USC and UCLA to join B1G in 2024

[Victorbmyboy]

A

First of all, I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. But the idea that ratings and W/L records do not reflect ratings and revenue is simply not true. Don't believe me, please read the Forbes article cited that directly makes this very point.

Secondly, I have yet to see someone attempt to explain why Clemson is more desired than Duke in the conference realignment presently going on if football is not valued more than basketball. While both have very successful programs in one sport, the other sport has met much less success. In fact, over time I would argue that Duke has had the more successful program in terms of national recognition in their premier sport. But Clemson is more highly valued. That would make no sense unless football is considered the greater generator of revenue.

Well for one Duke is a private school. Clemson is a large state school. It’s also a cultural fit. A better comparison is UNC vs Clemson. UNC culturally and media size is a better fit for the B1G. Clemson being a purely football school is a better fit for the SEC. That’s been discussed. Duke has no real market. UNC dominates that. Big alumni base too. You add both media markets in RD and Charlotte that adds up too top ten market. Clemson will not be invited to the big ten. I mean everyone that has spoke on this has said it’s a media/marketing push. Which schools/area has more available eyes. Hell look at bowl games. Michigan stat/Pitt bowl game drew double the ratings Clemson did.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Both IUFB and IUBB are valued higher than Purdue. See source above.

Arcb likes to talk about data but fails to utilize it properly.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

A

First of all, I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. But the idea that ratings and W/L records do not reflect ratings and revenue is simply not true. Don't believe me, please read the Forbes article cited that directly makes this very point.

Secondly, I have yet to see someone attempt to explain why Clemson is more desired than Duke in the conference realignment presently going on if football is not valued more than basketball. While both have very successful programs in one sport, the other sport has met much less success. In fact, over time I would argue that Duke has had the more successful program in terms of national recognition in their premier sport. But Clemson is more highly valued. That would make no sense unless football is considered the greater generator of revenue.

The screeching sound you hear is arcb dragging the goal posts across the floor.

 

[jimmygoiu]

The screeching sound you hear is arcb dragging the goal posts across the floor.

B1G has NO interest in Clemson or Duke. B1G has NO interest in broilees either, but will not jettison them, as it should. broilees have ZERO national appeal, and their own fans won't travel outside of WL. broilees and Nebraska need another conference home. The husky coeds deserve another conference trough.

 

[arcb102000]

Arcb likes to talk about data but fails to utilize it properly.

I would be happy to write about data assuming that it can be properly understood. In any academic paper using data it is explained the methodology used in obtaining it. However, I looked at the citation and methodology is missing. I explained that this is critical to understanding and proper interpretation because it is not obvious in the citation that similar methods were used across universities. In making any comparison, this matters.

 

[B1G_Fan]

I would be happy to write about data assuming that it can be properly understood. In any academic paper using data it is explained the methodology used in obtaining it. However, I looked at the citation and methodology is missing. I explained that this is critical to understanding and proper interpretation because it is not obvious in the citation that similar methods were used across universities. In making any comparison, this matters.

And yet, you’ve provided no data or source yourself to backup your assertions. I had no doubt you would find issue with my sources since they put Purdue sports in a poor light from a valuation perspective.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I would be happy to write about data assuming that it can be properly understood. In any academic paper using data it is explained the methodology used in obtaining it. However, I looked at the citation and methodology is missing. I explained that this is critical to understanding and proper interpretation because it is not obvious in the citation that similar methods were used across universities. In making any comparison, this matters.

And yet…

 

[Courtsensetwo]

And yet, you’ve provided no data or source yourself to backup your assertions. I had no doubt you would find issue with my sources since they put Purdue sports in a poor light from a valuation perspective.

Lol…he is such a fraud.

 

[arcb102000]

Here you go @arcb102000 .

