Is FSU Really The ACC's Most Valuable Team?

[HokieDan08]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5...eam-in-the-acc

only used 2011 data, but still good facts

[Mercury]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5...eam-in-the-acc

only used 2011 data, but still good facts

Now if only fsu advocating ancalloment different than equal shares they should leave now. Acc culture is all for one and one for all. So is the sec and big 10. If fsu is in the conference for just fsu fine leave. Acc don't share their values. Also the analysis Does not account markets. Tv networks do. Having the ny Boston and dc market better than tallahasee

[gern]

nothing pays as well as their mid-Dec bowls : )

[Centex Hokie]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5...eam-in-the-acc

only used 2011 data, but still good facts

Good facts, but too small of a sampling. I would think that the networks look at more than one years data. The Big XII almost imploded with the top teams for themselves. Looks like some of the FSU folks would fit right in.

[baxao]

The data shows $0.55 and $0.49 per view for football and basketball, respectively. There is not much different between football and basketball money. However, per Boston College AD Gene DiFilippo on ACC last expansion, "you don't get extra money for basketball, It's 85 percent football money. This was football. It had nothing to do with basketball.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...ur-conferences

[Hateful Hokie]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5...eam-in-the-acc

only used 2011 data, but still good facts

You said it. 2011 data only. That makes the analysis fundamentally flawed, especially when you're talking about 10+ year TV deals. Sample size is way, way too small to be remotely valid. It only has the appearance of validity because it spits out value numbers within the confines of an already existing contract; therefore, the end results appear valid.

I only skimmed his work, but without far more data points, this analysis has no meaning. I would think you'd have to go back 10 years and then weight the most recent 5 years of data to really make a case.

[BazHokie]

Correct. And by only using a one-year sample, the SOS for this year becomes a major weight factor.

If a team had a harder-than-normal Strength of Schedule in 2011...it would lead to more televised games, and hence a higher overall viewership for last year.

[hokie_n_savannah]

The analysis is fine, the data set is too small. Look at 5-10 years and I think he is on track.

Cheers,

Bobby

[Tafkam Hokie]

The analysis is fine, the data set is too small. Look at 5-10 years and I think he is on track.

Cheers,

Bobby

Agree. He made a few assumptions that I tend to agree with in his calculations, but all-in-all his methodology was pretty sound. Only big mistake he made was looking at only 1 year.

[lawhokie]

I have a strong feeling Wake and BC would still suck. Nobody watches them. Nobody cares. BC was a bad acquisition, no doubt. The fact that BC has played in the ACCCG only means that BC occupied a spot by a school that might actually send fans to the game.

BC and Wake are the reason FSU can't get paid. Take away those two schools, and the average ACC payout is about right. They bring no money, no fans, empty seats, blah games. Dead weight, but we'll never be rid of them.