Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1066

Disaster for MWC or Mark Twain's defination of the three kinds of lies.

Recommended Posts

Is it really as bad as this post states or is there something wrong with the numbers?  I am not a stats person and I hope one of our stats majors will clarify this gloomy prediction of our future TV contract. This was prepared by a navy stats person.

===========================================================================================================  

P6 OFF the field - TV ratings
Football viewership. I went through the data from http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for regular season and conference championship games (not bowl games/CFP). For each conference, I looked at: viewers in all games involving conference teams (and per game average); viewers of conference controlled games (and per game average); viewers of intra-conference games (and per game average).

The AAC gets 12-22% of SEC/BIG10 viewership (up to 34.6% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 18-29% of ACC viewership (up to 41% avg per rated game)
The AAC gets 25-43% of BigXII/PAC viewers over the season - as much as 58% for per game averages.

Conversely, G4 viewers of intra-conference games are 4-31% of AAC intra-conference games (higher for avg per rated game, but best G4 intra-conference per game average is 56.6% of AAC). G4s have 11-39% of AAC's viewers for all games (25-62% avg per rated game).

As a reminder, AAC Power 6 is not/not an assertion that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC or Big10 today. P6 is an information campaign with the assertion that the AAC is closer to the five conferences ahead of us than the four behind us. The strategic goal of this information campaign is to improve the American and its members' chances of being on the right side of the next great shakeup in the college sports -- specifically college football -- landscape. The AAC's next media rights deal will be an interim objective, or an indicator of progress, for this campaign - it is neither the endstate nor a pre-requisite for P6.
Nor do we need to transform into the SEC overnight to achieve the strategic goal: we need to keep the five contract-bowl-conferences from separating from us, while at the same time separating from the other four.

Data for all games (avg per game); conference-controlled (apg); and conference games (apg).
SEC: 199,484,000 (3.2million); 166,916,000 (3.0 million); 138,767,000 (3.55million)
BIG10: 180,615,000 (2.86million); 156,679,000 (3.0million); 130,993,000 (3.27million)
ACC: 139,553,000 (2.4million); 117,703,000 (2.4million); 68,952,000 (2.0 million)
PAC12: 95,254,000 (1.76million); 85,907,000 (1.79million); 61,091,000 (1.65million)
BIG12: 93,660,000(1.7million); 72,583,000 (1.58million); 59,455,000(1.6million)
AAC: 40,675,000(.992million); 21,866,000(.729million); 17,044,000 (.631million)

MWC: 16,031,000(.616million); 7,724,000(.406million); 5,357,000 (.357million)
MAC: 10,467,000(.455million); 3,745,000 (.234million); 3,550,000 (.237million)
SBC: 5,209,000 (.401million); 2,280,000 (.253million); 1,314,000 (.164million)
CUSA:4,519,000 (.251 million); 2,657,000 (.177million); 717,000 (.071 million)

AAC's percentage of SEC: 20.3% (31%); 13.1% (24.3%); 12.2% (17.7%)
AAC's percentage of BIG10: 22.5% (34.6%); 13.9% (24.2%); 13% (19.3%)
AAC's percentage of ACC: 29.1% (41.3%); 18.5% (30.1%); 24.8% (31.6%)
AAC's percentage of PAC12: 42.7% (56.3%); 25.4% (40.7%); 27.8% (38.2%)
AAC's percentages of BIG12: 43.4% (58.3%); 30.1% (46.1%); 28.7% (39.4%)

MWC's percentage of AAC: 39.4% (62%); 35.3 (55.7%); 31.4% (56.6%)
MAC's percentage of AAC: 25.7% (45.8%); 17.1% (32.1%); 20.8% (37.5%)
SBC's percentage of AAC: 12.8% (40.4%); 10.4% (34.7%); 7.7% (26.0%)
CUSA's percentage of AAC: 11.1% (25.3%) 12.2% (17.8%); 4.2% (11.4%)
(This post was last modified: 07-22-2018 01:55 PM by slhNavy91.)

07-10-2018 03:36 PM

 

 

Find all posts by this user
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sixty percent of the U.S. lives east of the Mississippi. Add Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas to that and it's closer to 70-75 percent.

Now figure that 10 percent of the population lives in California.

That's what the MWC has to work with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The total population of the states in the MWC minus California is 5 percent of the U.S. population.