IU's football program is more valuable than yours:

College Football Value Rankings

graphics.wsj.com

IU's basketball program is worth significantly more considering you don't even make the top 20 and IU is #3:

College Basketball’s Most Valuable Teams: March Madness May Be Canceled, But The Top Programs Are Thriving

For the first time in 82 years, there will be no March Madness, a harsh blow to players and coaches, the NCAA, TV networks and, of course, fans. It won't be so painful for the sport's most valuable teams, though.

www.forbes.com

I looked at the reference. Please explain to me how is value determined by revenue. What multiple is used? In the revenue calculation, what inputs are used and are the criteria for revenue recognition constant across the universities listed? (That would matter when making a comparison.)

If you looked at the data presented, the Value/Revenue ratios are very different. (I did the calculations.) So it appears that some dollars are worth more than others. Why is this? No explanation is given that I saw there. If you are going to make comparisons, those things matter.

 

[B1G_Fan]

I looked at the reference. Please explain to me how is value determined by revenue. What multiple is used? In the revenue calculation, what inputs are used and are the criteria for revenue recognition constant across the universities listed? (That would matter when making a comparison.)

If you looked at the data presented, the Value/Revenue ratios are very different. (I did the calculations.) So it appears that some dollars are worth more than others. Why is this? No explanation is given that I saw there. If you are going to make comparisons, those things matter.

Oh look, Arc thinks he's smarter than the professor with a doctorate in finance. I choose to trust the experts. You choose not to, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

No intelligent person would think Purdue athletics is more valuable than IU athletics. They aren't even close as the sources I provided you prove.

Still waiting on you to provide your first source to back your claim.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I looked at the reference. Please explain to me how is value determined by revenue. What multiple is used? In the revenue calculation, what inputs are used and are the criteria for revenue recognition constant across the universities listed? (That would matter when making a comparison.)

If you looked at the data presented, the Value/Revenue ratios are very different. (I did the calculations.) So it appears that some dollars are worth more than others. Why is this? No explanation is given that I saw there. If you are going to make comparisons, those things matter.

arcb always plays the black knight at the bridge on this forum:

"But tis a scratch"

"You're arms off"

"No it's not"

"Ok you silly bastard, now you have no arms"

"tis a flesh wound"

 

[arcb102000]

Oh look, Arc thinks he's smarter than the professor with a doctorate in finance. I choose to trust the experts. You choose not to, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

No intelligent person would think Purdue athletics is more valuable than IU athletics. They aren't even close as the sources I provided you prove.

Still waiting on you to provide your first source to back your claim.

I am not claiming to be anything. I am simply asking questions so that I can understand how a number was derived. He may have a methodology that is superb; or one that is flawed. Absent the ability to see what it is, it is impossible to say. I am simply pointing out that the Value/Revenue ratios fluctuate for no apparent reason. That is why when publishing data in an academic journal the methodology is explained in detail.

As for my failure to cite data that I used, I find that puzzling. I pointed out in my posts that I was using ND Nation viewership data. I cited the methodology used in calculating NCAA payouts. As for bowl data, that is found readily and unchallenged. One does not have to cite a math text to claim that 2+2=4.

If you want to reference the Rutgers discussion, I cited numerous articles. See the posts.

So I do not quite understand your complaint.

As for the "No intelligent person..." comment, I would point out that for quite a long time, no intelligent person thought that the Earth was not flat or that the Sun absolutely had not revolved around the Earth. In each case, further investigation proved those intelligent people to be wrong.

 

[jimmygoiu]

I am not claiming to be anything. I am simply asking questions so that I can understand how a number was derived. He may have a methodology that is superb; or one that is flawed. Absent the ability to see what it is, it is impossible to say. I am simply pointing out that the Value/Revenue ratios fluctuate for no apparent reason. That is why when publishing data in an academic journal the methodology is explained in detail.

As for my failure to cite data that I used, I find that puzzling. I pointed out in my posts that I was using ND Nation viewership data. I cited the methodology used in calculating NCAA payouts. As for bowl data, that is found readily and unchallenged. One does not have to cite a math text to claim that 2+2=4.

If you want to reference the Rutgers discussion, I cited numerous articles. See the posts.

