lol...Wish Aresco would have had this study 6 months ago....
Outside of fsu and clemson, perhaps VT at home (not on the road) the ACC is very pedestrian with their fans. When UCF played @ BC it was laughable. They simply do not give two chits about football there. NC State had a nice crowd, but nothing to write home about. Miami is a joke. Duke LOL. UVA LOL.
By some measures, much of the 'Power' conferences are hardly power at all... Which makes the whole situation sad, but they will never all get together and reset all the conferences. Those 'Power' conference tag alongs will always get grandfathered in...
But this is an excellent reason why the AAC should/will be included in the final Division 4 (or whatever they call it...).
(08-09-2013 09:13 AM)Bull Wrote: [ -> ]But this is an excellent reason why the AAC should/will be included in the final Division 4 (or whatever they call it...).
Not really. They still have more than enough teams that do qualify to keep you out.
(08-09-2013 09:13 AM)Bull Wrote: [ -> ]But this is an excellent reason why the AAC should/will be included in the final Division 4 (or whatever they call it...).
Nope. This has no bearing on it. At all.
Its kind of like what a Syracuse fan said, sooner or later, they're going to keep shrinking and becoming more exclusive to the point where its just Alabama playing Notre Dame every weekend.
We've hit this on other threads. (A) If the P5 shrink to 5, it becomes a zero-sum game. Half of them have losing seasons. They don't want that. (B) By any of the measures I've heard tossed about, athletic budget, attendance, and now even this poll/survey... the AAC has no problem whatsoever.
Time will tell...
(08-09-2013 09:13 AM)Bull Wrote: [ -> ]But this is an excellent reason why the AAC should/will be included in the final Division 4 (or whatever they call it...).
Let's not get carried away. It is a blog post by a few researchers at Emory that really means very little.
(08-09-2013 10:12 AM)Bull Wrote: [ -> ]We've hit this on other threads. (A) If the P5 shrink to 5, it becomes a zero-sum game. Half of them have losing seasons. They don't want that. (B) By any of the measures I've heard tossed about, athletic budget, attendance, and now even this poll/survey... the AAC has no problem whatsoever.
Time will tell...
I agree with A. The P5 aren't going to want to give up one-and-done home games or scheduling flexibility which is why I think pretty much everyone at the FBS level is safe.
Disagree with you on B since it depends heavily on where the cutoff line is set. The P5 probably could set the bar high enough to exclude all of the G5 conferences if they wanted to do so. However, I don't think they really want to do that due to the reasons laid out in above.
Not to burst your bubble, but this study is from an ROI basis and not total # of fans or total fan support. I believe according to the study SMU has the best fans in the AAC, but best is always relative to the POV of the study.
It is still a positive indicator from a highly respected business school.
(08-09-2013 11:07 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2013 10:12 AM)Bull Wrote: [ -> ]We've hit this on other threads. (A) If the P5 shrink to 5, it becomes a zero-sum game. Half of them have losing seasons. They don't want that. (B) By any of the measures I've heard tossed about, athletic budget, attendance, and now even this poll/survey... the AAC has no problem whatsoever.
Time will tell...
I agree with A. The P5 aren't going to want to give up one-and-done home games or scheduling flexibility which is why I think pretty much everyone at the FBS level is safe.
Disagree with you on B since it depends heavily on where the cutoff line is set. The P5 probably could set the bar high enough to exclude all of the G5 conferences if they wanted to do so. However, I don't think they really want to do that due to the reasons laid out in above.
I don't think they can set the bar that high without making it really tough on several current P5 members. Attendance isn't even an option because you have the likes of Duke that is outdrawn by a bunch of G5 schools, and you can't increase the number of sponsored sports too much because while the P5 schools in general have more money some of them are in very bad financial situations due to their own mismanagement. Doing it by budget is going to be tough because those numbers can be fudged and there's no standard by which each school reports what for income, and then the private schools don't have to report anything. Basically it's going to be really hard to come up with a set of standards that all of the P5 could meet that none of the G5 could.
The same "study" also came up with these results:
![[Image: NAQ-Football-Brand-Equity-Rankings.png]](https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/files/2013/07/NAQ-Football-Brand-Equity-Rankings.png)
If you spend a lot and have average attendance it hurts you in relation to someone that spends nothing and has anybody show up.
(08-09-2013 12:05 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: [ -> ]The same "study" also came up with these results:
If you spend a lot and have average attendance it hurts you in relation to someone that spends nothing and has anybody show up.
correct
This article/study is stupid and proves zero.
