(03-19-2015 10:04 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  IMO, we have truly entered the "land of idiots" when team popularity is based on Google searches and Facebook Likes, and metrics like actual fan attendance are ignored. Good Lord!

Attendance was taken into account.

Quote:By using Google searches, Facebook fans, Twitter followers, attendance, and other metrics, they were able to say with the same amount of conclusiveness that any other map like this can.

While it may not be the most scientific way to go about it, marketers pay close attention to these metrics and incorporate them into campaigns. The days of 3 channels and fighting for space above the fold are long gone. Consumers selectively choose where and how they follow their favorite teams which also allows for a cleaner look at who is getting the most "pub" at any given point in time (less lag time).

Creighton over Nebraska?


This is not a signature

(03-19-2015 10:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:58 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:22 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Most years, Iowa State would not be above Iowa but this was an exceptional year for Iowa State so it isn't surprising at all.

The one that stands out to me is Harvard taking Massachusetts. Way to go BC...way to go. In the best basketball conference in the country and Harvard gets it?

Nobody gives a Rip about College Sports in that State..it is Red Sox, Celtics, Patriots, Bruins then HUGE Drop off to College Athletics and College Hockey is probably more popular then College Basketball.

Which is why it amuses me to see folks still try to say that UConn to The Big Ten is inevitable. It's nothing against UConn. If New Englanders cared more about college sports than my tune would be different. Hell, UConn might have gotten in instead of Rutgers but New Jersey is a great recruiting State and folks there actually care about Rutgers. It's unfortunate but I do believe that UConn will end up with their basketball brethren in the ACC, so all will be well.

That happens...JMO that means Florida State, Clemson and others are gone....

Nah, because UConn slips in the open door that Texas and Baylor opened. The ACC Network is what keeps that door open despite the grumblings that happen when UConn walks through at the end.

Go back and look at your team's game attendance this past year, Hank. That was not the only horribly attended game. I am not surprised you put credence into the article. Sure, just ignore all the factual misstatements and glaring omissions by the writer. Don't pay any attention to the rebuttals in the Comments section, or my post, which disprove his statements. The article is completely credible to you. Not surprising, 'cause, after all, haters gonna hate.

(03-19-2015 09:52 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 07:36 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/03/most-po...-by-state/

LOL @ Georgia

Yeah, not even on the radar.

Duplicate post

(03-19-2015 12:03 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 11:31 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  [quote='Eagle78' pid='11897897' dateline='1426777471']
IMO, we have truly entered the "land of idiots" when team popularity is based on Google searches and Facebook Likes, and metrics like actual fan attendance are ignored. Good Lord!

Attendance was taken into account.

Quote:By using Google searches, Facebook fans, Twitter followers, attendance, and other metrics, they were able to say with the same amount of conclusiveness that any other map like this can.

While it may not be the most scientific way to go about it, marketers pay close attention to these metrics and incorporate them into campaigns. The days of 3 channels and fighting for space above the fold are long gone. Consumers selectively choose where and how they follow their favorite teams which also allows for a cleaner look at who is getting the most "pub" at any given point in time (less lag time).

Gulfcoast, come on, attendance was like the 4th thing listed. If you're talking about a team's popularity, actual fan interest (i.e., actually going to the games) should be weighted far more heavily than less precise things like Google searches and Facebook Likes, IMO. Just because someone does a Google search does not make them a fan. Investing $$'s, buying tickets, and showing up for gams is a much better barometer, IMO. I get it that these other metrics might be more meaningful if both schools have about equal fan attendance, but they don't.


I would love to see what type of sensitivity analysis was used in verifying the relevance of the survey methodology.

(03-19-2015 12:05 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 12:03 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 11:31 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 10:04 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  IMO, we have truly entered the "land of idiots" when team popularity is based on Google searches and Facebook Likes, and metrics like actual fan attendance are ignored. Good Lord!

Attendance was taken into account.

Quote:By using Google searches, Facebook fans, Twitter followers, attendance, and other metrics, they were able to say with the same amount of conclusiveness that any other map like this can.

While it may not be the most scientific way to go about it, marketers pay close attention to these metrics and incorporate them into campaigns. The days of 3 channels and fighting for space above the fold are long gone. Consumers selectively choose where and how they follow their favorite teams which also allows for a cleaner look at who is getting the most "pub" at any given point in time (less lag time).