So I do not quite understand your complaint.

As for the "No intelligent person..." comment, I would point out that for quite a long time, no intelligent person thought that the Earth was not flat or that the Sun absolutely revolved around the Earth. In each case, further investigation proved those intelligent people to be wrong.

blah blah blah bloilees...

 

[Brewskie]

I am not claiming to be anything. I am simply asking questions so that I can understand how a number was derived. He may have a methodology that is superb; or one that is flawed. Absent the ability to see what it is, it is impossible to say. I am simply pointing out that the Value/Revenue ratios fluctuate for no apparent reason. That is why when publishing data in an academic journal the methodology is explained in detail.

As for my failure to cite data that I used, I find that puzzling. I pointed out in my posts that I was using ND Nation viewership data. I cited the methodology used in calculating NCAA payouts. As for bowl data, that is found readily and unchallenged. One does not have to cite a math text to claim that 2+2=4.

If you want to reference the Rutgers discussion, I cited numerous articles. See the posts.

So I do not quite understand your complaint.

As for the "No intelligent person..." comment, I would point out that for quite a long time, no intelligent person thought that the Earth was not flat or that the Sun absolutely revolved around the Earth. In each case, further investigation proved those intelligent people to be wrong.

With all this back and forth, I'm now confused. So whose pecker is actually bigger, IU's or PU's? I'm confused on the methodology.

 

[arcb102000]

With all this back and forth, I'm now confused. So whose pecker is actually bigger, IU's or PU's? I'm confused on the methodology.

I'd suggest using a standard ruler from Wal-Mart. Those tend to be pretty consistent as a measuring device.

 

[B1G_Fan]

I am not claiming to be anything. I am simply asking questions so that I can understand how a number was derived. He may have a methodology that is superb; or one that is flawed. Absent the ability to see what it is, it is impossible to say. I am simply pointing out that the Value/Revenue ratios fluctuate for no apparent reason. That is why when publishing data in an academic journal the methodology is explained in detail.

As for my failure to cite data that I used, I find that puzzling. I pointed out in my posts that I was using ND Nation viewership data. I cited the methodology used in calculating NCAA payouts. As for bowl data, that is found readily and unchallenged. One does not have to cite a math text to claim that 2+2=4.

If you want to reference the Rutgers discussion, I cited numerous articles. See the posts.

So I do not quite understand your complaint.

As for the "No intelligent person..." comment, I would point out that for quite a long time, no intelligent person thought that the Earth was not flat or that the Sun absolutely had not revolved around the Earth. In each case, further investigation proved those intelligent people to be wrong.

You are a complete moron. If you want to know the methodology behind the data, I would suggest you email the Dr of Finance himself to ask. He’s been published in the WSJ year after year. You think he would continue to be published if his data were invalid? Maybe an OLS major like yourself can show him where he went wrong.

You have provided no links to any viewership data. Your information on NCAA payouts is absolutely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with which school is most valuable when it comes to BTN contract negotiations. The only thing that matters in those negotiations is viewership, and the data I posted above proves Purdue is less valuable in both football and basketball.

You are a fool.

 

[arcb102000]

You are a complete moron. If you want to know the methodology behind the data, I would suggest you email the Dr of Finance himself to ask. He’s been published in the WSJ year after year. You think he would continue to be published if his data were invalid? Maybe an OLS major like yourself can show him where he went wrong.

You have provided no links to any viewership data. Your information on NCAA payouts is absolutely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with which school is most valuable when it comes to BTN contract negotiations. The only thing that matters in those negotiations is viewership, and the data I posted above proves Purdue is less valuable in both football and basketball.

You are a fool.

First of all, I have no idea who this person is and what methodology is used. I have no knowledge of his publishing history.

I have reviewed your posts as I did not remember seeing viewership data, perhaps I missed it. I did see a post that referenced Twitter. From your post, it seems as though you are implying that Twitter following translates into viewership. Exactly how this works I am not sure. Does 100K Twitters equal 10K viewers? I have no idea. FYI, I do not use Twitter at all but I am a viewer, so how do I factor into your supposed equation?

