(11-12-2013 04:26 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Take out Alabama's and Johnny autograph's games last year and the SEC ratings were back with everyone else. Take out FSU and Miami and the ACC ratings are not much better than the AAC. Take out Ohio St, Michigan and Nebraska and the Big 10 is pretty bad too. What do you think happens to the Pac 12 ratings w/o USC and Oregon? These types of arguments are just stupid.

I don't think it's stupid so much as it's just making a point not usually intended by the people who bring the subject up. The reality is that TV ratings are driving by a handful of schools. It's not the conference that matters; it's the school. USC, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, etc.

There are probably 20 or so schools that really move the needle no matter how well they are playing. After that, it's just a question of who is good and who isn't.

My point exactly. He was bashing the Big 12 in particular for what they would be w/o UT and OU. The same applies more or less to every conference.

(11-12-2013 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 05:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I will agree once I see Miami no longer recruiting at an elite level. The fact they've had really good recruiting classes even with the specter of NCAA sanctions hanging over them speaks volumes.

Yes, this is critical.

We talk about the "upside" of various programs constantly here, yet there seems to be a lot of people down on the long-term prospects of Miami, which I don't quite understand. As you've noted, even with mediocre coaches and sanctions, the Canes are *still* pulling in elite recruiting classes.

Forget about the upside. The *floor* for Miami is that they have the best location for recruiting of any school in the country. Period. Better than Texas. Better than USC. Better than in-state competitor Florida. They are not merely located in South Florida in the way that FIU and FAU are (which is a grave mistake that people make in thinking that those schools' locations are any way comparable to Miami's location just because they're in the same metro area). Miami (the school) is what a 17 or 18-year old top recruit's idealized and romanticized version of what living in Miami (the metro area) is - a gorgeous campus in an upscale neighborhood with beautiful people walking around and a short drive from the beach. Even USC is plopped down in the middle of South Central LA, so just imagine what USC would be like if it was in UCLA's neighborhood - that's essentially what Miami has.

Both the abundance of football talent that already lives in the southern half of Florida along with nationally-recognized recruits have continuously bought into that vision even in the down times for the Canes. Miami can *always* sell that vision well and that's something that isn't ever going to change. That vision is already incredibly intoxicating for a lot of "normal" young people, so just put yourselves in the shoes of a 17-year old hotshot recruit that hears tales of how Canes in the past were very literally the kings of South Beach during their times at the school, which trumps any other possible "Big Man on Campus" scenario. Plus, it doesn't hurt that even in a down period, Miami still excels at what most recruits' ultimate dream is: getting drafted in the NFL.

As a result, I think a lot of people very mistakenly underrate Miami. While their core fan base is fairweather and doesn't show up for games (just as the city of Miami overall is fairweather and doesn't show up for games for all of its sports teams), their national TV value is as high as anyone not named Notre Dame. Look at the list of the highest-rated ESPN telecasts of all-time and you see that Miami dominates the list. Casual sports fans still gravitate toward games that Miami is playing in and, in this world, that TV value means more than attendance. Sure, it's great to have both a lot of TV value and high attendance like many SEC and Big Ten schools do, but when push comes to shove, the TV value that Miami nationally has is a LOT harder to develop than selling tickets locally. When Miami is rolling, they can scoop up talent like no other school in the country is able to do. I have a heck of a lot more faith in the "upside" of Miami than any of the schools that are continuously touted as sleeping giants around here.

Frank your optimism is not born out with the data. Miami which first played football in 1936 had intermittent and sporadic success from 1936 until the 1980's, a decade they would dominate in many ways winning 3 of their AP #1 finishes in that decade alone followed closely by another in 91. It would be a decade before they would attain that level of success again. 3 of those top finishes came as independents, 2 as members of the Big East, but the highest finish they have been able to manage in the ACC came in their first year (2004) when they finished 11th. They've finished ranked in the top 20 (or 25) twice since then with 17th being the next highest finish. They might attain that this year but I doubt it. The dominance of the Hurricane football program is a brief anomaly in their 77 year history as the bulk of the domination spanned one 10 year period under two great coaches.