Gulfcoast, come on, attendance was like the 4th thing listed. If you're talking about a team's popularity, actual fan interest (i.e., actually going to the games) should be weighted far more heavily than less precise things like Google searches and Facebook Likes, IMO. Just because someone does a Google search does not make them a fan. Investing $$'s, buying tickets, and showing up for gams is a much better barometer, IMO. I get it that these other metrics might be more meaningful if both schools have about equal fan attendance, but they don't.


I would love to see what type of sensitivity analysis was used in verifying the accuracy of the survey methodology.

Agreed...merely pointing out that attendance was not ignored. How much it was weighted is anyone's guess. I also wanted to comment on the increased role of social media. Companies are spending big bucks to optimize product placement via twitter, snapchat... These platforms are becoming more mainstream everyday. OT, but I read an article on how goggle searches, FB, twitter... are changing the methods for political polling (reliability, sensitivity...) This medium seems to be gaining credibility for gauging "America's pulse."

A survey is only good if it works in your favor is the end conclusion of this thread.

Also I actually watched a Harvard game. I watched that Harvard/Yale championship game. I haven't watched BC in a game since they played Uconn last year. Before that...........who knows

From the BC homer blog today talking about BC playing UMass in basketball at the TD Garden in Boston. Two hours from UMass, two minutes from BC.

Beside that, the game seemed like a pseudo home game for the Minutemen

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2015/3/19/...ff-in-2015

Or today from Boston Globe sports writer Eric Wilbur

But in times like the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which this year boasts three local schools — Providence, Northeastern, and Harvard — even non-alums do tend to gravitate toward the local entrant. As long as it’s not Boston College.

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/...llege.html

(03-19-2015 11:55 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 09:52 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 07:36 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/03/most-po...-by-state/

LOL @ Georgia

Yeah, not even on the radar.

Better paint that blue. :)

Inaccuracies:
- Virginia should be UVA
- Georgia should be Georgia Tech (the Wal-Mart U[sic]GA contingent gives 0 fornications about dawg hoops)
- Massachusetts should be BC ... or even UCONN ... before Harvard.
- North Carolina should be UNC ... you have to keep in mind Duke pulls HEAVILY out of the NE for its students. UNC is where all the Wal-Mart fans in the Carolinas go. The branding power of Jordan alone is a boom for that.
- Nebraska should be Nebraska

I'm also skeptical of BYU in Utah. Utah and even Utah State have much more of a voracious hoops program.

(03-19-2015 03:43 PM)panama Wrote:  Better paint that blue. :)

(03-19-2015 10:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:40 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:22 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 08:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Most years, Iowa State would not be above Iowa but this was an exceptional year for Iowa State so it isn't surprising at all.

The one that stands out to me is Harvard taking Massachusetts. Way to go BC...way to go. In the best basketball conference in the country and Harvard gets it?

Nobody gives a Rip about College Sports in that State..it is Red Sox, Celtics, Patriots, Bruins then HUGE Drop off to College Athletics and College Hockey is probably more popular then College Basketball.

Which is why it amuses me to see folks still try to say that UConn to The Big Ten is inevitable.

Believe it or not, Connecticut and Massachusetts are different states. There might be a hundred reasons why UConn to the B1G is not inevitable, but BC's being irrelevant ( http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/football...anks-acc-m ) is not one of them.

EDIT: I obviously posted prior to your edit.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't have a bad view on UConn but I believe that New England as a whole doesn't have strong followings of college sports. Yeah, UConn basketball gets some looks but not as strongly as if they had that strong success elsewhere.

I actually agree. As strong as our fan support is in CT, in most states with our level of recent success, the support would be even greater. Football is a different issue though. We had really good momentum before Randy left though. Now we're basically at ground zero again.

(03-19-2015 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Inaccuracies:
- Virginia should be UVA
- Georgia should be Georgia Tech (the Wal-Mart U[sic]GA contingent gives 0 fornications about dawg hoops)
- Massachusetts should be BC ... or even UCONN ... before Harvard.
- North Carolina should be UNC ... you have to keep in mind Duke pulls HEAVILY out of the NE for its students. UNC is where all the Wal-Mart fans in the Carolinas go. The branding power of Jordan alone is a boom for that.
- Nebraska should be Nebraska

I'm also skeptical of BYU in Utah. Utah and even Utah State have much more of a voracious hoops program.