My academic major was not OLS. Fortunately or unfortunately, my undergraduate degree was in a science and my graduate degrees are in a science and in business. I also hold a professional certification in Finance. I think that I have a fairly good idea of the creation and use of data. And the pitfalls associated with improper use and inference.

 

[B1G_Fan]

First of all, I have no idea who this person is and what methodology is used. I have no knowledge of his publishing history.

I have reviewed your posts as I did not remember seeing viewership data, perhaps I missed it. I did see a post that referenced Twitter. From your post, it seems as though you are implying that Twitter following translates into viewership. Exactly how this works I am not sure. Does 100K Twitters equal 10K viewers? I have no idea. FYI, I do not use Twitter at all but I am a viewer, so how do I factor into your supposed equation?

My academic major was not OLS. Fortunately or unfortunately, my undergraduate degree was in a science and my graduate degrees are in a science and in business. I also hold a professional certification in Finance. I think that I have a fairly good idea of the creation and use of data. And the pitfalls associated with improper use and inference.

Maybe you should educate yourself on who he is. Do you have any published work? If so, why don’t you share them so we can take you more seriously.

Twitter followers point to the type of following your team has. I tried to tell you Purdue imbeciles this last year when you said NIL wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Your fanbase is tiny. IUFB’s fanbase is similar, but IUBB is 10X as big as yours. You claim your wife is in marketing, so maybe you should go to her some education. Ask her if the target demographic is college basketball fans (this would be TD for advertisers looking to advertise on BTN), would it be better to buy advertising on a Twitter account of 1M+ followers or a Twitter account of 130k followers.

Your certification in finance should be revoked with how little you seem to know about it.

 

[arcb102000]

So I gather from your comment that a 10X factor of Twitter = a 10X larger tv viewership. I was not aware of that and I will readily admit to never seeing any data that translates the two variables. Is that not what you implied?

In regards to target markets, I am also somewhat confused by your comment. The lore on this site is that there are few girls at Purdue and that they are unattractive. If those posts are true, then wouldn't that make the Purdue alums more male and thus more attractive as a target market to advertisers for sporting events? There seems to be a contradiction between the two memes here.

A second point in your post is that advertisers might want to prefer certain sites on Twitter to purchase an ad. I would not argue with that but that was not the point of the previous discussion. It was about media rights. Somehow you have moved to a different topic.

What has never been challenged in this whole discussion is that football is driving the conference consolidation and not basketball. And that it is football that is increasing the value of conference media rights. So if that is true, then it must be true that the value of a football viewer is worth more than that of a basketball viewer. That is simple logic regardless of what institution is being discussed. If so, then there must be some ratio of value between the two viewership classes. I do not know what exactly it is but I do know that if what is generally reported is true, the value of a FB viewer/the value of a BB viewer has to be > 1.

So even if one were to grant that IU's basketball viewership is larger (and so far no data has been provided that demonstrates that - just assertion), is the multiple sufficient to overcome the respective value ratio in the calculation of media rights?

And since this whole discussion started, the unchallenged fact is that Purdue's football viewership is larger (since nobody seems to disagree with the ND Nation numbers), their revenue created to the B1G in bowl appearances and NCAA Tournament appearances is larger based upon simple math, and until somebody can come up with the value ratio and hard viewership numbers, you cannot conclude that IU is worth more in the media rights calculation. I can clearly state as I have, that in quantified contributions to B1G revenue, Purdue's contribution is larger.

And as a word to the wise, absolute reliance on experts is not always a good idea. Just today, the experts at the Danish government's health authority announced that they no longer advocated vaccination of young children for Covid despite their previous insistence of having done so in the past. Dr Fauci initially assured Americans that they did not need to wear masks early on in the Covid pandemic and then went to you should wear one and then two. Also, he assured Americans that only one shot would be needed to prevent infection and we are now up to the fourth booster. Experts are often incorrect and their advice should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

So I gather from your comment that a 10X factor of Twitter = a 10X larger tv viewership. I was not aware of that and I will readily admit to never seeing any data that translates the two variables. Is that not what you implied?

