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.

[NCHokie83]

If ever we needed more of a reason to think BC in the ACC was a complete and utter mistake...

Them and Wake have to be absolutely killing any negotiating strength the ACC has. We might as well be a 10 team league viewer-wise.

[Hateful Hokie]

If ever we needed more of a reason to think BC in the ACC was a complete and utter mistake...

Them and Wake have to be absolutely killing any negotiating strength the ACC has. We might as well be a 10 team league viewer-wise.

Yeah, it would be really nice if the ACC could expel a few members. BC and Wake are basically parasites. Can't believe the ACC originally wanted BC and Syracuse over VT.

[NCHokie83]

And one other thing, those facts are skewed. I like the work he did... but boy did he ever skew the data by only bringing on 2011 stats. Would love to see the viewership trendline over the past 5 years. Don't think FSU would have nearly as much of a gap at the top than this data shows.

Essentially, he's taking data from a year they had the most hyped out of conference game on ESPN (FSU-Oklahoma) when both were being touted as National Champion favorites, and combining it with FSU's best ever basketball year, taking the overall percentage of viewers for both in respect to the ACC as a whole, and then presenting that as an overall fact over time. Don't agree with that process at all. He's essentially saying that the year FSU has the most overhyped game on ESPN as well as their best ever season in basketball is reason enough to prove their britches are too big and they need to move on, or at least get a bigger piece of the ACC pie.

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. Way, way, way too many issues presented by limiting it to only one year.

[squarerootofone]

Swofford would've invited Longwood if that's what Shalalalala had wanted.*