(12-13-2017 10:05 AM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:17 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:59 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:40 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  Boise is the gimmick Smurf team right?

From personal experience I've had people say something like "Go Shockers" while I'm wearing WSU gear in just about every City I've visited. Not saying it's not dwarfed .. but not by as much as you are trying to say.

My original point was that college football is retarded because only a few teams have a chance to win a title no matter what they do during the year.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come across as people not knowing at all about Wichita State. Any avid college basketball fan would likely know about Wichita State if they've been paying attention recently. Fact is, however, that your typical fan is not an avid observer like we are.

Also, the reason I said football drives the bus is because in terms of revenue, there is just no comparison. Schools with a football team have more revenue which will by nature seep into other sports. This is why it's typical of strong performing basketball programs to also have a football program.

Curious what the average football revenue is for schools that actually have a shot at the playoff.

In terms of national exposure and TV ratings, a major bowl in football (so called NY6 bowl) is the equivalent of a Final Four game in basketball. The ratings are even higher for the NY6 bowls hosting the national semifinalists.

In terms of revenue, again, it's not close. UCF will receive $6M for playing in the Peach Bowl. This is a $4M payout plus $2M in travel expenses. The Wichita State Final Four trip actually ended up costing your school money.

Hold on there Speed Racer. Fact check alert!!!

http://www.adweek.com/tv-video/ratings-d...me-168965/

Quote:Alabama's 45-40 victory over Clemson Monday night averaged 25.6 million viewers, tumbling 23 percent from last year's inaugural College Football Playoff National Championship, which stands as the top telecast in cable history. In terms of household rating—the metric by which advertising is sold for sports—the game decreased 21 percent to a 14.7. By way of comparison, CBS's coverage of Duke's victory over Wisconsin in the men's college basketball national championship game in April drew 28.3 million viewers.

The ratings decreases for the title game followed poor performances for the semifinal matchups on New Year's Eve. ESPN had to make good $20 million in ad spots. Neither game hit the 20 million viewer mark. Those makegoods ran during Monday's championship game and ESPN's telecast of the Houston Texans-Kansas City Chiefs NFL wild-card game on Saturday.

And regarding the Final Four costing us money...

It was worth over half a billion to our university. And I personally believe we are still reaping the benefits of that run to this day.

1. The article you provided states that a COLLEGE FOOTBALL game stands as the top telecast in cable history. You just proved my point.

2. I’m sure the Final Four was worth a ton of money in merchandise sales, etc to Wichita State. Wichita State was still in the red after their Final Four trip. That wasn’t a snide remark or anything so not sure why you’re getting so defensive.

3. I’m just simply laying out evidence for why college football is a bigger driver than college basketball. I mean, everybody knows this. You guys are acting like I’m personally attacking Wichita State or something. I’m not. I have great respect for what y’all do. I guess if you’re really that defiant about it, we can agree to disagree.

(12-13-2017 11:02 AM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  The AAC average for football revenues is $14.5M (median of $14.8M). The AAC average for MBB is $6.9M (median of $6.1M). So sure, there's a difference, but no where near what the chart indicates to the typical mouth-breather.

#SPOTTHEDIFFERENCE

#DERPLOGIC

So AAC football revenues are more than double the basketball revenues. Tell me again how that makes the AAC a basketball centric conference.

There’s no debate regarding the finances and popularity of college football.

The point is for a lot of people it’s hard to take seriously with the hilariously bad money-first playoff mentality it has. You can not lose a game and not play for a national championship.

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:02 AM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  The AAC average for football revenues is $14.5M (median of $14.8M). The AAC average for MBB is $6.9M (median of $6.1M). So sure, there's a difference, but no where near what the chart indicates to the typical mouth-breather.

#SPOTTHEDIFFERENCE

#DERPLOGIC

So AAC football revenues are more than double the basketball revenues. Tell me again how that makes the AAC a basketball centric conference.

Because AAC teams compete for the National Championship in basketball.

/thread

(12-13-2017 01:38 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:02 AM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  The AAC average for football revenues is $14.5M (median of $14.8M). The AAC average for MBB is $6.9M (median of $6.1M). So sure, there's a difference, but no where near what the chart indicates to the typical mouth-breather.

#SPOTTHEDIFFERENCE

#DERPLOGIC

So AAC football revenues are more than double the basketball revenues. Tell me again how that makes the AAC a basketball centric conference.

Because AAC teams compete for the National Championship in basketball.