(08-09-2013 11:51 AM)wavefan12 Wrote: [ -> ]Not to burst your bubble, but this study is from an ROI basis and not total # of fans or total fan support. I believe according to the study SMU has the best fans in the AAC, but best is always relative to the POV of the study.
It is still a positive indicator from a highly respected business school.
Correct. The entire premise is based on fan support compared to on field success. The study is no useless, but it has no base parameters, so that the teams that are really really bad, by default rank very high if they have any sort of fan support whatsoever. Likewise a really good team, ranks fairly poorly unless they have really good support. That is why a team like Memphis ranks so high (if 37 people show up they go to number one based on how bad their football is
) whereas Miami ranks so low, even though their average of 50,000 fans ranks higher than many on the list above them.
Can't say I'm surprised folks around here only looked at the pictures and did not read the explanations, it's a simple return on investment model. When ****** teams that weren't investing much (like Memphis) were getting 30k to show up for games they'd likely lose, naturally there will be a bigger return on investment. Thus, bad teams with good fan support rank higher than the sacred cows.
This study is ranking fan turnout per investment.
I think that is a very interesting and measurable statistic. It's more a measure of the efficiency of the athletic / marketing department than fan support, but to say it is useless is naive.
I think it's VERY interesting to see that a team with little fan support like Wake Forest, but excessive revenue generation is ranked lower with respect to the control. It makes an argument for the programs that are investing, and investing successfully, in their programs that may not be in the power 5, such as ECU in the Big 12 instead of... say... Iowa State. Or UConn in the B1G instead of Maryland (who is last in the ACC I under these merits, I think?)
Some people are taking, what I believe to be, obvious statistical outliers (Idaho, Wyoming, Marshall) way out of context, and using that to trumpet your crusade of "AHA this study is all nonsense because of these 3 pieces of data, disregarding the other 122 schools.", and obviously didn't read the study.
(08-09-2013 01:49 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]This study is ranking fan turnout per investment.
For the team rankings, the study is comparing predicted revenues (based on record/bowl participation/etc) to their actual revenues. "Revenues" could be based solely on ticket sales or it might include a number of other items as well (sponsorships, concessions sale, luxury boxes, ticket sales, in-game advertising, naming rights, donations to the program, etc). A small number of big time donors could easily cause a bad team's actual revenues to wind up significantly higher than what the model predicts.
For the conference comparison, the study looks at how predicted revenues (based on expenditures) compared to actual revenues. If you earn more than you are predicted to spend based on expenditures, then you will be higher than a conference where teams spent as much or more than is predicted. The problem here is that it compares differences and doesn't take into account totals. Team A could spent twice as much as Team B, but because Team A's revenues don't exceed the predicted value, they could end up being ranked lower than Team B.
I would imagine that a study that focused on fan turnout per investment would probably use attendance figures instead of revenues.
(08-09-2013 01:49 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are taking, what I believe to be, obvious statistical outliers (Idaho, Wyoming, Marshall) way out of context, and using that to trumpet your crusade of "AHA this study is all nonsense because of these 3 pieces of data, disregarding the other 122 schools.", and obviously didn't read the study.
There are two main problems with the study IMO.
#1. It lacks clarity. The authors don't provide their model so we have no idea how it works. Does it assume a linear relationship between revenues and record or is it based instead on a logistic growth curve? How do they define revenue? Is it based on ticket sales or program totals? Why were things like attendance not included?
#2. It claims to measure the "best" fan bases but doesn't really do that at all (my opinion). While comparing actual revenues to predicted revenues based on wins/loss is interesting, I'm not convince that this is a good way to gauge fan bases. For example, if team A sells out a 100,000 seat stadium every week but makes less than predicted revenue, do they have worse fans than a programs that only fills half of a 40,000 seat stadium but makes more revenue than they are predicted to make? This study would say yes.
To me, merchandise sales, attendance, total athletic donations, etc are better (but not perfect) metrics to measure how passionate/involved a fan base actually is.
(08-09-2013 01:49 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]I think that is a very interesting and measurable statistic. It's more a measure of the efficiency of the athletic / marketing department than fan support, but to say it is useless is naive.
Correct. It is a very meaningful measure of POTENTIAL. Schools which rank high in the study will most likely have very good fan support on a level playing field. In that regard, AAC > ACC is believable.