.5"

Quote:I wouldn't agree that #'s listed as their average are "legit" other than that they are cherry picked numbers and not a large enough sample (i.e. all games over multiple seasons over a period of time)

I don't see how the average is cherry picked.

Quote:What are these numbers? Which games? How many games? Against who? On what networks or channels? including bowls? Who were opponents and how were they ranked? All of these things are important to know. If a UNC has many more games televised including against lower level opponents while ECU only has a few against big opponents televised and they include bowl games, it can sway the numbers largely in their favor. Also, do you really think a conference or tv executives are drooling over a 2% rating in a medium NC market? doubtful.

and further are compared to the lowest cherry picked numbers from those other schools.

For the ACC schools, though, taking their ESPN games agaisnt BCS AQ opponents is a pretty good sample.

lumes.

ECU Cherry picked games because this is how they can say they rate higher than those more recognized in state programs. If we saw all the numbers then it simply is not the case. If it was then you would see ECU on tv much more, and those programs less--instead of games with ECU and BCS teams often only found on the internet as is the reality.

They gave a cherry picked number, the one I gave the ridiculous acronym, but they also gave a number as the average for all games.

All games over what period of time and including just regular season games or also bowl games? Including bowl games which garner a certain amount of viewership no matter who is playing is not a good indicator of a teams popularity--rather the bowl's popularity and affected by numerous things.

Quote:None of those schools has been playing ECU. The ones that used to haven't considered it since they left CUSA. That says that they don't consider it important to play ECU, let alone be associated with them in a conference.

They weren't playing UCF or Memphis or Temple or SMU or Houston, either.

Yes, but they were apparently interested in and agreeable to bringing those schools into their conference as well--as were those advising them on television and finances.

Quote:why then the constant and continual pushing for them? What do people feel they would bring that other schools don't --or is it simply that because they have 40-50,000 butts in seats people feel they should be added?

Quote:
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

Would have to get out ratings for all such programs and determine what "big" means to know. Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers. Temple also probably has a better demographic for advertisers. There isn't any way to get over the facts that most people in NC are watching ACC games and most of ECU or any teams viewers come from their home DMA.

Quote:
To pretend that ECU brings in "close to what the Rutgers package brings in" is simply laughable. Rutgers is located in one of the largest media markets--in fact TWO of the largest media markets in the nation and has been demonstrated to be the top college football tv draw in NYC for ratings.

Being the top CFB draw in NYC isn't worth much. What is worth something is that Rutgers delivers a TV audience in the state of NJ. NJ and NC have comparable populations. If ECU got into a better conference, it would be very plausible that they'd be the top CFB program in North Carolina. They'd also be a non-threatening little brother program to the ACC fans.

Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly, while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets. ECU has a winning record maybe against Duke if any of the NC programs and there is nothing to reasonably suggest they'd ever suddenly improve to overtake the multiple schools in that state. Rutgers on the other hand doesn't have to overtake anyone (perhaps explains their less than outstanding on field performances over time).

Quote:ECU on the other hand is the 5th or 6th school in a state whose markets are dominated by ACC sports. Not sure what would make you believe that but it simply isn't remotely close to that and television and network decision makers are obviously more than aware of this.

If the number that ECU gave as their average is a real number and not a flat-out lie (it wasn't qualified at all) then they have an audience across NC.

ECU may have SOME audience across NC--this doesn't mean it is a significant audience or would be big enough numbers to get even a depleted league like the Big East to take an interest--any more than they might take interest in several other programs with positives and negatives.

(03-12-2012 07:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 06:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='buckaineer' pid='7676764' dateline='1331595335']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7676534' dateline='1331591879']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7676279' dateline='1331588076']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675328' dateline='1331576517']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7675094' dateline='1331574445']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7674892' dateline='1331571706']

But again, how is ECU what's left? There are still multiple schools in the east with as much or more to offer than ECU. USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo,

ECU's school may have grown but so have some of the others as well. Regardless, their success on the field has been sporadic and is declining. Their value to television sources and conferences doesn't seem to be changing for the positive either.

Toledo, Miami of Ohio, and Ohio are all deep in OSU's shadow. The ACC schools ain't exactly Ohio State in football. Marshall is a distant no. 2 in a much smaller state. USM is a distant No. 3 in a small state.

ECU could be the only serious college football team in a major state.

Quote:Umass, Villanova.

I'd say both of these schools have potential. Nearly every school has some potential if in a BCS league. What separates these two from others is likely the large television markets they can attract viewers from and attract advertisers to.

Quote:ECU has home attendance over these programs but otherwise each of those schools has more to offer in other areas including in the football world in some cases. Not sure what makes people feel ECU stands out above USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo, Umass, Villanova, etc. other than they currently get 40-50,000 out in the stands?

If they also deliver decent TV ratings across North Carolina, that's more than Temple does in Philadelphia.

Temple football is on in Philadelphia every year. This means they are making someone money there.

Only if you count ESPN3. Temple's 2011 games against Villanova, Akron, Army and Kent State were on ESPN3. The Temple-Toledo game was on Channel 6. The Penn State game was on national cable. The Maryland game was on TV in Washington, but apparently not in Philadelphia. And the Bowing Green, Ball State and Buffalo games don't seem to have been on TV at all, even ESPN 3.

East Carolina had 4 games on CBS Sportsnet, 3 on FSN, and 5 on WITN, which seems to be a Greenville TV station.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/OtherArti...s/2011.htm

Quote:Don't have numbers in front of me, but if I'm an advertiser I'm likely going to be more interested in gaining tv viewers from the Philly/NJ region and the whole state of PA than maybe some from parts of NC. Head to head on an ESPN game you are likely to get more viewers in Philly and PA for Temple than from the state of NC for ECU.

The whole state of PA? We're talking about Temple and Villanova football, not Pitt or Penn State. They can't get their games shown in Philadelphia, much less statewide. That indicates that they have diddly squat for audience.

Quote:I don't see how the average is cherry picked. [quote]

What are these numbers? Which games? How many games? Against who? On what networks or channels? including bowls? Who were opponents and how were they ranked? All of these things are important to know.

I'll ask the fact sheet again. Oh, wait, it's a PDF, it doesn't answer me. It just says "Average ratings for the combined 2009–2010 football seasons:"

Yes, I'd like to know if that "average" for Charlotte or Raleigh or Greensboro only included 3 games that were shown there. But since it just says "average", without qualification, that means that just about every game should be included. If a game or two weren't televised in the market, I'd say it's okay to not include them, although that should be mentioned. If that average doesn't include at least say 8 games a year in the markets listed, then the factsheet crosses the line from PR to outright lying.