The last dozen years have been a return to the 45 years prior to 1981 with a few brief and random high finishes dotting those 4 and a half decades. While I'm not disparaging the Hurricanes which have been better than average for most of their 77 years they are still, outside of that brilliant decade of teams, simply an average football program and while Golden is a really good young coach only a horrific Florida team's opening loss elevated the expectations of this program this year. Virginia Tech rang home the reality of those inflated expectations quite emphatically last weekend. Maybe Golden gets it done, but the history of the program since joining the ACC seems to indicate otherwise. And, outside of that golden decade, the rest of their history indicates otherwise as well.

As to demographics we'll see what the future brings. There are many changes in demographics outside of Miami that will impact them along with many other U.S. cities.

If Alabama, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Texas, or Ohio State had only been great for 1 ten year span in their storied histories, they wouldn't be storied.

Television may drive the value these days, but networks don't like empty seats either. Miami is a great school but relatively small as a private school and alumni participation is a factor. I just don't see the tremendous upside that some of you see. What I do see is a return to pre 1981 numbers which for 45 years prior and, with the exception of 2001, the 22 years following have supported.

I think Miami will be fine for the reasons Frank mentions. Florida never won an SEC championship until Spurrier arrived. That was less than 25 years ago. FSU was nothing before Bowden and has yet to do it again. The growth of Florida has changed the situation there. And unlike Texas, there weren't a whole bunch of schools fighting for that talent-only 3. Until the 90s, FAU, FIU, UCF and USF didn't even play football at any level. It was the big 3 and a couple of HBCUs.

The only question with Miami is if they are willing to invest in a good coach. So far they have shown that they will.

(11-12-2013 05:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think Miami will be fine for the reasons Frank mentions. Florida never won an SEC championship until Spurrier arrived. That was less than 25 years ago. FSU was nothing before Bowden and has yet to do it again. The growth of Florida has changed the situation there. And unlike Texas, there weren't a whole bunch of schools fighting for that talent-only 3. Until the 90s, FAU, FIU, UCF and USF didn't even play football at any level. It was the big 3 and a couple of HBCUs.

Just to clarify, I don't expect Miami of Florida to be getting confused with Miami of Ohio any time soon. The Canes will be good. I'm just saying that anyone hoping for a run like 1983-1991 out of Miami is going to be disappointed pretty much forever. That just isn't going to happen. Those days are over.

(11-12-2013 05:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 04:26 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Take out Alabama's and Johnny autograph's games last year and the SEC ratings were back with everyone else. Take out FSU and Miami and the ACC ratings are not much better than the AAC. Take out Ohio St, Michigan and Nebraska and the Big 10 is pretty bad too. What do you think happens to the Pac 12 ratings w/o USC and Oregon? These types of arguments are just stupid.

I don't think it's stupid so much as it's just making a point not usually intended by the people who bring the subject up. The reality is that TV ratings are driving by a handful of schools. It's not the conference that matters; it's the school. USC, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, etc.

There are probably 20 or so schools that really move the needle no matter how well they are playing. After that, it's just a question of who is good and who isn't.

My point exactly. He was bashing the Big 12 in particular for what they would be w/o UT and OU. The same applies more or less to every conference.

I hear you. There is no more or less to it. After Michigan and Ohio State, and I guess Penn State and Nebraska, the B1G goes over a cliff. Honestly, I don't see how many more years Nebraska can keep living off its past.

Only USC has true national appeal in the PAC. Oregon and Stanford are "hot" and get ratings, but it's only because they are good. Let them go 7-5 for three years. In the Big 12, it's only Texas and Oklahoma.

The SEC does have deeper brands but not THAT deep. Bama, UGA and Florida have brand equity. And even then when they aren't any good, those national ratings decline. LSU has been good for a long time, but I don't know how much true brand equity they have.