So essentially to get more people watching the Mountain West, the California teams have to do better, especially against other California teams in the PAC 12. Colorado State has to do better against Colorado (5.6 million people in the state) as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last post for now:

Looking at the statistics, it makes sense why Colorado State was a finalist for membership in the Big 12.

Colorado has about three times the population of Nebraska. If Colorado State starts dominating Colorado, winning MWC championships and growing its viewership, watch for an invite.

Based on recent history it's unlikely, but they probably have the best chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, 4UNLV said:

I stopped reading when I saw P6.   :hahaha:

 

Same.  Along with the misspelling of definition. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There just isn't the people in the West as there is in the East. Even in the west, the population centers are concentrated on a few cities/metro areas...which aren't very large for the most part with a few exceptions. 

 By and large it's mostly big and empty, the complete opposite of the Eastern US. Especially outside of California, which itself is full of emptyish areas, compared to the East at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CV147 said:

Sixty percent of the U.S. lives east of the Mississippi. Add Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas to that and it's closer to 70-75 percent.

Now figure that 10 percent of the population lives in California.

That's what the MWC has to work with.

 

Unfortunately, a majority of the MWC Board is either deaf or willfully ignorant when it comes to demographics.:lalalala:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The demographics are a key reason why the MWC acted so foolishly when they had their run with Utah, BYU and TCU.   

They needed to develop a strong foothold in Texas and CA but failed to do so.   The smallness of population was only matched by smallness of vision.   In retrospect it was a major strategic error.   

Had they added Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico and Air Force to a 4 team Texas base the population problem would have been better.   

Meanwhile in the West: BYU, Utah, UNLV and SDSU needed to be better tied to a California base:   Fresno State, Boise State both should have been added.   After that the pickings got slim.   You can argue what should have been done but taking a flyer on Davis or Sac State to pull in the Sacramento market would have been wise IMHO.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The demographics are a key reason why the MWC acted so foolishly when they had their run with Utah, BYU and TCU.   

They needed to develop a strong foothold in Texas and CA but failed to do so.   The smallness of population was only matched by smallness of vision.   In retrospect it was a major strategic error.   

Had they added Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico and Air Force to a 4 team Texas base the population problem would have been better.   

Meanwhile in the West: BYU, Utah, UNLV and SDSU needed to be better tied to a California base:   Fresno State, Boise State both should have been added.   After that the pickings got slim.   You can argue what should have been done but taking a flyer on Davis or Sac State to pull in the Sacramento market would have been wise IMHO.   

 

When the eight teams announced their split from the WAC in 1998 they were purposely careful to leave enough schools behind in the WAC so as to keep that conference at the required minimum. They probably did so to avoid litigation from the WAC. Had they chosen to take 10 schools from the WAC, Fresno State would have been one of them. I've often wondered if San Diego State lobbied to keep Fresno State out, since they've always tried to distance themselves from the other CSU schools. There was also a lot of talk at the time about Fresno State not being selected because some of the departing schools had issues with Jerry Tarkanian. 

In 1998, Boise State was still not playing at the D-1A level, hadn't won a D1-AA conference title in 4 years, and was coming off three straight poor to mediocre seasons (2-10 in 1996, 4-7 in 1997, and 6-5 in 1998). They weren't anywhere near the MWC's radar screen at that time. In hindsight, one could make the case for Boise State being invited to the MWC when they moved up to D1-A in 1999, but at the time, it would have been unthinkable. 

Champ Logo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mike Morgan said:

When the eight teams announced their split from the WAC in 1998 they were purposely careful to leave enough schools behind in the WAC so as to keep that conference at the required minimum. They probably did so to avoid litigation from the WAC. Had they chosen to take 10 schools from the WAC, Fresno State would have been one of them. I've often wondered if San Diego State lobbied to keep Fresno State out, since they've always tried to distance themselves from the other CSU schools. There was also a lot of talk at the time about Fresno State not being selected because some of the departing schools had issues with Jerry Tarkanian. 

In 1998, Boise State was still not playing at the D-1A level, hadn't won a D1-AA conference title in 4 years, and was coming off three straight poor to mediocre seasons (2-10 in 1996, 4-7 in 1997, and 6-5 in 1998). They weren't anywhere near the MWC's radar screen at that time. In hindsight, one could make the case for Boise State being invited to the MWC when they moved up to D1-A in 1999, but at the time, it would have been unthinkable. 