Quote:If a UNC has many more games televised including against lower level opponents while ECU only has a few against big opponents televised and they include bowl g.mes, it can sway the numbers largely in their favor. Also, do you really think a conference or tv executives are drooling over a 2% rating in a medium NC market? doubtful.[quote]

I compared ECU's "Average rating" with UNC and NCState's ratings for ESPN games against BCS-AQ opponents. I think that's a pretty fair comparison, since the ACC teams play ESPN games against BCS-AQ opponents fairly regularly. (When ECU plays an ESPN game against an AQ opponent, it's a highlight of the year for them. For NC State, it's normal.)

ECU Cherry picked games because this is how they can say they rate higher than those more recognized in state programs. If we saw all the numbers then it simply is not the case. If it was then you would see ECU on tv much more, and those programs less--instead of games with ECU and BCS teams often only found on the internet as is the reality.

Let's look at a five-year period for ECU's road games vs AQ's.
2007 @Virginia TEch on ESPN, UNC on CSTV, @West Virginia on ESPN2, NC State on CSTV
2008 Virgina TEch on ESPN, WVU on ESPN, @NC State on ESPN, @ Virgina on Raycom. (They had beaten Boise State in 2007)
2009 @WVU on ESPN360, @UNC on ESPN or 2, Virginia Tech on ESPN
2010 @ Va TEch ESPN3, @ UNC on ESPN3, NC State on CBS College, Navy on MASN
2011 South Carolina FSN/ESPN3, Va Tech FSN, North Carolina CBS-SN, @ Navy CBS-SN

Taking out the year when you'd expect ECU to get some attention for beating Boise State in a bowl the year before, they got dumped onto the internet 3 times, got ESPN 4 times (all 2007 and 09), and were on non-ESPN cable or Raycom syndication 8 times.

As opposed to Temple, who got dumped onto ESPN3 4 times this year and had 3 games with zero television.


They gave a cherry picked number, the one I gave the ridiculous acronym, but they also gave a number as the average for all games.

All games over what period of time and including just regular season games or also bowl? Including bowl games which garner a certain amount of viewership no matter who is playing is not a good indicator of a teams popularity--rather the bowl's popularity and affected by numerous things.

The period of time was given--2009-10. As for including bowls, NC State
played West Virginia in the Citrus Bowl on ESPN, so that would be included in NC State's cherry-picked average. UNC played Tennessee in the Music City Bowl on ESPN. East Carolina played Maryland in the Military Bowl. So if the ECU Average is inflated by including bowls, then the NC STate and UNC ARABwhatever number is inflated the same way, making it a fair comparison.


[quote][quote]
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

[color=#000080]Would have to get out ratings for all such programs and determine what "big" means to know.

In other words, no.

Quote:Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly

That's a neat trick, since only one game was on TV in Philly. Or do you imagine hordes of Philadelphians watching Temple football on their laptops through ESPN3?

Quote:while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers.

They don't have television viewers, since they don't have televised games. And if we're going by internet following, ECU seems to have them beat there, too.

Quote:Temple also probably has a better demographic for advertisers. There isn't any way to get over the facts that most people in NC are watching ACC games and most of ECU or any teams viewers come from their home DMA.

That's what you're dismissing, or refusing to consider. Unless their factsheet is flat-out fraudulent, rather than cherry-picked, they have a substantial TV audience in Charlotte, and in Raleigh, and in Greensboro. I don't know exactly where NC TV markets start and stop, but that has to cover most of the state. The test would be if the ECU games that are on WITN in Green Acres are syndicated to TV stations in North Carolina's cities.

Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly, [/quote]

The market spreads. The fandom does not.

Quote:while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets.

Again, unless their numbers are fraudulent, they're ahead of Duke and Wake Forest, and neck-and-neck with NC State. While playing C-USA teams.

Quote:ECU has a winning record maybe against Duke if any of the NC programs and there is nothing to reasonably suggest they'd ever suddenly improve to overtake the multiple schools in that state.

Well, their fanbase is passionate about football. Their fanbase comes out to their stadium and buys tickets. That's a good start.

Quote:Rutgers on the other hand doesn't have to overtake anyone (perhaps explains their less than outstanding on field performances over time).

They didn't have to overtake anyone. They just had to sell their state on the idea that college football was important. Same thing ECU is working on.

So when all of this happened with Temple.....did John Marinatto hand Father-whomever at Nova a coupon?

Free football entry to Big East - Entry Fee Waived *

Expires 7/1/2015

*Must supply own Stadium that Seats 30,000 + to be valid, May not be used with any other offers

There's no use arguing with buckaneer. He has a deep seeded hatred of ECU. To compare the Ohio bobcats or toledo rocketeers to ECU is laughable. Also, we put 50,000+ in the stands, not 40k

'Nova is not going to be able to move up before 2015 to take advantage of the Big East free offer. It's just not going to happen... first, there is a two year transition, which means they'd have to announce in 2012 and have a stadium for FBS transitional play for 2013 and 2014... before full FBS membership for 2015 to be eligible... They've had years to come up with some sort of plan or stadium proposal and never have been able to do it... the Linc cannot take the wear-n-tear of 3 teams on natural grass... This was a peace offering -- saving face, giving them opportunity, but I doubt they'll step up and do it. Big East attention is squarely focused on Air Force and BYU again (the Big East can offer the best tv rights ownership to BYU of any conference now).

(03-13-2012 02:09 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  'Nova is not going to be able to move up before 2015 to take advantage of the Big East free offer. It's just not going to happen... first, there is a two year transition, which means they'd have to announce in 2012 and have a stadium for FBS transitional play for 2013 and 2014... before full FBS membership for 2015 to be eligible... They've had years to come up with some sort of plan or stadium proposal and never have been able to do it... the Linc cannot take the wear-n-tear of 3 teams on natural grass... This was a peace offering -- saving face, giving them opportunity, but I doubt they'll step up and do it. Big East attention is squarely focused on Air Force and BYU again (the Big East can offer the best tv rights ownership to BYU of any conference now).

Agreed. Plus there are several conditions attached to that offer that amounts to less than a full guarantee that they will be admitted as a football member even after going through all that expense and effort. Alot of other factors will have to come into play outside of whether VU is ready to join at that time in order for that to happen and those are things that neither VU or the BE are in control over.

(03-12-2012 08:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 07:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 06:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='buckaineer' pid='7676764' dateline='1331595335']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7676534' dateline='1331591879']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7676279' dateline='1331588076']
[quote='johnbragg' pid='7675328' dateline='1331576517']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7675094' dateline='1331574445']
[quote='buckaineer' pid='7674892' dateline='1331571706']

But again, how is ECU what's left? There are still multiple schools in the east with as much or more to offer than ECU. USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo,

ECU's school may have grown but so have some of the others as well. Regardless, their success on the field has been sporadic and is declining. Their value to television sources and conferences doesn't seem to be changing for the positive either.

