Yes, this is from Tomahawk Nation, so it is not surprising he values FSU at $22 million per year and thus concludes that FSU has reason to be pissed at ACC contract.

But his method for using TV viewership to value football/basketball is interesting, even though somewhat simplistic (doesn't control for the value of opponents, e.g., FSU gets lots of viewership credit for playing Oklahoma last year):

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/...in-the-acc

(05-15-2012 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, this is from Tomahawk Nation, so it is not surprising he values FSU at $22 million per year and thus concludes that FSU has reason to be pissed at ACC contract.

But his method for using TV viewership to value football/basketball is interesting, even though somewhat simplistic (doesn't control for the value of opponents, e.g., FSU gets lots of viewership credit for playing Oklahoma last year):

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/...in-the-acc

WOW

TL/DR

But just on a very quick scan.... you can see how his entire argument is COMPLETELY baseless and useless.

Not trying to flame you.. but seriously:
No reason to start a new thread for this

FSU has no value because they can't win and winning is what draws casual veiwers in....Ridiculous formula by the way....Right now Va. Tech has more value because its the casual fans that are drawn in to a winner...Its the casual fan that gets Boise St. their ratings because they are winning....They may have more value when it comes to TV over FSU. Maybe what Im saying is far out, maybe not though....Its just hypothical.

(05-15-2012 01:44 PM)dogma Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, this is from Tomahawk Nation, so it is not surprising he values FSU at $22 million per year and thus concludes that FSU has reason to be pissed at ACC contract.

But his method for using TV viewership to value football/basketball is interesting, even though somewhat simplistic (doesn't control for the value of opponents, e.g., FSU gets lots of viewership credit for playing Oklahoma last year):

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/...in-the-acc

WOW

TL/DR

But just on a very quick scan.... you can see how his entire argument is COMPLETELY baseless and useless.

I agree that his approach is slanted towards FSU, but the approach of trying to find a way to value a school's media profile is interesting, at least to me.

Not sure about his method, but the ACC out drew the Big12 for football viewers last year on tv.

I'd imagine the idea of getting Fl St and Clemson appeals to the Big12 for a couple reasons.... it gets them a foothold inside SEC terrritory and tv ratings the Big12 doesn't have outside the state of Texas.

I'd believe it when they say Fl St wants the U to come with them, so it should be interesting to watch it play out between Clemson and the U.

I'm sure the situation is fluid.

(05-15-2012 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, this is from Tomahawk Nation, so it is not surprising he values FSU at $22 million per year and thus concludes that FSU has reason to be pissed at ACC contract.

But his method for using TV viewership to value football/basketball is interesting, even though somewhat simplistic (doesn't control for the value of opponents, e.g., FSU gets lots of viewership credit for playing Oklahoma last year):

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/...in-the-acc

I applaud their attempt at quantifying the viewer-pull mystery, but realistically, all their method ends up doing is heavily-slanting numbers toward programs who are playing a tougher OOC schedule in either FB, Hoops, or both.

Let's say it's a "Realignment" year in FB, and a school's schedule kind of sucks after having to mix it up, but their hoops OOC is really tough. They could have a mediocre BB program at best, and suddenly these numbers would look like Hoops is MUCH more valuable compared to Football than it truly would be in a normal academic year.

But it's better than not trying to create a model, that's for sure.

(05-15-2012 04:08 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, this is from Tomahawk Nation, so it is not surprising he values FSU at $22 million per year and thus concludes that FSU has reason to be pissed at ACC contract.

But his method for using TV viewership to value football/basketball is interesting, even though somewhat simplistic (doesn't control for the value of opponents, e.g., FSU gets lots of viewership credit for playing Oklahoma last year):

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/...in-the-acc

I applaud their attempt at quantifying the viewer-pull mystery, but realistically, all there method ends up doing is heavily-slanting numbers toward programs who are playing a tougher OOC schedule in either FB, Hoops, or both.

Let's say it's a "Realignment" year in FB, and a school's schedule kind of sucks after having to mix it up, but their hoops OOC is really tough. They could have a mediocre BB program at best, and suddenly these numbers would look like Hoops is MUCH more valuable compared to Football than it truly would be in a normal academic year.

But it's better than not trying to create a model, that's for sure.

Yeah, that's how i feel about it too.

For those who might care, Memphis and FSU first played football against each other in 1959, with the all-time record at 7-10-1, in favor of the Seminoles. I remember the tie which occurred on a drizzly night in 1984 - a controversial pass-interference call (they placed the ball at the spot of the interference in those days), gave FSU a shot at a long field goal which barely cleared the cross-bar.

There are polar forces at work on this:

1) TV money
2) Academics

The ACC places a high value on the later - they think of themselves as the Ivy league of the South.

The FSU fanbase and AD could be realizing they can not keep up with UF if they do not do something about the former. The President of FSU like the later; this could get interesting.