I agree at the time of the split.  I’m talking 10-15 years later in the TCU - Utah era.   They were very strong then and could and should have expanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I agree at the time of the split.  I’m talking 10-15 years later in the TCU - Utah era.   They were very strong then and could and should have expanded.

MW started in 99, TCU joined in 2005. So more like 5/6 years. 15 years after MW was founded Utah and TCU were already gone. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mike Morgan said:

When the eight teams announced their split from the WAC in 1998 they were purposely careful to leave enough schools behind in the WAC so as to keep that conference at the required minimum. They probably did so to avoid litigation from the WAC. Had they chosen to take 10 schools from the WAC, Fresno State would have been one of them. I've often wondered if San Diego State lobbied to keep Fresno State out, since they've always tried to distance themselves from the other CSU schools. There was also a lot of talk at the time about Fresno State not being selected because some of the departing schools had issues with Jerry Tarkanian. 

In 1998, Boise State was still not playing at the D-1A level, hadn't won a D1-AA conference title in 4 years, and was coming off three straight poor to mediocre seasons (2-10 in 1996, 4-7 in 1997, and 6-5 in 1998). They weren't anywhere near the MWC's radar screen at that time. In hindsight, one could make the case for Boise State being invited to the MWC when they moved up to D1-A in 1999, but at the time, it would have been unthinkable. 

Boise State and Idaho moved up to Division I-A in 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 307dude said:

Boise State and Idaho moved up to Division I-A in 1996.

My mistake. They moved up in 1996, but certainly did not set the world on fire. In 1998, when the MWC was initially formed, they weren't considered a candidate school by any stretch of imagination. Certainly, 10-15 years later, as sactowndog pointed out, they should have been taken. However, and I'm totally guessing, its possible schools like BYU were anything but enamored with Boise State, due to academics. 

Champ Logo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AztecSU said:

MW started in 99, TCU joined in 2005. So more like 5/6 years. 15 years after MW was founded Utah and TCU were already gone. 

Fair enough.  I was thinking split was early 90’s and too lazy to check my dates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing that really could have been done sans having had the foresight to invite a couple of teams like Navy, Boise, or Houston when TCU was brought on.  Even bringing on Boise, despite their great run and strength as a program, wouldn't have changed the TV deal that much at the time due to the small population of Idaho and the surrounding states.

You're working with the least populated area in the country for a television based contract, with few teams that have had generational success.  Those that have either have cashed in by going to a better league (TCU/Utah), leveraged their brand to get the most money possible in the current situation (Boise), or done the same while going at it alone (BYU).  None of those options benefit the less successful programs in this league, nor does it help draw big TV numbers within the intermountain area.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Morgan said:

My mistake. They moved up in 1996, but certainly did not set the world on fire. In 1998, when the MWC was initially formed, they weren't considered a candidate school by any stretch of imagination. Certainly, 10-15 years later, as sactowndog pointed out, they should have been taken. However, and I'm totally guessing, its possible schools like BYU were anything but enamored with Boise State, due to academics. 

byu* has zero business being critical of anyone's academics...

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

There's nothing that really could have been done sans having had the foresight to invite a couple of teams like Navy, Boise, or Houston when TCU was brought on.  Even bringing on Boise, despite their great run and strength as a program, wouldn't have changed the TV deal that much at the time due to the small population of Idaho and the surrounding states.

You're working with the least populated area in the country for a television based contract, with few teams that have had generational success.  Those that have either have cashed in by going to a better league (TCU/Utah), leveraged their brand to get the most money possible in the current situation (Boise), or done the same while going at it alone (BYU).  None of those options benefit the less successful programs in this league, nor does it help draw big TV numbers within the intermountain area.

There's all that plus the bad taste of a sixteen-team conference in the mouths of the founding schools. None were too eager to have much more than an eight to ten team conference...

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wyovanian said:

There's all that plus the bad taste of a sixteen-team conference in the mouths of the founding schools. None were too eager to have much more than an eight to ten team conference...

I wish we'd never done that 16 team league.  The WAC was fine how it was.  I was on my LDS mission while that all happened, so I left and we were in the WAC, and I came home and we were in the WAC, but it was full of teams I'd never heard of or bothered to know anything about.

The first game I attended when I got home was against Tulsa.  I'd never heard of them in my life.  Weird to think we shared a league with them for a time.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...