Toledo, Miami of Ohio, and Ohio are all deep in OSU's shadow. The ACC schools ain't exactly Ohio State in football. Marshall is a distant no. 2 in a much smaller state. USM is a distant No. 3 in a small state.

ECU could be the only serious college football team in a major state.

? Villanova isn't "serious"--they just won a national championship a couple of seasons ago. UMASS isn't "serious"? They just moved their program up to 1-A despite financial concerns and arranged to play games in a pro stadium to help themselves be more successful. Marshall and USM are in less populated states--but do their tv ratings show them as less than ECU? Don't think so.

Quote:Umass, Villanova.

I'd say both of these schools have potential. Nearly every school has some potential if in a BCS league. What separates these two from others is likely the large television markets they can attract viewers from and attract advertisers to.

Quote:ECU has home attendance over these programs but otherwise each of those schools has more to offer in other areas including in the football world in some cases. Not sure what makes people feel ECU stands out above USM, Marshall, Ohio, Miami, OH, Toledo, Umass, Villanova, etc. other than they currently get 40-50,000 out in the stands?

If they also deliver decent TV ratings across North Carolina, that's more than Temple does in Philadelphia.

Temple football is on in Philadelphia every year. This means they are making someone money there.

Only if you count ESPN3. Temple's 2011 games against Villanova, Akron, Army and Kent State were on ESPN3. The Temple-Toledo game was on Channel 6. The Penn State game was on national cable. The Maryland game was on TV in Washington, but apparently not in Philadelphia. And the Bowing Green, Ball State and Buffalo games don't seem to have been on TV at all, even ESPN 3.

East Carolina had 4 games on CBS Sportsnet, 3 on FSN, and 5 on WITN, which seems to be a Greenville TV station.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/OtherArti...s/2011.htm

Temple is on tv in Philadelphia. Even if not every game--which is doubtful for nearly any program these days, they get a majority of games on some channel in that metro area. There is probably a channel in Philly carrying Temples MAC games as in other MAC markets. A more important factor is that the Big East has added them and not ECU. Now, BE leadership may have made many mistakes over the years, but they aren't leaving guaranteed money on the table just to invite a Temple even if they do have a strong bb program. The membership isn't going to allow that for sure. The reality is that tv partners find Temple to be the more valuable program from a television standpoint.

Quote:Don't have numbers in front of me, but if I'm an advertiser I'm likely going to be more interested in gaining tv viewers from the Philly/NJ region and the whole state of PA than maybe some from parts of NC. Head to head on an ESPN game you are likely to get more viewers in Philly and PA for Temple than from the state of NC for ECU.

The whole state of PA? We're talking about Temple and Villanova football, not Pitt or Penn State. They can't get their games shown in Philadelphia, much less statewide. That indicates that they have diddly squat for audience.

and I could say the same. The whole state of NC? We're talking about ECU-not UNC, Duke, Wake or NC State. Temple and Villanova both get games on in Philadelphia on a regular basis. Temple and Villanova both have fans around the state of PA just as you claim ECU has fans around NC. Are you actually claiming that next season when Temple is in the Big East and its league games are on nationally or even regionally--that no one in Philly or PA is going to watch those games? Really--you want to make that claim?

Quote:I don't see how the average is cherry picked.

Quote:What are these numbers? Which games? How many games? Against who? On what networks or channels? including bowls? Who were opponents and how were they ranked? All of these things are important to know.

I'll ask the fact sheet again. Oh, wait, it's a PDF, it doesn't answer me. It just says "Average ratings for the combined 2009–2010 football seasons:"

Yes, I'd like to know if that "average" for Charlotte or Raleigh or Greensboro only included 3 games that were shown there. But since it just says "average", without qualification, that means that just about every game should be included. If a game or two weren't televised in the market, I'd say it's okay to not include them, although that should be mentioned. If that average doesn't include at least say 8 games a year in the markets listed, then the factsheet crosses the line from PR to outright lying.

And that's the problem--no one but the ECU writers know what they are comparing or "averaging" between the schools. Without the criteria used, this is just meaningless propaganda.

Quote:If a UNC has many more games televised including against lower level opponents while ECU only has a few against big opponents televised and they include bowl g.mes, it can sway the numbers largely in their favor. Also, do you really think a conference or tv executives are drooling over a 2% rating in a medium NC market? doubtful.[quote]

I compared ECU's "Average rating" with UNC and NCState's ratings for ESPN games against BCS-AQ opponents. I think that's a pretty fair comparison, since the ACC teams play ESPN games against BCS-AQ opponents fairly regularly. (When ECU plays an ESPN game against an AQ opponent, it's a highlight of the year for them. For NC State, it's normal.)

The only way to see what is accurate would be to see each games ratings for each school and especially common opponents on common platforms. There isn't a "fair" comparison mixing and matching what to compare teams with.

ECU Cherry picked games because this is how they can say they rate higher than those more recognized in state programs. If we saw all the numbers then it simply is not the case. If it was then you would see ECU on tv much more, and those programs less--instead of games with ECU and BCS teams often only found on the internet as is the reality.

Let's look at a five-year period for ECU's road games vs AQ's.
2007 @Virginia TEch on ESPN, UNC on CSTV, @West Virginia on ESPN2, NC State on CSTV
2008 Virgina TEch on ESPN, WVU on ESPN, @NC State on ESPN, @ Virgina on Raycom. (They had beaten Boise State in 2007)
2009 @WVU on ESPN360, @UNC on ESPN or 2, Virginia Tech on ESPN
2010 @ Va TEch ESPN3, @ UNC on ESPN3, NC State on CBS College, Navy on MASN
2011 South Carolina FSN/ESPN3, Va Tech FSN, North Carolina CBS-SN, @ Navy CBS-SN

Taking out the year when you'd expect ECU to get some attention for beating Boise State in a bowl the year before, they got dumped onto the internet 3 times, got ESPN 4 times (all 2007 and 09), and were on non-ESPN cable or Raycom syndication 8 times.

As opposed to Temple, who got dumped onto ESPN3 4 times this year and had 3 games with zero television.


And yet a current BCS conference determined there was more value in adding Temple to their league. To you and others this has nothing to do with actual ratings or tv value but some spite, or ignorance or who knows what. Reality is Temple fits more criteria and gives them the better chance to make money from television. You also look at ECU games over a multi year period and compare it to what you've found for one season at Temple. Temples league doesn't have a contract like ECU's. Temple hasn't scheduled multiple games with ranked BCS teams-reasons unknown. When they've been able to play those teams-like PSU they've been on national tv.

