AAC Not Even a Mention

[Meeps]

1 minute ago, BrassBulls12 said:

What exactly does this prove besides the fact that the big conference make a ton more money than the AAC and that AAc is dropping in revenue. Show me the ratio that says the AAC brought ESPN more revenue per game televised the the big conferences. Also, you have to reference more than one game. What was the average viewing for AAC games vs the SEC? 

Sorry, not going to spend all day giving you more and more facts. Believe what you want. I've already shown you statistical proof that the AAC can bring in millions of viewers at a fraction of the the other conferences' net cost. Even still, my original point was that ESPN pays pennies on the dollar for the viewership from the AAC. If they spent half the time promoting; instead of crapping on the AAC - that value would skyrocket based on the market sizes of the top teams in the AAC. AND That's why it matters (to answer Brad's original question).

If you want to prove me wrong, by all means, show me why the B12 earns 5x the revenue for their market/viewership - the onus is on you at this point.

[NewEnglandBull]

8 minutes ago, Brad said:

What is there to lose now?  Why not sue now and get it over with?  

IF UCF would stop pretending they are champs and drop a lawsuit, I'd start following them more closely.  Until then, they're just fabricators, fantasizers and filibusterers....  as are the rest of the G5 that think they are something more.

I am good with that and it might just happen

[NewEnglandBull]

4 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

 

Another question is on what grounds. All the P5 has to do is threaten leave the NCAA and start their own governing body, I think the NCAA would do whatever it took to work with them. 

I am not a legal expert but give me five cut throat attorneys (is there any other type) and I am pretty sure they will have a number of grounds for a lawsuit. Certainly collusion relative the playoffs can tried. If anything we can grab some cash on our way out the door. 

[puc86]

1 minute ago, Meeps said:

Sorry, not going to spend all day giving you more and more facts. Believe what you want. I've already shown you statistical proof that the AAC can bring in millions of viewers at a fraction of the the other conferences' net cost. Even still, my original point was that ESPN pays pennies on the dollar for the viewership from the AAC. If they spent half the time promoting; instead of crapping on the AAC - that value would skyrocket based on the market sizes of the top teams in the AAC. AND That's why it matters (to answer Brad's original question).

If you want to prove me wrong, by all means, show me why the B12 earns 5x the revenue for their market/viewership - the onus is on you at this point.

Worth is based on what someone is willing and able to pay for something. Maybe we are the greatest value brand in all of college football, that doesn’t mean anyone is going to pay for it. Generic drugs are for the most part identical to brand name drugs yet for for some reason one cost substantially more than the other the aac couldn’t be more generic and is lacking in every brand name way to every brand name conference in college football.

[BrassBulls12]

1 minute ago, Meeps said:

Sorry, not going to spend all day giving you more and more facts. Believe what you want. I've already shown you statistical proof that the AAC can bring in millions of viewers at a fraction of the the other conferences' net cost.

But that doesn't prove they are more valuable. Just that there is a profit to be made, which is why they still televise some AAC games..... on their secondary channels. 

Even still, my original point was that ESPN pays pennies on the dollar for the viewership from the AAC. If they spent half the time promoting; instead of crapping on the AAC - that value would skyrocket based on the market sizes of the top teams in the AAC. AND That's why it matters (to answer Brad's original question).

That is not a forgone conclusion based on what you have provided. or even likely   

If you want to prove me wrong, by all means, show me why the B12 earns 5x the revenue for their market/viewership - the onus is on you at this point.

 

The only non P5 game on this list in Army-Navy

https://www.statista.com/statistics/794419/college-football-tv-viewership/ 

26 of the top 27 games on this list are P5, the lone exception being the war on I 4 which comes in at 13th 

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ 

 

[BrassBulls12]

11 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

f anything we can grab some cash on our way out the door. 

Yeah, I see them throwing money at us in a settlement and calling it a day. Maybe giving us one of the big bowls (who the lucky loser would be, IDK) as our national championship. BigMaybe on that though. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by BrassBulls12

[Meeps]

So what is the point in playing in Division I football? By your very definition, usf literally has no chance to make the playoffs. The strength of record as the sole evidence a team is undeserving to be in the playoffs only holds up when a team has yet to prove they are the real deal.