/thread

(12-13-2017 01:31 PM)ShockerFever Wrote:  There’s no debate regarding the finances and popularity of college football.

The point is for a lot of people it’s hard to take seriously with the hilariously bad money-first playoff mentality it has. You can not lose a game and not play for a national championship.

That’s true. The system has a laundry list of flaws. Still, what the sport and our success in it has done for our program and university is beyond anything you can put a price tag on. I have faith that an expanded playoff will happen in the future to make things more equitable.

(12-13-2017 01:45 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  I have faith that an expanded playoff will happen in the future to make things more equitable.

I have some fantastic beachfront property here in Kansas I'd just love to sell you.

(12-13-2017 01:48 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:45 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  I have faith that an expanded playoff will happen in the future to make things more equitable.

I have some fantastic beachfront property here in Kansas I'd just love to sell you.

More power to you. I wish WSU the best of luck this season.

(12-13-2017 01:15 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 10:05 AM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:44 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:17 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:59 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come across as people not knowing at all about Wichita State. Any avid college basketball fan would likely know about Wichita State if they've been paying attention recently. Fact is, however, that your typical fan is not an avid observer like we are.

Also, the reason I said football drives the bus is because in terms of revenue, there is just no comparison. Schools with a football team have more revenue which will by nature seep into other sports. This is why it's typical of strong performing basketball programs to also have a football program.

Curious what the average football revenue is for schools that actually have a shot at the playoff.

In terms of national exposure and TV ratings, a major bowl in football (so called NY6 bowl) is the equivalent of a Final Four game in basketball. The ratings are even higher for the NY6 bowls hosting the national semifinalists.

In terms of revenue, again, it's not close. UCF will receive $6M for playing in the Peach Bowl. This is a $4M payout plus $2M in travel expenses. The Wichita State Final Four trip actually ended up costing your school money.

Hold on there Speed Racer. Fact check alert!!!

http://www.adweek.com/tv-video/ratings-d...me-168965/

Quote:Alabama's 45-40 victory over Clemson Monday night averaged 25.6 million viewers, tumbling 23 percent from last year's inaugural College Football Playoff National Championship, which stands as the top telecast in cable history. In terms of household rating—the metric by which advertising is sold for sports—the game decreased 21 percent to a 14.7. By way of comparison, CBS's coverage of Duke's victory over Wisconsin in the men's college basketball national championship game in April drew 28.3 million viewers.

The ratings decreases for the title game followed poor performances for the semifinal matchups on New Year's Eve. ESPN had to make good $20 million in ad spots. Neither game hit the 20 million viewer mark. Those makegoods ran during Monday's championship game and ESPN's telecast of the Houston Texans-Kansas City Chiefs NFL wild-card game on Saturday.

And regarding the Final Four costing us money...

It was worth over half a billion to our university. And I personally believe we are still reaping the benefits of that run to this day.

1. The article you provided states that a COLLEGE FOOTBALL game stands as the top telecast in cable history. You just proved my point.

2. I’m sure the Final Four was worth a ton of money in merchandise sales, etc to Wichita State. Wichita State was still in the red after their Final Four trip. That wasn’t a snide remark or anything so not sure why you’re getting so defensive.

3. I’m just simply laying out evidence for why college football is a bigger driver than college basketball. I mean, everybody knows this. You guys are acting like I’m personally attacking Wichita State or something. I’m not. I have great respect for what y’all do. I guess if you’re really that defiant about it, we can agree to disagree.

No, the article I posted stated that in 2016, the national championship game for basketball beat the pants off football. In a universe where "football totally dominates basketball in every respect", this can't happen. Is it a sign that basketball is narrowing the gap with football? I don't know, but it seems like basketball beat football again in 2017 (I posted the links below).

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/tv-ratin...202022251/

Quote:In final nationals from Nielsen, Monday night’s North Carolina-Gonzaga championship game averaged 23 million total viewers, up 30% from last year’s championship game. The game peaked with 26.1 million viewers from 11:15-11:30 p.m. Additionally, NCAA March Madness Live recorded 98 million live video streams during the NCAA Tournament, up 33% over last year. The National Championship game garnered 4.4 million live video streams, an all-time record for the title game.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/col...story.html

Quote:The College Football Championship rematch between Clemson and Alabama drew 680,000 fewer viewers on TV and online than last year's game, though combined viewership for all the New Year's Six bowls and title game was up 15 percent, ESPN said Tuesday.