They gave a cherry picked number, the one I gave the ridiculous acronym, but they also gave a number as the average for all games.

All games over what period of time and including just regular season games or also bowl? Including bowl games which garner a certain amount of viewership no matter who is playing is not a good indicator of a teams popularity--rather the bowl's popularity and affected by numerous things.

The period of time was given--2009-10. As for including bowls, NC State
played West Virginia in the Citrus Bowl on ESPN, so that would be included in NC State's cherry-picked average. UNC played Tennessee in the Music City Bowl on ESPN. East Carolina played Maryland in the Military Bowl. So if the ECU Average is inflated by including bowls, then the NC STate and UNC ARABwhatever number is inflated the same way, making it a fair comparison.

Problem here is that you are guessing that is what is included. We don't know what they actually included because it simply doesn't say. It isn't a fair comparison. FYI In 2009-2010 ECU played in its biggest bowl in years in that years Liberty against Arkansas from the SEC with a 4.38 rating. North Carolina on the other hand played in a much more minor bowl against Pitt in the Car Care Bowl and yet received a 4.56 rating.

[quote][quote]
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

Would have to get out ratings for all such programs and determine what "big" means to know.

In other words, no.

[color=#006400]No in other words or the same words I'm not going to guess, I would check before answering. ECU doesn't average over 60,000 attendance btw and neither do any of the adds or potential adds.

Quote:Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly

That's a neat trick, since only one game was on TV in Philly. Or do you imagine hordes of Philadelphians watching Temple football on their laptops through ESPN3?

Not a "trick" at all. You may note that the BE added Temple and not ECU and therefore must have found them to be the more valuable program--the program more likely to deliver more money to the league. My statement simply illustrates why such choices were made and there isn't anything "tricky" about it at all.

Quote:while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers.

They don't have television viewers, since they don't have televised games. And if we're going by internet following, ECU seems to have them beat there, too.

Again, you are taking an explanation of why a team (could be any) from a larger market than ECU's is found to have more tv value than ECU's and turning into a game by game comparison of two specific teams. You are ignoring league tv contracts, opponents, opponents records and tv package, etc. Temple was added to the BE and ECU was not--not because some stupid people somewhere for some incomprehensible reason just didn't wan't to include ECU, but because Temple gave the league a better chance to earn money from television.

Quote:Temple also probably has a better demographic for advertisers. There isn't any way to get over the facts that most people in NC are watching ACC games and most of ECU or any teams viewers come from their home DMA.

That's what you're dismissing, or refusing to consider. Unless their factsheet is flat-out fraudulent, rather than cherry-picked, they have a substantial TV audience in Charlotte, and in Raleigh, and in Greensboro. I don't know exactly where NC TV markets start and stop, but that has to cover most of the state. The test would be if the ECU games that are on WITN in Green Acres are syndicated to TV stations in North Carolina's cities.

First, you nor anyone else knows what #'s are being used in that report. If I can see the actual games included, rankings of teams, platforms on, etc., etc. then there is something to make a determination on. Statistics really aren't valid unless we know without a doubt what is going into them and all criteria is equal. You also are making a huge jump that ECU's claims of 2 or 3% viewership in some NC markets (for which games we have no idea) is considered "substantial". Substantial based on what exactly. UNC, NC State etc. are getting national ratings as well as local ratings. What makes you believe that getting i.e. 2% in Raleigh and/or Charlotte is even a blip on the map to a league like the Big East?


Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly,

The market spreads. The fandom does not.

What makes you believe ECU's "fandom" is spreading or that someone else's fandom is not? You are claiming Temple, playing a Big East schedule with multiple tv games won't gain any new fans? Really? Exactly how do you know this?

Quote:while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets.

Again, unless their numbers are fraudulent, they're ahead of Duke and Wake Forest, and neck-and-neck with NC State. While playing C-USA teams.

What exactly shows them to be ahead of Duke or Wake Forest? Ahead in what way exactly? You are talking butts in seats I'd have to guess--what does that have to do with tv viewership? Or popularity in state or regionally or nationally?

Quote:ECU has a winning record maybe against Duke if any of the NC programs and there is nothing to reasonably suggest they'd ever suddenly improve to overtake the multiple schools in that state.

Well, their fanbase is passionate about football. Their fanbase comes out to their stadium and buys tickets. That's a good start.

Yes they have good attendance for a CUSA program. Other programs have some passionate fans as well and also meet various other criteria including having more value to television partners.

Quote:Rutgers on the other hand doesn't have to overtake anyone (perhaps explains their less than outstanding on field performances over time).

They didn't have to overtake anyone. They just had to sell their state on the idea that college football was important. Same thing ECU is working on.

Rutgers is the top tv draw in NYC for college football -and no doubt in NJ as well. Somehow this trumps being the top tv draw in Greenville, NC and an also ran in other markets in North Carolina. There is no realistic comparison.

(03-12-2012 11:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There's no use arguing with buckaneer. He has a deep seeded hatred of ECU. To compare the Ohio bobcats or toledo rocketeers to ECU is laughable. Also, we put 50,000+ in the stands, not 40k

This is an outright lie on both accounts. ECU puts in the 40's in the stands checkable via the NCAA attendance records and I am simply questioning why the continued insistance on ECU while other similar and equally or more viable programs are available. Also questioning why actual additions are constantly attacked with comments such as ECU should have been added instead. To date no one has provided any evidence that isn't manufactured or outright made up to explain.

Ohio University is a much better school than ECU academically, has success in football and other sports, is in a more populous state with only two BCS programs, has a large endowment and lots of alumni including many working in major media. Their home attendance isn't great but then neither are their home opponents.

Toledo wins alot of football games, is in a decent market with the same state statistics as Ohio. Great football recruting state, etc. etc.

Both have wins against BCS teams.

If you compared the institutions on various levels--some things ECU is better at, some the Ohio schools are. Head to head on the football field I'd take Ohio or Toledo over ECU most Saturday's-especially these past two seasons. Basketball the Ohio schools win hands down.

(03-13-2012 08:28 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There's no use arguing with buckaneer. He has a deep seeded hatred of ECU. To compare the Ohio bobcats or toledo rocketeers to ECU is laughable. Also, we put 50,000+ in the stands, not 40k

This is an outright lie on both accounts. ECU puts in the 40's in the stands checkable via the NCAA attendance records and I am simply questioning why the continued insistance on ECU while other similar and equally or more viable programs are available. Also questioning why actual additions are constantly attacked with comments such as ECU should have been added instead. To date no one has provided any evidence that isn't manufactured or outright made up to explain.