It's a down year overall for the Big 12 with regard to player experience, plus the games on FS1 have hurt ratings (the network didn't exist a few months ago). Next year should be better.

bullet - Completely agree with you. I'm as big as anyone about long-term brand name values and tradition, but the super-charged growth and demographic changes in Florida essentially make all stats about Florida, FSU and Miami prior to the 1980s virtually irrelevant. Texas has changed a lot, too, but it has long been a large population state, so they have more schools that have longer traditions to rely upon. In contrast, in the 1950 census, Florida was ranked 20th out of the then-48 states by population, with fewer people than places like Kentucky, Alabama and Indiana. In 1980, it had moved up to 7th in the country, but was still behind Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio in population. It wasn't until around 1990 that Florida finally passed those 3 Northern states to get to the #4 population position that it has today (and it will almost certainly pass New York State to get to the #3 position by the next census, if it hasn't happened already). As a result, the state of Florida itself has only been a large population state for about 30 years, so it's not an accident that the football fortunes of Florida, FSU and Miami rose rapidly during that same time. These are demographic advantages that those 3 schools have that aren't going away any time soon and give the pre-1980s records of those schools a lot less relevance.

(11-12-2013 02:32 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  I don't think the B12 ratings for this year are going to be very impressive. Oklahoma and Baylor suffered the FS1 treatment that has been screwing the PAC this year. Biggest B12 conference game of the year and the ratings were so low they didn't even mention them in this article:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/11/...rd-strong/

I thought I saw that the OU/Baylor rating was 1.5, but I can't seem to find a site to confirm that now.

The Baylor/OU game got 2.11 million viewers, making it the most watched game in the short history of FS1.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/11...re/214258/

(11-12-2013 05:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 04:26 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Take out Alabama's and Johnny autograph's games last year and the SEC ratings were back with everyone else. Take out FSU and Miami and the ACC ratings are not much better than the AAC. Take out Ohio St, Michigan and Nebraska and the Big 10 is pretty bad too. What do you think happens to the Pac 12 ratings w/o USC and Oregon? These types of arguments are just stupid.

I don't think it's stupid so much as it's just making a point not usually intended by the people who bring the subject up. The reality is that TV ratings are driving by a handful of schools. It's not the conference that matters; it's the school. USC, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, etc.

There are probably 20 or so schools that really move the needle no matter how well they are playing. After that, it's just a question of who is good and who isn't.

My point exactly. He was bashing the Big 12 in particular for what they would be w/o UT and OU. The same applies more or less to every conference.

well heres my reasoning for it.

when you have 2 power programs, they have a much bigger affect on an overall conference of just 10 teams (where they make up 40% of all b12 games) vs being in a 14 team conference where their impact is not as noticeable.

(11-12-2013 08:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 05:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 04:26 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Take out Alabama's and Johnny autograph's games last year and the SEC ratings were back with everyone else. Take out FSU and Miami and the ACC ratings are not much better than the AAC. Take out Ohio St, Michigan and Nebraska and the Big 10 is pretty bad too. What do you think happens to the Pac 12 ratings w/o USC and Oregon? These types of arguments are just stupid.

I don't think it's stupid so much as it's just making a point not usually intended by the people who bring the subject up. The reality is that TV ratings are driving by a handful of schools. It's not the conference that matters; it's the school. USC, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, etc.

There are probably 20 or so schools that really move the needle no matter how well they are playing. After that, it's just a question of who is good and who isn't.

My point exactly. He was bashing the Big 12 in particular for what they would be w/o UT and OU. The same applies more or less to every conference.

well heres my reasoning for it.

when you have 2 power programs, they have a much bigger affect on an overall conference of just 10 teams (where they make up 40% of all b12 games) vs being in a 14 team conference where their impact is not as noticeable.

However their impact is not the full 40%. The numbers I have seen on league tv ratings have non-con games included so 1/4 of UT's games aren't on comparable channels. That alone drops the % of games to a similar level to other leagues.