Clemson's 35-31 victory against Alabama on Monday night got a 14.7 overnight rating for ESPN and a 15.3 rating for ESPN's MegaCast, which combines viewers for ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU. Last year's title game, won 45-40 by Alabama, drew a 15.8 overnight rating for ESPN and a 16.0 for the MegaCast.

And why should I be defensive about a comment like this?

Quote:In terms of revenue, again, it's not close. UCF will receive $6M for playing in the Peach Bowl. This is a $4M payout plus $2M in travel expenses. The Wichita State Final Four trip actually ended up costing your school money.

UCF will receive a small paycheck relative to their yearly expenses and end the season winning (or losing) at the kiddie table, while Wichita State received a brand recognition boost valued at over half a billion. That's a national brand boost, not an also-ran brand boost.

Now, we would have had to return all those hundreds of millions in goodwill had Marshall jumped to another job but he didn't... that's the key here. Lots of smaller schools like Butler, George Mason, VCU also had a massive brand boost when reaching the F4, but then had to give it all back when the clock struck midnight and their coach left them like a 2-bit whore in a seedy motel. BTW: That's why college basketball is so much better than college football because schools like Butler, GMU, and VCU are "allowed" to reach the Final Four with Butler reaching the Finals twice!

We got to spend our check and then followed it up with an undefeated season probably earning another quarter bill. All of this is why we are who we are today. Perhaps now you will understand how I laugh at your thought that what UCF will do shortly (being led by their absconding coach) cannot be compared on any level to what we've done with respect to furthering our brand. It's almost as if you're trying to convince me to accept a $6 million dollar check and an NIT championship in lieu of our F4 in the real tournament. It's almost laughable. No, it is laughable. I wouldn't accept a $50 million dollar check in place of that Final Four. Having strangers walk up to me in random-ass towns during my 1000 mile journey to Atlanta saying "Go Shockers!" was humbling to put it mildly. They couldn't have found Wichita on a map if their life depended on it, but they knew who the Play Angry Shockers were and they still do today...

I wish UCF could experience that kind of fame this year. They deserve it! Sadly, they won't.


T


...

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:02 AM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  The AAC average for football revenues is $14.5M (median of $14.8M). The AAC average for MBB is $6.9M (median of $6.1M). So sure, there's a difference, but no where near what the chart indicates to the typical mouth-breather.

#SPOTTHEDIFFERENCE

#DERPLOGIC

So AAC football revenues are more than double the basketball revenues. Tell me again how that makes the AAC a basketball centric conference.

I don't have the full numbers to say exactly whether this helps my point or your point, but when you only point out Revenue ... you are missing half the equation. Costs for football are also way higher than basketball. You have to include both to really understand the benefit.

(12-13-2017 02:20 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  In a universe where "football totally dominates basketball in every respect", this can't happen. Is it a sign that basketball is narrowing the gap with football?

Only time will tell but it doesn't look likely. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

(12-13-2017 02:24 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 01:23 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 11:02 AM)SHOCK_value Wrote:  The AAC average for football revenues is $14.5M (median of $14.8M). The AAC average for MBB is $6.9M (median of $6.1M). So sure, there's a difference, but no where near what the chart indicates to the typical mouth-breather.

#SPOTTHEDIFFERENCE

#DERPLOGIC

So AAC football revenues are more than double the basketball revenues. Tell me again how that makes the AAC a basketball centric conference.

I don't have the full numbers to say exactly whether this helps my point or your point, but when you only point out Revenue ... you are missing half the equation. Costs for football are also way higher than basketball. You have to include both to really understand the benefit.

It's not just a revenue advantage. If it were just about revenue, this wouldn't even be a conversation.

$79,229,275 UConn
$59,379,453 UCF
$59,062,156 Cincinnati
$51,469,297 Houston
$50,027,341 Memphis
$47,160,819 South Florida
$44,613,084 East Carolina
.
.
.
$28,451,036 Wichita State

---

My points are 1) the AAC is not a basketball conference and 2) the strongest basketball schools have a football component which drives revenue that ultimately seeps into basketball and other sports. Does that mean football is their only money maker? Not at all. It's just that history has shown the top basketball schools are typically schools which also sponsor football.

Look at the list of every single basketball national champion. More than 95% of the championship schools also had an active football program. My thesis has been that football drives the bus. Whether you attend a basketball-centric school or not, that doesn't change that fact.

95% of basketball national champions have a football program that can compete for the playoff. Until the AAC has a chance at a national championship you look absolutely ridiculous trying to compare the AAC to real conferences.

(12-13-2017 05:04 PM)AndShock Wrote:  95% of basketball national champions have a football program that can compete for the playoff.