Ohio University is a much better school than ECU academically, has success in football and other sports, is in a more populous state with only two BCS programs, has a large endowment and lots of alumni including many working in major media. Their home attendance isn't great but then neither are their home opponents.

Toledo wins alot of football games, is in a decent market with the same state statistics as Ohio. Great football recruting state, etc. etc.

Both have wins against BCS teams.

If you compared the institutions on various levels--some things ECU is better at, some the Ohio schools are. Head to head on the football field I'd take Ohio or Toledo over ECU most Saturday's-especially these past two seasons. Basketball the Ohio schools win hands down.

A minor point perhaps but the ncaa records show that this past season ECU averaged 50,012 per home game. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Why are we having an involved argument about the merits of ECU vs. MAC schools in a thread about Villanova moving up to play FBS football? That conversation has no business in this thread...

Boss Hijack strikes again...

(03-13-2012 09:09 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 08:28 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 11:31 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  There's no use arguing with buckaneer. He has a deep seeded hatred of ECU. To compare the Ohio bobcats or toledo rocketeers to ECU is laughable. Also, we put 50,000+ in the stands, not 40k

This is an outright lie on both accounts. ECU puts in the 40's in the stands checkable via the NCAA attendance records and I am simply questioning why the continued insistance on ECU while other similar and equally or more viable programs are available. Also questioning why actual additions are constantly attacked with comments such as ECU should have been added instead. To date no one has provided any evidence that isn't manufactured or outright made up to explain.

Ohio University is a much better school than ECU academically, has success in football and other sports, is in a more populous state with only two BCS programs, has a large endowment and lots of alumni including many working in major media. Their home attendance isn't great but then neither are their home opponents.

Toledo wins alot of football games, is in a decent market with the same state statistics as Ohio. Great football recruting state, etc. etc.

Both have wins against BCS teams.

If you compared the institutions on various levels--some things ECU is better at, some the Ohio schools are. Head to head on the football field I'd take Ohio or Toledo over ECU most Saturday's-especially these past two seasons. Basketball the Ohio schools win hands down.

A minor point perhaps but the ncaa records show that this past season ECU averaged 50,012 per home game. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Thanks-the link I checked and it showed 49 plus but was the 2010 season. As I said this is good attendance for CUSA. Attendance doesn't reflect on value to a tv network.

ECU could be the only serious college football team in a major state.

? Villanova isn't "serious"--they just won a national championship a couple of seasons ago. UMASS isn't "serious"? They just moved their program up to 1-A despite financial concerns and arranged to play games in a pro stadium to help themselves be more successful. Marshall and USM are in less populated states--but do their tv ratings show them as less than ECU? Don't think so.

I didn't say UMass wasn't a serious candidate. And Villanova won an FCS championship, which isn't exactly the same thing--they're a small private with a small alumni base, in a state with Penn State sharing a city with FBS Temple. Oh, and with no realistic plan for an power-conference level stadium.

Do you have any ratings data that shows USM or Marshall getting better ratings, on a regular basis, than ECU?


I'd say both of these schools have potential. Nearly every school has some potential if in a BCS league. What separates these two from others is likely the large television markets they can attract viewers from and attract advertisers to.

Philadelphia has 6 million people, I think. NC has 8-9 million people. I've given evidence that ECU has a significant audience across their state. (Granted, the evidence is not air-tight. Maybe ECU's factsheet crosses the line from cherry-picking into lying.)

You have given no evidence that Temple (or Villanova) deliver significant audience in Philadelphia, besides Temple's Big East invitation. I've given evidence that Temple football has little to no TV following--the Temple Owls athletic department website lists no TV for 4 games, ESPN3 for 4 games, local TV for 1 game and a couple of ESPN and ESPN-U games, including vs Penn State.

Temple is on tv in Philadelphia. Even if not every game--which is doubtful for nearly any program these days, they get a majority of games on some channel in that metro area. There is probably a channel in Philly carrying Temples MAC games as in other MAC markets.

So how come the Temple athletic department doesn't know about it?

Quote:A more important factor is that the Big East has added them and not ECU. Now, BE leadership may have made many mistakes over the years,

Nope. They're infallible geniuses.

and I could say the same. The whole state of NC? We're talking about ECU-not UNC, Duke, Wake or NC State. Temple and Villanova both get games on in Philadelphia on a regular basis.

You have the same internet I do. Go find them, get me a list and a link. 'Cause I just did that yesterday for Temple fooball 2011. 4 games, no TV. 4 games, ESPN3, which is pretty close to no TV. I didn't bother to look up whether FCS Villanova had any games televised. I know the big Villanova-Temple rivalry game for Philadelphia dominance was on ESPN3. 'Cause I looked it up.



[color]Temple and Villanova both have fans around the state of PA just as you claim ECU has fans around NC. Are you actually claiming that next season when Temple is in the Big East and its league games are on nationally or even regionally--that no one in Philly or PA is going to watch those games? Really--you want to make that claim?[/color]

Someone will watch, I'm sure. But not many people. Because people on the East Coast generally don't care about college football. They're not going to start caring because Temple is playing UCF instead of Buffalo.

Gee, maybe that's why Temple's games aren't on local TV or local cable?

Quote:I don't see how the average is cherry picked. [quote]

What are these numbers? Which games? How many games? Against who? On what networks or channels? including bowls? Who were opponents and how were they ranked? All of these things are important to know.

It says "Average ratings for the combined 2009–2010 football seasons:" Without qualification, in ordinary English usage, average means the mean average of all members of the category.

And that's the problem--no one but the ECU writers know what they are comparing or "averaging" between the schools. Without the criteria used, this is just meaningless propaganda.

But somehow you know it's not true. Just like you know that Temple's games are on TV in Philadelphia.


The only way to see what is accurate would be to see each games ratings for each school and especially common opponents on common platforms. There isn't a "fair" comparison mixing and matching what to compare teams with.

There are degrees of fairness. I used the limited information I have, and made a conclusion. Rather than just saying that something must be so.

Bitcruncher said that if ECU were a draw, their games against BCS conference opponents would be on cable instead of internet-only.

ECU has been on ESPN/2/U plenty. And I took a shot at Temple again for not being on TV.


And yet a current BCS conference determined there was more value in adding Temple to their league. To you and others this has nothing to do with actual ratings or tv value but some spite, or ignorance or who knows what.

It has to do with basketball, which is the only sport that matters for 7 members of the conference. And it has to do with finding a football-playing school acceptable to the basketball members for insurance if/when Louisville goes to the Big 12 and probably takes a Big East football school with them.