Not true, Strength of schedule is a metric that proves if you are the real deal. 

Not when the P5 schedule's are artificially inflated by ESPN. There are a myriad of "P5" programs that are absolute jokes (Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, NC State, Duke, Boston College, Texas Tech etc...) and there are teams that are ranked WAYYYY higher than they should be. All these P5 teams beating up on other "doormat P5" teams increase their Strength of schedule by virtue of conference affiliation and skew computer metrics; not necessarily because they are the "real deal".

That was answered when they beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl. While the Auburn win doesn't necessarily count for the 2018 football schedule - that was the eye test right there. When most of your team is returning the following season including your star QB, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. If a MAC or CUSA team goes undefeated and soundly beats a top team in their bowl then they deserve the benefit of the doubt the following season. When a team loses said star QB and performs better than they did initially (Memphis #1 win) with the star QB, they again deserve the benefit of the doubt.

not revisiting this again, you beat a team that didn't want to be there. and in any case, no game form last season has any impact on this season.

When there are statements ON RECORD made by the coach and players that state that is not the case, your opinion becomes invalid. 

Last season 100% plays a role when most of the team that does that returns. If you don't believe that, go back and read all the pre-season rankings and why they justify that (P5 teams) and why UCF was ranked at all to start the season if a previous season plays no part.

UCF decimated Pitt who went on to play in the ACC title game by approximately the same margin Clemson did. Notre Dame almost lost to that same Pitt team. Both Clemson and Pitt are playing in the CFP.

Miami and Penn State also beat Pitt handedly but aren't in consideration for the CFP because of what happened agains the rest of their conference schedule. Also 2-9 UNC beat Pitt. Conclusion, undeserving and even bad teams beat Pitt, Not that impressive of a win. In comparison to Notre Dame, what UCF can't match is their wins over Michigan, Syracuse, and Northwestern.  Who looked much better in their bid for the big 10 title, than Pitt did its showing up for the ACC title. 

Are Miami and Penn State are undefeated as well? No, they're not. The body of work is also what is measured. So far UCF is 25-0. Not so much for any of the other teams you mentioned. I used Pitt as the example because that's the only real world information that can be used to measure competitiveness. No one's debating on whether the Pitt win is a signature win. But it proves that when ND/Clemson face a similar opponent, UCF can hold their own yet don't receive the benefit of the doubt. When Ohio state gets embarassed by a sub .500 Purdue - everyone looks the other way. When tOSU has 51 points put up by a crappy Maryland team - it's "Oh, UCF allowed x rushing yards by Temple". The double standards are endless.

Clemson's signature win was 7-5 Boston College. You can drink all the ESPN koolaid all you want, but both ND and Clemson's schedule are artificially inflated to look better than they really are and the misinformed sheep willingly believe that is not the case. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, however wrong it is.

You must have looked over them beating 9-3 syracuse who is ranked, which again UCF can't match that. That adds to the fact they have only played two close games in their P5 schedule. 

The one point you made that was valid. You're right, UCF can't match that because they didn't have the opportunity to play them. But I suppose beating a perennial power such as Syracuse is surely enough reason to give Clemson a solid spot in the CFP.

Btw, I applaud you taking the time and actually debating each fact instead of making blanket statements on ignorance and trying to pass them off as fact.

 

[BrassBulls12]

15 minutes ago, Meeps said:

So what is the point in playing in Division I football? By your very definition, usf literally has no chance to make the playoffs. The strength of record as the sole evidence a team is undeserving to be in the playoffs only holds up when a team has yet to prove they are the real deal.

Not true, Strength of schedule is a metric that proves if you are the real deal. 

Not when the P5 schedule's are artificially inflated by ESPN. There are a myriad of "P5" programs that are absolute jokes (Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, NC State, Duke, Boston College, Texas Tech etc...) and there are teams that are ranked WAYYYY higher than they should be. All these P5 teams beating up on other "doormat P5" teams increase their Strength of schedule by virtue of conference affiliation and skew computer metrics; not necessarily because they are the "real deal".