That is not even close to being correct.

(12-13-2017 05:04 PM)AndShock Wrote:  Until the AAC has a chance at a national championship you look absolutely ridiculous trying to compare the AAC to real conferences.

That's not even the argument being made. Is that really what you took out of my statement that football, not basketball, drives the bus? How in the world did you twist that into a comparison of football conferences to other football conferences? Maybe you are confused?

Quote:2) the strongest basketball schools have a football component which drives revenue that ultimately seeps into basketball and other sports. Does that mean football is their only money maker? Not at all. It's just that history has shown the top basketball schools are typically schools which also sponsor football.

The strongest basketball schools have a P5 football component.

Top 25:
19 P5 football programs
4 no football
1 FCS Program
1 non-P5 FBS

Stop acting like non-P5 football = P5 football

It doesn’t.

(12-13-2017 05:39 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

Quote:2) the strongest basketball schools have a football component which drives revenue that ultimately seeps into basketball and other sports. Does that mean football is their only money maker? Not at all. It's just that history has shown the top basketball schools are typically schools which also sponsor football.

The strongest basketball schools have a P5 football component.

Top 25:
19 P5 football programs
4 no football
1 FCS Program
1 non-P5 FBS

Stop acting like non-P5 football = P5 football

It doesn’t.

Lets be real theres only about 15 teams that compete for a national championship in football. While no AAC team falls in that list neither does North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, etc.

(12-13-2017 06:32 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 05:39 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

Quote:2) the strongest basketball schools have a football component which drives revenue that ultimately seeps into basketball and other sports. Does that mean football is their only money maker? Not at all. It's just that history has shown the top basketball schools are typically schools which also sponsor football.

The strongest basketball schools have a P5 football component.

Top 25:
19 P5 football programs
4 no football
1 FCS Program
1 non-P5 FBS

Stop acting like non-P5 football = P5 football

It doesn’t.

Lets be real theres only about 15 teams that compete for a national championship in football. While no AAC team falls in that list neither does North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, etc.

If UNC, Duke, or Indiana went undefeated this season they would be in the playoff.

(12-13-2017 06:37 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 06:32 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 05:39 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

Quote:2) the strongest basketball schools have a football component which drives revenue that ultimately seeps into basketball and other sports. Does that mean football is their only money maker? Not at all. It's just that history has shown the top basketball schools are typically schools which also sponsor football.

The strongest basketball schools have a P5 football component.

Top 25:
19 P5 football programs
4 no football
1 FCS Program
1 non-P5 FBS

Stop acting like non-P5 football = P5 football

It doesn’t.

Lets be real theres only about 15 teams that compete for a national championship in football. While no AAC team falls in that list neither does North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, etc.

If UNC, Duke, or Indiana went undefeated this season they would be in the playoff.

They aren't going undefeated, ever, so thats irrelevant.

(12-13-2017 06:38 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 06:37 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 06:32 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 05:39 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

Quote:2) the strongest basketball schools have a football component which drives revenue that ultimately seeps into basketball and other sports. Does that mean football is their only money maker? Not at all. It's just that history has shown the top basketball schools are typically schools which also sponsor football.

The strongest basketball schools have a P5 football component.

Top 25:
19 P5 football programs
4 no football
1 FCS Program
1 non-P5 FBS

Stop acting like non-P5 football = P5 football

It doesn’t.

Lets be real theres only about 15 teams that compete for a national championship in football. While no AAC team falls in that list neither does North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, etc.

If UNC, Duke, or Indiana went undefeated this season they would be in the playoff.

They aren't going undefeated, ever, so thats irrelevant.

Probably, but that not the point.

(12-13-2017 06:39 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 06:38 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 06:37 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 06:32 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 05:39 PM)AndShock Wrote:  The strongest basketball schools have a P5 football component.

Top 25:
19 P5 football programs
4 no football
1 FCS Program
1 non-P5 FBS

Stop acting like non-P5 football = P5 football

It doesn’t.

Lets be real theres only about 15 teams that compete for a national championship in football. While no AAC team falls in that list neither does North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, etc.

If UNC, Duke, or Indiana went undefeated this season they would be in the playoff.

They aren't going undefeated, ever, so thats irrelevant.

Probably, but that not the point.

Yes it is. G5 teams aren't excluded from playing in the playoffs. Its stacked against them but it isn't impossible. If UH had gone undefeated last year they were in. Realistically G5 teams are as likely to compete for a national championship as 3/4 of the P5.