Jump to content
tailingpermit

Temple vs UCF...

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tulsa Guy said:

 

The AAC has depth, unlike the MWC...

Debatable.

 

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

 

Collectively, the AAC is higher rated, but not decisively so.  And both conferences have a fair share of dogs - both conferences has 4 teams rated below 100, with MWC having 4 teams in the 80-90s and the AAC 3.  Meanwhile, both conferences have 3 teams in the top 40.  The distribution of quality is actually pretty similar.

  • Like 1

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JADogs05 said:

I don't think they were being criticized for a close game. Everybody recognizes that those happens. Boise's 2006 team left their game against SJSU with a narrow win and went on to beat Oklahoma. UCF is being criticized for giving up 445 yards of offense in the first half.  Temple's QB matched his season averages in the first 2.25 quarters of the game. Good teams can win in multiple ways, but I think you could agree that UCF looked a bit hapless on D. 

That SJSU team was their best team in like two decades.  Beat stanford, narrowly lost at washington.  Bunch of NFL guys on it iirc.  I don't think Temple is near that good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RSF said:

The AAC also had the LOWEST rated ESPN Thursday game of the year.  Tulsa/Houston.  So congrats....

With the Temple/UCF Thursday game probably getting very high ratings, the AAC now has the #1, #2, #3, and #4 highest ranked Thursday G5 games on ESPN.  Games involving Tulsa are ranked #2 and #3.

Tulsa's lowest ranked Thursday game against Houston of 562K ranked ahead of California/Arizona (406K, FS1, Saturday), Kansas State/Baylor (317K, FS1. Saturday), and SDSU/Boise (269K, ESPNU, Saturday) played that same weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RSF said:

Debatable.

 

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htmThe

 

Collectively, the AAC is higher rated, but not decisively so.  And both conferences have a fair share of dogs - both conferences has 4 teams rated below 100, with MWC having 4 teams in the 80-90s and the AAC 3.  Meanwhile, both conferences have 3 teams in the top 40.  The distribution of quality is actually pretty similar.

The Massey Ratings for one year are irrelevant.  The issue is over a period of years.  UConn, ECU, and Tulsa are struggling with their football programs.  UConn fired their old coach and ECU soon will.  Tulsa will probably give its current coach one more year.  It is a coaching issue at these three schools and not an issue of not being able to recruit quality players as these three programs are proven programs that are competitive.  I have no clue what is going on at Tulane.

MWC has New Mexico (3-5), AFA (3-5), CSU (3-6), Wyoming (3-6), SJSU (1-7), and UNLV (2-6).  These six programs are irrelevant or headed to irrelevancy.....and not just for one year.  Whether a new coach can turn these programs around, who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RSF said:

what it proves is that you know how to falsify numbers.  Or at best dont know how to read them.

 

 

 

That 2.99M you cited as for BOTH the UCF/Memphis and UWash/Oregon games, which were being televised on a split national/reverse mirror telecast between ABC and ESPN2.  And most of the country got the Oregon game on ABC.  The UCF game was on ABC mostly in the Southeast - where most people were watching UGa/LSU on CBS.

Too bad the viewership is not available for both games.  I don't understand why this data is not available.

But the signifcance of the Split Screen telecasts is that super aggressive AAC Commissioner Aresco and the AAC has kicked PAC out of USA's most lucrative market.  The South TV region accounts for 37.7% of USA population.  Aresco cleverly negotiated these Split Screen telecasts, it appears, into AAC's first TV contract.  So what Aresco is doing is pushing ACC onto the national ABC telecasts....by pushing PAC out of the way.  Nine of ACC's 12 schools are in the lucrative South TV market.  Here is the USA population breakdown from Census.gov.

Northeast:   17.5%

Midwest:  21.1%

West:  23.6%

South:  37.7%

B1G added Rutgers and Maryland because the Midwest population is declining.  In the meatime, the population is growing in the South.

