(01-20-2018 08:53 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: (01-20-2018 08:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-20-2018 02:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: (01-18-2018 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-18-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote: The past several years there have not been many schools who didn't have their best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game.
The exceptions have been the schools playing a midweek game during work hours, teams that lost a conference title game, and some quirks like Rice's game against TAMU when Johnny Out Of Football came back from his suspension.
Bowls are just a good stage to reach more people.
Yes, e.g., Boise State's bowl game tripled their viewers for any other game, and they are a pretty high profile brand that plays P5 teams in the regular season.
Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience for the year in their bowl game, no matter how rink-dink the bowl is, and even if it is G5 vs G5.
These bolded statements aren't really true for the American.
In 2017, bowl games were only 3 of the top 10 best-viewed games for the AAC. The Peach Bowl WASN'T the most viewed AAC game.
Stop right there: If you are counting Army - Navy as an "AAC game", well it's obviously not that so go back and recalibrate. Army-Navy is it's own thing, even has its own TV deal. Heck I bet 85% of everyone who tunes in has no idea what, if any, conferences they are members of.
If you were referring to some other AAC game that drew 8.4+ million fans and i've forgotten it, then i apologize.
Also, about bowl games being watched vs regular season games: You say that in 2016 about six AAC teams had regular season games that topped their bowl game viewership. But, again, are those legit AAC games or piggybacks on big-name P5?
E.g., if USF's bowl game drew more viewers than all their AAC games, but less than USF vs FSU, and likewise if the one game Temple had that drew more was Temple vs Penn State, well obviously those ratings are due to the blue-chip P5 opponent, they aren't "AAC games" in any meaningful sense.
But again, if you are actually referencing real AAC games, like Temple vs UConn beating their bowl game, then again I apologize.
1. Actually READ my post and then respond to it. I go into how many of the better-than-bowl-rated games are conference controlled for '15 and '17. I acknowledge that Temple at Penn State is one thing and PennState at Temple is another and Temple in two AAC ccgs or UCF@Temple is yet another.
2. My having done that goes above and beyond what you and arkstfan were saying. You were talking about exposure and viewership. UCF's paycheck game at Michigan is still exposure. The perpetual ND series is good for Navy football recruiting and the Army-Navy game is a great commercial for the institution, period.
A. You started with "nice exposure for the G5" and I'm saying AWESOME for the "G4" but only good-not-great for the AAC
B. arkstfan said "Best TV ratings of the year for their bowl game," and that's where it doesn't matter that Army Navy doesn't get AAC any dollars. Or if you throw that out I got Navy ND and if you throw that out I STILL have Navy Houston or the AAC championship game. And it's not just Navy - I gave examples for SEVEN AAC schools.
C. You then doubled down on being wrong saying "double or even triple it's best audience for the year" and that is not true for any AAC bowl team. G4s maybe. But not my conference
You started talking about exposure and viewership, not whether the AAC team has inherent appeal or whether a certain rating will benefit in TV negotiations. To come back and split hairs that a game was or wasn't a "legit AAC game" is moving the goalposts.
3. Regarding 2016 since you asked. The only "piggyback" game of the six was UCF@ Michigan. Navy was the Army and ND games. Houston was Oklahoma at Houston. USF was their home game vs FSU - so AAC inventory in addition to being straight up exposure. Temple was the AAC championship and Memphis was Houston-Memphis on ABC on Black Friday.
Details for all three years, for AAC and G4s here:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-150...id15000866
But mostly - actually read before replying.
That looks like an awful lot of verbiage to cop to what i asked - namely that the games you were referencing were either Army - Navy or games vs big-name P5, like Oklahoma, FSU, and Michigan, games which I explained shouldn't count -with the exception of Temple's AAC title game and Houston vs Memphis.
As for "actual reading", first, remember that this is a football forum. It's not anyone's job. Nobody is required to "read" your posts for every nitzy, pedantic, detail you put in them, such that when we overlook them you can shout "READ what i said"! When you start paying me to read your posts, then I'll be obligated to pay that kind of attention to their details, thanks.
Second, recall that in my prior post, I didn't single out the AAC. I said "Typically, a G5 team will double or even triple its best audience of the year ...".
Since typically means "in most cases", there was no reason for you to reply with AAC - specific examples, when I was talking about the G5 generally, the entire G5, and "typically" obviously leaves room for exceptions. Any and all AAC, or other G5 conference exceptions, were implied by my statement.
The only valid ground to contest what i said would be to look at the entirety of the G5, and if it is true that for entire population of G5, it is NOT typically the case that the bowl game doubles or triples their best regular audience, then I would stand corrected. But you didn't do that, you invoked just the AAC.
Once you did, taking the discussion out of the realm i was talking about, then it was entirely fair for me to dissect that claim by addressing whether the AAC teams were responsible for that exposure -that's not moving the goal post, it's just taking the analysis to a more detailed level, which is where you apparently wanted it to go when you took my "G5" comment and made it about the AAC.
So no, I am correct to note that it is misleading to mention Army-Navy, UCF - Michigan, etc. and compare them to bowl games. You were misleading and wrong to do so, so i properly rebuked you for that.
For some reason, you are a Navy fan with real loyalty to the AAC, weird, the only one i know of. So you bristled at that G5 statement, and hastened to reply that it isn't true of the AAC and you tied yourself in knots doing so. Too bad.