Interesting read. I'm not suggesting one thing or the other. It's on a blog. It's no one I've ever seen before. I'm not even sure they're an FSU fan.

Here are a couple graphics that may get your interest. You can read the "article" here if you want. **Link**

Wow ... P*** H***** completed cratered the basketball program even in ratings. We're up at least one spot, probably more if the basketball program had a pulse.

I'd also like to see this with the full package added in. Georgia Tech picks up quite a few baseball games on ESPNU, CSS, and Fox Sports South. They even pick up a handful of women's basketball, volleyball, and softball games too.


This does show how Boston College was a terrible addition UNLESS we have our own television channel like the B1G... then it becomes a money printer.

(05-15-2012 07:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Wow ... P*** H***** completed cratered the basketball program even in ratings. We're up at least one spot, probably more if the basketball program had a pulse.

That's why 1 and 2 year valuations aren't all that great. Too much variance between one year and the next.

It's interesting, but I would want to see something in a 5-10 year study

Kind of what I suspected in that Duke's basketball redeemed them but Wake wasn't large enough or popular enough to carry it's own. I'd love to see the top 10 of those enter the SEC and be done with realignment

Valuations like these are useless if done for a single year. Let's see the data over a 5-year or 10-year period.

Cheers,
Neil

Valuation should also include post season as well as 5-10 year history. If you want to declare value, you have to give credit where it is due.

(05-15-2012 08:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Valuations like these are useless if done for a single year. Let's see the data over a 5-year or 10-year period.

If you and Htown want to volunteer to dig up the data you can contact the "blogger," as they admitted that it would be better to have more than one year's data but that it was time-consuming to find.

And it's not "useless" by any means. It's just not as valuable as it could be with additional data points.

(05-15-2012 07:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This does show how Boston College was a terrible addition UNLESS we have our own television channel like the B1G... then it becomes a money printer.

Really? This was BC's worst year in both sports and somehow ratings weren't high. Who'd a thunk it?

(05-15-2012 08:58 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 08:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Valuations like these are useless if done for a single year. Let's see the data over a 5-year or 10-year period.

If you and Htown want to volunteer to dig up the data you can contact the "blogger," as they admitted that it would be better to have more than one year's data but that it was time-consuming to find.

And it's not "useless" by any means. It's just not as valuable as it could be with additional data points.

You're the one trying to convince everyone else that the remaining schools in the ACC are without value, the burden of proof is on you.

We've already conceded the point that FSU brings value. Not sure why you would argue a point we agree on, but have at it.

(05-15-2012 09:14 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  You're the one trying to convince everyone else that the remaining schools in the ACC are without value, the burden of proof is on you.
Utter fail on your part right here. Seriously.

We've already conceded the point that FSU brings value. Not sure why you would argue a point we agree on, but have at it.
There is no arguing. You pointed out a flaw in the "study." If you had read the study you would have noticed this:

Quote:I'd like to first touch on the process that I used and also be upfront about inherent shortcomings with the data. I'm certainly open to criticism and/or feedback, so if any of you guys have constructive advice to share please feel free. Also, if anyone wants to check the data or use it for other analysis please let me know.

and this:

Quote:2011 data was used because it was most readily available (note: this is a shortcoming in the analysis and one that could be corrected if anyone wants to volunteer 3-4 hours of time to help build a bigger dataset)

(05-15-2012 09:06 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 07:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  This does show how Boston College was a terrible addition UNLESS we have our own television channel like the B1G... then it becomes a money printer.

Really? This was BC's worst year in both sports and somehow ratings weren't high. Who'd a thunk it?

Agreed. If this were a 1-year evaluation taking during 2007 or 2008, BC would have finished no lower than 4th in this type of evaluation, most likely 2nd or 3rd.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-15-2012 09:28 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 09:14 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  You're the one trying to convince everyone else that the remaining schools in the ACC are without value, the burden of proof is on you.
Utter fail on your part right here. Seriously.

We've already conceded the point that FSU brings value. Not sure why you would argue a point we agree on, but have at it.
There is no arguing. You pointed out a flaw in the "study." If you had read the study you would have noticed this:

Quote:I'd like to first touch on the process that I used and also be upfront about inherent shortcomings with the data. I'm certainly open to criticism and/or feedback, so if any of you guys have constructive advice to share please feel free. Also, if anyone wants to check the data or use it for other analysis please let me know.

and this:

Quote:2011 data was used because it was most readily available (note: this is a shortcoming in the analysis and one that could be corrected if anyone wants to volunteer 3-4 hours of time to help build a bigger dataset)

Your assumption that I did not read the "study" is your fail. You used the limited "study" to prove your point. We merely pointed out the value of your data is insufficient, which the writer self proclaimed the data to be of limited value. The burden of proof remains yours.

It appears that the majority of ACC fans want FSU to stay in the ACC. You want FSU to go. Why not wait and see if FSU gets an invite?

I clearly stated I wasn't suggesting one thing or another, that I thought it might be interesting and if you would like to read it you could. You say you read it and then claim it's useless because there aren't enough data points. You say that despite the author clearly defining that as a limitation and asking anyone that wanted more data to volunteer to help.

I am not burdened with proving anything to you.

I'd love to see that from 2004 to present but not enough to donate the time to help.

(05-15-2012 10:20 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  I clearly stated I wasn't suggesting one thing or another, that I thought it might be interesting and if you would like to read it you could...

Thank you for posting this, J.A.N. It's a fresh way to look at the conference. Maybe before the Summer is over I'll do the 2004-2011 analysis (but it may not be until July at the earliest).

(05-16-2012 07:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  [quote='JustAnotherName' pid='7897036' dateline='1337138456']J.A.N.

Ooo... that may be the username that stinks the most when condensed to acronym I've seen thus far.