Boston sports radio's highest rated show talking college basketball today. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/03/19/jo...ion-again/

(03-19-2015 12:59 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  From the BC homer blog today talking about BC playing UMass in basketball at the TD Garden in Boston. Two hours from UMass, two minutes from BC.

Beside that, the game seemed like a pseudo home game for the Minutemen

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2015/3/19/...ff-in-2015

Or today from Boston Globe sports writer Eric Wilbur

But in times like the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, which this year boasts three local schools — Providence, Northeastern, and Harvard — even non-alums do tend to gravitate toward the local entrant. As long as it’s not Boston College.

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/...llege.html

As I said...haters gonna hate. "As long as its not Boston College". Yeah, those sound like the comments of an objective sports columnist. Yeah, that's the ticket. Is it possible for people to "hate" schools they think are irrelevant? Sounds like an oxymoron to me; but that's just me.

This columnist, though, is a perfect reflection off what I am talking about. Local guy. Grew up a fan of another local school and hating BC. BC has had far more sports success across the board than any other Boston area school. Of course this produces haters. Why wouldn't it?

Look, if you want to rip on BC BB. Have had it. They have made some disastrous mistakes with that program and they are down now. Funny, though, how you never mentioned FB - the one true sport that matters in realignment. We don't want to be comparing BC and Uamss in that sport now, do we? Want to talk about attendance? How about comparing the attendance between BC and Umass at their Labor Day FB game this past season, at Gillette (Umass' "home" stadium.). I was at that game. You guys were embarrassed - both in fan numbers and performance on the field - compared to BC

How about we talk hockey comparisons? Don't think so.

But, hey. Have at it with BB. It's the only sport that Umass compares favorably to BC (slightly) - for now. Haters gonna hate.

(03-19-2015 06:28 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  As I said...haters gonna hate. "As long as its not Boston College". Yeah, those sound like the comments of an objective sports columnist. Yeah, that's the ticket. Is it possible for people to "hate" schools they think are irrelevant? Sounds like an oxymoron to me; but that's just me.

This columnist, though, is a perfect reflection off what I am talking about. Local guy. Grew up a fan of another local school and hating BC. BC has had far more sports success across the board than any other Boston area school. Of course this produces haters. Why wouldn't it?

Look, if you want to rip on BC BB. Have had it. They have made some disastrous mistakes with that program and they are down now. Funny, though, how you never mentioned FB - the one true sport that matters in realignment. We don't want to be comparing BC and Uamss in that sport now, do we? Want to talk about attendance? How about comparing the attendance between BC and Umass at their Labor Day FB game this past season, at Gillette (Umass' "home" stadium.). I was at that game. You guys were embarrassed - both in fan numbers and performance on the field - compared to BC

How about we talk hockey comparisons? Don't think so.

But, hey. Have at it with BB. It's the only sport that Umass compares favorably to BC (slightly) - for now. Haters gonna hate.

You should post more on our ACC board here. We need more Eagles.

Auburn? They still play basketball?

(03-19-2015 04:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Inaccuracies:
- Virginia should be UVA
- Georgia should be Georgia Tech (the Wal-Mart U[sic]GA contingent gives 0 fornications about dawg hoops)
- Massachusetts should be BC ... or even UCONN ... before Harvard.
- North Carolina should be UNC ... you have to keep in mind Duke pulls HEAVILY out of the NE for its students. UNC is where all the Wal-Mart fans in the Carolinas go. The branding power of Jordan alone is a boom for that.
- Nebraska should be Nebraska

I'm also skeptical of BYU in Utah. Utah and even Utah State have much more of a voracious hoops program.

Well, based on the methodology, if your school sells tickets as buy 1 get 4 free to maximize attendance numbers, and fans then spend the next week googling "how to get rid of my crappy free tickets" or badgering friends on Facebook to take in sellable tickets off their hands, you have a really popular program.

(03-19-2015 11:51 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Creighton over Nebraska?


This is not a signature

Not surprising considering Creighton's success over the last 15 years and the fact that Nebraska has never won an NCAA game ever.