(07-29-2017 02:36 PM)malenko2 Wrote: (07-29-2017 02:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (07-29-2017 12:07 PM)megadrone Wrote: (07-29-2017 12:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote: You don't. It's meaningless.
You determine the size of their fan base, the size of the population that watches them in hopes that they lose, and the size of th epopulation that's willing to watch them due to their quality of play (i.e. people that just want a good game).
It probably only matters for the regional games.
Quality of the teams is probably the driving metric, even in a lopsided game. Alabama vs its FCS opponent will draw better than USF - Stony Brook, even for part of the game.
Size of the market the school is located in is probably an opening point in negotiations because you have to start somewhere or you are looking at potential numbers. Rutgers/BC/Temple will all have more potential viewers than WVU because they are located in bigger markets. Whether those are realized viewers is a different question.
Alabama, Miami, etc. all have national draw so market size doesn't matter.
It's not like almost all of these schools haven't been televised for decades.
Temple's value would be the same if they were located in Altoona. A large population of indifferent people who happen to live near a school doesn't add any value.
You are incorrect about Temple as usual. Just an FYI, we are no longer in the 90s/early 00s and the Temple you continually post about bears no resemblance to the Temple of today.
They havent been televised for decades and weren't during their time as a football only member in the Big East (and that is probably a good thing as we all know how they performed then).
They were on TV some of the time in the MAC and have only started to be televised regularly in football and basketball when they moved back to the Big East in 2012 and the current AAC.
1. I don't post about Temple enough to have a usual.
2. I said "most schools."
3. Temple absolutely was televised when they were in the BIG EAST contract. Pretending that Temple's first televised games were in 2012 is ludicrous. See below for proof to the contrary.
4. Nothing in your post actually disputes my comment that:
"A large population of indifferent people who happen to live near a school doesn't add any value."
Here's a Temple game from 1982:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ3LasQ7fHY
Here's a Temple game from 1987:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vygAiJOeuSA
Here's a Temple game from 1988:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6chpd-SUGP0
Here's a Temple game from 1991:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z0JbQYxNCY
Here's a Temple game from 1992:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IgSmu18c_w
Here's a Temple game from 1994:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOPQhIUz14
Here's a Temple game from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5oYFOpyp3I
Here's a Temple game from 1996:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBxhWd6B7V4
Here's a Temple game from 1997:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY7PJWy3oQY
Here's a Temple game from 1999:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKmJIw_8FAI
Here's a Temple game from 1999:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kO0VgGatEY
Here's a Temple game from 2000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDEE2Kh8To
That took all of 2 minutes on Youtube, and I'd keep going, but I think I made my point.