Reality is Temple fits more criteria and gives them the better chance to make money from television. You also look at ECU games over a multi year period and compare it to what you've found for one season at Temple.

What did you find? Nothing. But you 'just know' that ECU doesn't get ratings across North Carolina. And you 'just know' that Temple football must be on TV in Philadelphia.

Temples league doesn't have a contract like ECU's. Temple hasn't scheduled multiple games with ranked BCS teams-reasons unknown. When they've been able to play those teams-like PSU they've been on national tv.

Right. PEnn State vs TEmple is on national TV because Temple is a big draw. Good luck with that.



Problem here is that you are guessing that is what is included. We don't know what they actually included because it simply doesn't say. It isn't a fair comparison. FYI In 2009-2010 ECU played in its biggest bowl in years in that years Liberty against Arkansas from the SEC with a 4.38 rating. North Carolina on the other hand played in a much more minor bowl against Pitt in the Car Care Bowl and yet received a 4.56 rating.

Is that rating in North Carolina, or national? Because I'm arguing that ECU gets ratings in North CArolina.

Quote:[quote]
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

Quote:Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly

That's a neat trick, since only one game was on TV in Philly. Or do you imagine hordes of Philadelphians watching Temple football on their laptops through ESPN3?

[color=#006400]Not a "trick" at all. You may note that the BE added Temple and not ECU and therefore must have found them to be the more valuable program--the program more likely to deliver more money to the league. My statement simply illustrates why such choices were made and there isn't anything "tricky" about it at all.

I'll rephrase it. They might get 3% in Philly, but they don't because they're not on TV in Philly. I'm comparing what Temple is doing right now with what ECU is doing right now. You can speculate on what Temple would get if they were in the Big East, and I could speculate on what ECU would get if they were in the Big East, but the reality is that, before they got the Big East invitation, Temple football was not considered worth showing in the Philadelphia market.

Quote:while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers.

They don't have television viewers, since they don't have televised games. And if we're going by internet following, ECU seems to have them beat there, too.

Again, you are taking an explanation of why a team (could be any) from a larger market than ECU's is found to have more tv value than ECU's and turning into a game by game comparison of two specific teams. You are ignoring league tv contracts, opponents, opponents records and tv package, etc.

Quote:Temple was added to the BE and ECU was not--not because some stupid people somewhere for some incomprehensible reason just didn't wan't to include ECU, but because Temple gave the league a better chance to earn money from television.

Or maybe because the basketball schools made it clear that after Houston, UCF and SMU, any new members must bring value to the basketball side.

Substantial based on what exactly.
Substantial defined as more than NC State and more than half of UNC.

[quote]UNC, NC State etc. are getting national ratings as well as local ratings. What makes you believe that getting i.e. 2% in Raleigh and/or Charlotte is even a blip on the map to a league like the Big East?

2% statewide in North Carolina is better than 2% of the Philadelphia DMA. Math.

Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly,

The market spreads. The fandom does not.

[color=#006400]What makes you believe ECU's "fandom" is spreading or that someone else's fandom is not? You are claiming Temple, playing a Big East schedule with multiple tv games won't gain any new fans? Really? Exactly how do you know this?

Rutgers' claims the NYC market, and they have evidence showing them as the No. 1 team in NYC. I don't think their evidence is oh so much better than ECU's evidence, but the reality is that being the #1 CFB team in NYC is like being the #1 Champions League team in NYC. Better than not being #1, but not worth all that much.

Quote:while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets.

Again, unless their numbers are fraudulent, they're ahead of Duke and Wake Forest, and neck-and-neck with NC State. While playing C-USA teams.

What exactly shows them to be ahead of Duke or Wake Forest? Ahead in what way exactly? You are talking butts in seats I'd have to guess--what does that have to do with tv viewership? Or popularity in state or regionally or nationally?

According to their factsheet, ECU = NCSU in North Carolina TV ratings. If you have some evidence that Wake Forest or Duke football get better ratings than NCSU in North Carolina, present it.

Yes they have good attendance for a C-USA program. Other programs have some passionate fans as well and also meet various other criteria including having more value to television partners.

Not passionate enough to buy tickets, apparently.

Rutgers is the top tv draw in NYC for college football -and no doubt in NJ as well. Somehow this trumps being the top tv draw in Greenville, NC and an also ran in other markets in North Carolina. There is no realistic comparison.

100,000 TV viewers in NC are roughly equal to 100,000 TV viewers in NY. I don't think it's beyond imagining that ECU has as many TV viewers in NC than any school does in NYC. (100,000 number is aribitrary.)

I really don't think this is going anywhere.

(03-13-2012 10:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ECU could be the only serious college football team in a major state.

? Villanova isn't "serious"--they just won a national championship a couple of seasons ago. UMASS isn't "serious"? They just moved their program up to 1-A despite financial concerns and arranged to play games in a pro stadium to help themselves be more successful. Marshall and USM are in less populated states--but do their tv ratings show them as less than ECU? Don't think so.

I didn't say UMass wasn't a serious candidate. And Villanova won an FCS championship, which isn't exactly the same thing--they're a small private with a small alumni base, in a state with Penn State sharing a city with FBS Temple. Oh, and with no realistic plan for an power-conference level stadium.

Do you have any ratings data that shows USM or Marshall getting better ratings, on a regular basis, than ECU?

Do you have any ratings data that shows USM or Marshall getting worse ratings on a regular basis than ECU?


I'd say both of these schools have potential. Nearly every school has some potential if in a BCS league. What separates these two from others is likely the large television markets they can attract viewers from and attract advertisers to.

Philadelphia has 6 million people, I think. NC has 8-9 million people. I've given evidence that ECU has a significant audience across their state. (Granted, the evidence is not air-tight. Maybe ECU's factsheet crosses the line from cherry-picking into lying.)

No, you've talked about a propaganda piece ECU prepared which gives sketchy information to attempt to illustrate their popularity in NC. Nowhere does it show "significant audience across their state". Philadelphia is just one city in PA and has a huge number of tv viewers in just that DMA.

You have given no evidence that Temple (or Villanova) deliver significant audience in Philadelphia, besides Temple's Big East invitation. I've given evidence that Temple football has little to no TV following--the Temple Owls athletic department website lists no TV for 4 games, ESPN3 for 4 games, local TV for 1 game and a couple of ESPN and ESPN-U games, including vs Penn State.