Regarding your statement most South fans were watch Georgia/LSU, you have no data to support that statement.  Certainly, the Georgia/LSU game had a large TV audience.  But the AAC has its fans and now has many TV telecasts drawing more than a million people.  And the AAC has done this going up not only SEC but BiG and Big12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tulsa Guy said:

The Massey Ratings for one year are irrelevant.  The issue is over a period of years.  UConn, ECU, and Tulsa are struggling with their football programs.  UConn fired their old coach and ECU soon will.  Tulsa will probably give its current coach one more year.  It is a coaching issue at these three schools and not an issue of not being able to recruit quality players as these three programs are proven programs that are competitive.  I have no clue what is going on at Tulane.

MWC has New Mexico (3-5), AFA (3-5), CSU (3-6), Wyoming (3-6), SJSU (1-7), and UNLV (2-6).  These six programs are irrelevant or headed to irrelevancy.....and not just for one year.  Whether a new coach can turn these programs around, who knows?

I actually feel bad for Tulsa guy, and most AAC fans. They are delusional, and have an inability to look in the mirror. Just look at the bolded portion. 

The difference between AAC and MWC fans is, MW fans know and understand their strengths and weaknesses. AAC fans actually believe they are superior. It is comical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

They will be fine in the AP/Coaches.  Loser of UGA/UK will fall below them.  They may drop in the CFP poll though.

Only thing that matters is the CFP. AP won't matter again until January. Coaches Poll never matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tulsa Guy said:

With the Temple/UCF Thursday game probably getting very high ratings, the AAC now has the #1, #2, #3, and #4 highest ranked Thursday G5 games on ESPN.  Games involving Tulsa are ranked #2 and #3.

Tulsa's lowest ranked Thursday game against Houston of 562K ranked ahead of California/Arizona (406K, FS1, Saturday), Kansas State/Baylor (317K, FS1. Saturday), and SDSU/Boise (269K, ESPNU, Saturday) played that same weekend.

As I just posted over on your Friday Ratings thread.

2 minutes ago, FresnoFacts said:

If I am an ESPN exec, I'd be looking at these numbers and Thursday's UCF game numbers and saying "Those are good weeknight numbers. I want to sign the AAC but televise it as a weeknight league". In other words, welcome to the Weeknight AACtion on ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tulsa Guy said:

MWC has New Mexico (3-5), AFA (3-5), CSU (3-6), Wyoming (3-6), SJSU (1-7), and UNLV (2-6).  These six programs are irrelevant or headed to irrelevancy.....and not just for one year.  Whether a new coach can turn these programs around, who knows?

Irrelevant to you yet in the AAC board expansion threads most of those teams are the ones that AAC fans want for league expansion (along with BYU).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fanhood said:

If anyone watched the Temple v. UCF game, and thinks that showing was a good thing for the AAC, I am not sure what to say. That was a horrible look for UCF, and by proxy, the conference. 

What I am hearing from P5 fans who watched that game is that UCF did not pass the eyeball test for them. It did not elevate the opinion of UCF or the AAC in the eyes of the larger P5 fan bases. It does not seem to be a P5 bias, but rather specifics about the game play.

The first game after the first CFP rankings and having a larger curious TV audience was not a good night for that type of UCF performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fanhood said:

If anyone watched the Temple v. UCF game, and thinks that showing was a good thing for the AAC, I am not sure what to say. That was a horrible look for UCF, and by proxy, the conference. 

ESPN hyped temple for 3 weeks, as the start of ucfs real schedule

that game was a major win...ucf was NEVER going to get into the playoff, making the impossible less likely is meaningless...but now people have something new to debate about with ucf..they had a whole 15min segment on gameday debating it

but now everyone is talking about ucf, every major sports analyst tweeted about the game...and ucf looks beatable so every game now till the end of the season with ucf will get crazy ratings hoping for a ucf upset ..we are going into negotiations in 5 months.... non-existent playoff value? down... tv network value? skyrocketing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, pesik said:

but now everyone is talking about ucf, every major sports analyst tweeted about the game...and ucf looks beatable so every game now till the end of the season with ucf will get crazy ratings hoping for a ucf upset ..we are going into negotiations in 5 months.... non-existent playoff value? down... tv network value? skyrocketing 

That argument played around on this board and other MWC/WAC connected boards years ago about Boise. Supposedly people across the country talking about BSU either good or bad had monetary TV value. We will see how it plays out with UCF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...