That was answered when they beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl. While the Auburn win doesn't necessarily count for the 2018 football schedule - that was the eye test right there. When most of your team is returning the following season including your star QB, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. If a MAC or CUSA team goes undefeated and soundly beats a top team in their bowl then they deserve the benefit of the doubt the following season. When a team loses said star QB and performs better than they did initially (Memphis #1 win) with the star QB, they again deserve the benefit of the doubt.

not revisiting this again, you beat a team that didn't want to be there. and in any case, no game form last season has any impact on this season.

When there are statements ON RECORD made by the coach and players that state that is not the case, your opinion becomes invalid. 

Last season 100% plays a role when most of the team that does that returns. If you don't believe that, go back and read all the pre-season rankings and why they justify that (P5 teams) and why UCF was ranked at all to start the season if a previous season plays no part.

UCF decimated Pitt who went on to play in the ACC title game by approximately the same margin Clemson did. Notre Dame almost lost to that same Pitt team. Both Clemson and Pitt are playing in the CFP.

Miami and Penn State also beat Pitt handedly but aren't in consideration for the CFP because of what happened agains the rest of their conference schedule. Also 2-9 UNC beat Pitt. Conclusion, undeserving and even bad teams beat Pitt, Not that impressive of a win. In comparison to Notre Dame, what UCF can't match is their wins over Michigan, Syracuse, and Northwestern.  Who looked much better in their bid for the big 10 title, than Pitt did its showing up for the ACC title. 

Are Miami and Penn State are undefeated as well? No, they're not. The body of work is also what is measured. So far UCF is 25-0. Not so much for any of the other teams you mentioned. I used Pitt as the example because that's the only real world information that can be used to measure competitiveness. No one's debating on whether the Pitt win is a signature win. But it proves that when ND/Clemson face a similar opponent, UCF can hold their own yet don't receive the benefit of the doubt. When Ohio state gets embarassed by a sub .500 Purdue - everyone looks the other way. When tOSU has 51 points put up by a crappy Maryland team - it's "Oh, UCF allowed x rushing yards by Temple". The double standards are endless.

Clemson's signature win was 7-5 Boston College. You can drink all the ESPN koolaid all you want, but both ND and Clemson's schedule are artificially inflated to look better than they really are and the misinformed sheep willingly believe that is not the case. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, however wrong it is.

You must have looked over them beating 9-3 syracuse who is ranked, which again UCF can't match that. That adds to the fact they have only played two close games in their P5 schedule. 

The one point you made that was valid. You're right, UCF can't match that because they didn't have the opportunity to play them. But I suppose beating a perennial power such as Syracuse is surely enough reason to give Clemson a solid spot in the CFP.

Btw, I applaud you taking the time and actually debating each fact instead of making blanket statements on ignorance and trying to pass them off as fact.

 

That't the point, beating pitt doesn't mean anything. and your right it is about the body of work, and based on UCF SOS, its doesn't match up. You used Pitt as an example because its all you got, which speaks to the point. One game does not speak for a body of work. 

Purdue would be a ten win tam in the AAC. but you're right sub .500 in the big ten.  A statement with as much merit as UCF being undefeated or one loss in the Big ten. 

Last season is only used for the pre season, thats it and has no impact on the CFP poll, which is why it isn't released until after week 8. 

And for Clemson, its the body of work which has been much better than UCF. Go look at Sagarin (independent of ESPN) and show me the average ranking of opponents for UCF compared to the other top six teams in CFP and tell me what you get. 

[Triple B]

51 minutes ago, Meeps said:

Show me where UCF was ranked higher than Auburn in these computer polls prior to them playing each other. Show me where Boise was ranked higher than the ones they defeated in their BCS bowls prior to them playing. You can't but that didn't stop reality from happening.

Stop bringing up meaningless bowl results. They're killing any credibility you may have garnered ....

[G25C]

UCF needed there to be two-loss champions, or to have destroyed everyone on their schedule to be a thought.  They could have justified a spot last year, but the 2018 Central team isn't top-four material at all.