You've given no evidence that Temple football has little to no tv following. Just last year they were on ESPN three separate times againsts PSU, Ohio University and Miami of Ohio. They also had ESPN regional coverage (MACS version of BE network and the ACC network) for a game against Toledo and a game against Maryland--every other game was either on ESPN3 or the MAC version of that.http://mattsarzsports.com/Football2011/MAC Villanova with a lousy FCS team last year was on Comcast Network and Comcast New England several times as well as espn3 coverage vs. Temple. http://vuhoops.com/2011/07/27/villanova-football-on-television/ In the Big East Temple will receive several national tv slots no doubt.

Temple is on tv in Philadelphia. Even if not every game--which is doubtful for nearly any program these days, they get a majority of games on some channel in that metro area. There is probably a channel in Philly carrying Temples MAC games as in other MAC markets.

So how come the Temple athletic department doesn't know about it?

What makes you think they don't-perhaps you don't know how to search?

http://www.owlsports.com/news/2011/6/15/...11350.aspx

Quote:A more important factor is that the Big East has added them and not ECU. Now, BE leadership may have made many mistakes over the years,

Nope. They're infallible geniuses.

and I could say the same. The whole state of NC? We're talking about ECU-not UNC, Duke, Wake or NC State. Temple and Villanova both get games on in Philadelphia on a regular basis.

You have the same internet I do. Go find them, get me a list and a link. 'Cause I just did that yesterday for Temple fooball 2011. 4 games, no TV. 4 games, ESPN3, which is pretty close to no TV. I didn't bother to look up whether FCS Villanova had any games televised. I know the big Villanova-Temple rivalry game for Philadelphia dominance was on ESPN3. 'Cause I looked it up.

Already gave you a list and a couple of links see above



[color]Temple and Villanova both have fans around the state of PA just as you claim ECU has fans around NC. Are you actually claiming that next season when Temple is in the Big East and its league games are on nationally or even regionally--that no one in Philly or PA is going to watch those games? Really--you want to make that claim?[/color]

Someone will watch, I'm sure. But not many people. Because people on the East Coast generally don't care about college football. They're not going to start caring because Temple is playing UCF instead of Buffalo.

Says you. This is your opinion. Much like ECU fans promotion of their school--lots of opinion and limited factual information.

Gee, maybe that's why Temple's games aren't on local TV or local cable?

Except of course they are and on national tv as well

Quote:I don't see how the average is cherry picked. [quote]

What are these numbers? Which games? How many games? Against who? On what networks or channels? including bowls? Who were opponents and how were they ranked? All of these things are important to know.

It says "Average ratings for the combined 2009–2010 football seasons:" Without qualification, in ordinary English usage, average means the mean average of all members of the category.

What category? They don't say if they are including bowl games which shouldn't be included as bowl games get ratings of some sort regardless of opponent usually based in part on the name of the bowl.

And that's the problem--no one but the ECU writers know what they are comparing or "averaging" between the schools. Without the criteria used, this is just meaningless propaganda.

But somehow you know it's not true. Just like you know that Temple's games are on TV in Philadelphia.

I don't know WHAT about what they say is true because they do not provide enough information for anyone to make a realistic determination. I know Temple's games are on tv in Philadelphia because I've read articles in the past where they listed the tv channel in Philly where the games could be seen. I know Comcast Sports in Philly covers some of their games and they've also had many on ESPN networks.

The only way to see what is accurate would be to see each games ratings for each school and especially common opponents on common platforms. There isn't a "fair" comparison mixing and matching what to compare teams with.

There are degrees of fairness. I used the limited information I have, and made a conclusion. Rather than just saying that something must be so.

No, you stated it is fair basically because you said so. It isn't fair to come to a conclusion without all the facts known.

Bitcruncher said that if ECU were a draw, their games against BCS conference opponents would be on cable instead of internet-only.

ECU has been on ESPN/2/U plenty. And I took a shot at Temple again for not being on TV.

Many of ECU's games against big opponents over the past few years can only be found on espn3 which you heavily criticize Temple for.

And yet a current BCS conference determined there was more value in adding Temple to their league. To you and others this has nothing to do with actual ratings or tv value but some spite, or ignorance or who knows what.

It has to do with basketball, which is the only sport that matters for 7 members of the conference. And it has to do with finding a football-playing school acceptable to the basketball members for insurance if/when Louisville goes to the Big 12 and probably takes a Big East football school with them.

No doubt their basketball was part of the criteria that made them a must add. It adds to their value to television after all. However, this doesn't minimize that their football program and market are also of value to the altered Big East. It is far more important for them to maintain a presence in the state of PA for football than to get a portion of NC behind all the ACC programs.

Reality is Temple fits more criteria and gives them the better chance to make money from television. You also look at ECU games over a multi year period and compare it to what you've found for one season at Temple.

What did you find? Nothing. But you 'just know' that ECU doesn't get ratings across North Carolina. And you 'just know' that Temple football must be on TV in Philadelphia.

I found and provided links that show Temple has coverage even from a league like the MAC with very poor tv contracts. If you don't believe Temple is on in Philadelphia why don't you just ask some of their fans if that is the case.

Temples league doesn't have a contract like ECU's. Temple hasn't scheduled multiple games with ranked BCS teams-reasons unknown. When they've been able to play those teams-like PSU they've been on national tv.

Right. PEnn State vs TEmple is on national TV because Temple is a big draw. Good luck with that.

Right. ECU vs. WVU or ECU vs. VT or ECU vs. whoever is on national TV because ECU is a big draw. Good luck with that. Temple btw was also on national tv vs. Ohio U. and Miami of Ohio just last year--soooo....


Problem here is that you are guessing that is what is included. We don't know what they actually included because it simply doesn't say. It isn't a fair comparison. FYI In 2009-2010 ECU played in its biggest bowl in years in that years Liberty against Arkansas from the SEC with a 4.38 rating. North Carolina on the other hand played in a much more minor bowl against Pitt in the Car Care Bowl and yet received a 4.56 rating.

Is that rating in North Carolina, or national? Because I'm arguing that ECU gets ratings in North CArolina.

That is a national rating which is all that is available online for bowls that I've found. No one said ECU doesn't get some ratings in NC. The dispute is whether it is ahead of the other NC programs and whether or not it represents significant #'s to be of value to a "major" conference. The lack of their addition to any other conference says no loudly.

Quote:[quote]
Why would 40,000 butts in seats indicate tv ratings?

40,000 butts in seats should indicate better ratings than 25,000 butts in seats. Think of it this way--are there any schools that average over 60,000 attendance who AREN'T big TV draws?

Quote:Attendance is not indicative of tv ratings. A Temple might get 20,000 fans in seats with 3% viewership in Philly

That's a neat trick, since only one game was on TV in Philly. Or do you imagine hordes of Philadelphians watching Temple football on their laptops through ESPN3?

[color=#006400]Not a "trick" at all. You may note that the BE added Temple and not ECU and therefore must have found them to be the more valuable program--the program more likely to deliver more money to the league. My statement simply illustrates why such choices were made and there isn't anything "tricky" about it at all.

I'll rephrase it. They might get 3% in Philly, but they don't because they're not on TV in Philly. I'm comparing what Temple is doing right now with what ECU is doing right now. You can speculate on what Temple would get if they were in the Big East, and I could speculate on what ECU would get if they were in the Big East, but the reality is that, before they got the Big East invitation, Temple football was not considered worth showing in the Philadelphia market.

Except that they are on tv in Philly and more importantly WILL be on tv in Philly next season. You can change it to 1%--whatever you want--because ECU isn't getting 25% viewership in NC markets either. The point is that larger market teams have more value because there are more potential buyers out there for advertisers to sell to. Also a teams home DMA is where most viewers are likely to come from unless they have a national level program or are a state flaghship program-neither of which ECU or Temple or Villanova is.

Quote:while ECU might have 48,000 fans in seats with 25% viewership in Greenville, NC, but Temple still has more television viewers.

They don't have television viewers, since they don't have televised games. And if we're going by internet following, ECU seems to have them beat there, too.

Every game last year for Temple had coverage. Some national, some regional. ECU might currently be on more, but obviously their ratings numbers didn't indicate they were a good candidate to add to a current BCS conference as Temple's did.

Again, you are taking an explanation of why a team (could be any) from a larger market than ECU's is found to have more tv value than ECU's and turning into a game by game comparison of two specific teams. You are ignoring league tv contracts, opponents, opponents records and tv package, etc.

Quote:Temple was added to the BE and ECU was not--not because some stupid people somewhere for some incomprehensible reason just didn't wan't to include ECU, but because Temple gave the league a better chance to earn money from television.

Or maybe because the basketball schools made it clear that after Houston, UCF and SMU, any new members must bring value to the basketball side.

There are panel members from both sides. They added the schools that gave them the best all around fit. ECU isn't the best fit in any category except for attendance of whats left--but that doesn't put money in a leagues coffers does it.

Substantial based on what exactly.
Substantial defined as more than NC State and more than half of UNC.

more than half of UNC's ratings in markets in NC is what exactly? Also-where is the evidence to support this? ECU put together a propaganda piece that no one can get much real info from, that certainly isn't proof that they have more than half the audience of UNC or that this is "substantial".


[quote]UNC, NC State etc. are getting national ratings as well as local ratings. What makes you believe that getting i.e. 2% in Raleigh and/or Charlotte is even a blip on the map to a league like the Big East?

2% statewide in North Carolina is better than 2% of the Philadelphia DMA. Math.

Math. Philadelphia isn't the only market in PA and if you are claiming ECU has percentage around their state then you also must admit Temple has a percentage around the state of PA (and NJ which they border and share tv markets with)

Yes NJ and NC have similar populations. The difference is Rutgers is the primary state flagship institution in its state with a tv market spreading into NYC and Philly,

The market spreads. The fandom does not.

[color=#006400]What makes you believe ECU's "fandom" is spreading or that someone else's fandom is not? You are claiming Temple, playing a Big East schedule with multiple tv games won't gain any new fans? Really? Exactly how do you know this?

Rutgers' claims the NYC market, and they have evidence showing them as the No. 1 team in NYC. I don't think their evidence is oh so much better than ECU's evidence, but the reality is that being the #1 CFB team in NYC is like being the #1 Champions League team in NYC. Better than not being #1, but not worth all that much.

Being #1 in college football in NYC and NJ isn't worth all that much or better than ECU's "evidence". OK-that says about all anyone thinking about it really needs to hear.

Quote:while ECU is the 5th or 6th consideration for viewing in a small tv market in that state with only partial penetration into even its own states major markets.

Again, unless their numbers are fraudulent, they're ahead of Duke and Wake Forest, and neck-and-neck with NC State. While playing C-USA teams.

They don't show where they claim they are compared to Wake or Duke and don't show where they are compared to NC State or UNC either. They created a statistical graph that claims if you average their games ratings in NC markets over two seasons and compare that to some games of two other NC schools they place in the middle. Since we don't know which games, against who, how many, etc. it is meaningless. You are claiming it means their CUSA games had better viewership than ACC games or BCS games against the UNC's and NC States. It more likely means ECU games against the ACC teams and Big East etc as well as bowl games that shouldn't be included when combined in with their lower rated league games averages out to some of the ACC teams schedule. We don't know because they don't tell us.

What exactly shows them to be ahead of Duke or Wake Forest? Ahead in what way exactly? You are talking butts in seats I'd have to guess--what does that have to do with tv viewership? Or popularity in state or regionally or nationally?

According to their factsheet, ECU = NCSU in North Carolina TV ratings. If you have some evidence that Wake Forest or Duke football get better ratings than NCSU in North Carolina, present it.

They make the claims, it is up to them to prove what they claim, not me. Or you since you've bought into it so heavily. I haven't and apparently neither did the Big East or any other league who can easily get the actual numbers.

Yes they have good attendance for a C-USA program. Other programs have some passionate fans as well and also meet various other criteria including having more value to television partners.

Not passionate enough to buy tickets, apparently.

How does buying tickets at home help a conference --it means something if you are the Big XII or SEC or BIG or PAC for bragging maybe--what does it matter to a league like the Big East? How does it help them? There are schools in the league now that have less attendance and it doesn't make any difference to their tv ratings or value to television.

Rutgers is the top tv draw in NYC for college football -and no doubt in NJ as well. Somehow this trumps being the top tv draw in Greenville, NC and an also ran in other markets in North Carolina. There is no realistic comparison.

100,000 TV viewers in NC are roughly equal to 100,000 TV viewers in NY. I don't think it's beyond imagining that ECU has as many TV viewers in NC than any school does in NYC. (100,000 number is aribitrary.)

This is the epitome of delusion.

I really don't think this is going anywhere.

You are correct and bit is right this is the wrong thread.

Love the colors.....

I'd just like to point out that games ESPN produces for ESPN 3 are often purchased by local television stations and run locally. Though they won't show up in national ratings, they often are on... much like the process of local stations in North Carolina purchasing and running games billed ACC network.

(03-13-2012 01:08 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I'd just like to point out that games ESPN produces for ESPN 3 are often purchased by local television stations and run locally. Though they won't show up in national ratings, they often are on... much like the process of local stations in North Carolina purchasing and running games billed ACC network.

But generally when that happens, the school's website will list that information. If the school just lists "ESPN3" and not "ESPN3/Comcast Sports" or "ESPN3/WARD-9", then it's just on ESPN3.