In regards to target markets, I am also somewhat confused by your comment. The lore on this site is that there are few girls at Purdue and that they are unattractive. If those posts are true, then wouldn't that make the Purdue alums more male and thus more attractive as a target market to advertisers for sporting events? There seems to be a contradiction between the two memes here.

A second point in your post is that advertisers might want to prefer certain sites on Twitter to purchase an ad. I would not argue with that but that was not the point of the previous discussion. It was about media rights. Somehow you have moved to a different topic.

What has never been challenged in this whole discussion is that football is driving the conference consolidation and not basketball. And that it is football that is increasing the value of conference media rights. So if that is true, then it must be true that the value of a football viewer is worth more than that of a basketball viewer. That is simple logic regardless of what institution is being discussed. If so, then there must be some ratio of value between the two viewership classes. I do not know what exactly it is but I do know that if what is generally reported is true, the value of a FB viewer/the value of a BB viewer has to be > 1.

So even if one were to grant that IU's basketball viewership is larger (and so far no data has been provided that demonstrates that - just assertion), is the multiple sufficient to overcome the respective value ratio in the calculation of media rights?

And since this whole discussion started, the unchallenged fact is that Purdue's football viewership is larger (since nobody seems to disagree with the ND Nation numbers), their revenue created to the B1G in bowl appearances and NCAA Tournament appearances is larger based upon simple math, and until somebody can come up with the value ratio and hard viewership numbers, you cannot conclude that IU is worth more in the media rights calculation. I can clearly state as I have, that in quantified contributions to B1G revenue, Purdue's contribution is larger.

If you listened to warren and others it’s actually Fox/media markets(Rutgers and Maryland) and Football. So in the B1G case it’s just as much media footprint. The reason a North Carolina or Georgia tech would be considered is for their market area. So the B1G channel becomes part of the standard cable/streaming package instead of the premium package. So even the people who don’t watch Tech play still pay for B1G media rights. Now..keep in mind I’m not saying either one gets an invitation. I’m just stating using them as an example to what also drives the B1G. Add in the research money too. They have to fit all those. Not just a great football team. The SEC on the other hand was probably almost all football driven.

 

[B1G_Fan]

So I gather from your comment that a 10X factor of Twitter = a 10X larger tv viewership. I was not aware of that and I will readily admit to never seeing any data that translates the two variables. Is that not what you implied?

In regards to target markets, I am also somewhat confused by your comment. The lore on this site is that there are few girls at Purdue and that they are unattractive. If those posts are true, then wouldn't that make the Purdue alums more male and thus more attractive as a target market to advertisers for sporting events? There seems to be a contradiction between the two memes here.

A second point in your post is that advertisers might want to prefer certain sites on Twitter to purchase an ad. I would not argue with that but that was not the point of the previous discussion. It was about media rights. Somehow you have moved to a different topic.

What has never been challenged in this whole discussion is that football is driving the conference consolidation and not basketball. And that it is football that is increasing the value of conference media rights. So if that is true, then it must be true that the value of a football viewer is worth more than that of a basketball viewer. That is simple logic regardless of what institution is being discussed. If so, then there must be some ratio of value between the two viewership classes. I do not know what exactly it is but I do know that if what is generally reported is true, the value of a FB viewer/the value of a BB viewer has to be > 1.

So even if one were to grant that IU's basketball viewership is larger (and so far no data has been provided that demonstrates that - just assertion), is the multiple sufficient to overcome the respective value ratio in the calculation of media rights?

And since this whole discussion started, the unchallenged fact is that Purdue's football viewership is larger (since nobody seems to disagree with the ND Nation numbers), their revenue created to the B1G in bowl appearances and NCAA Tournament appearances is larger based upon simple math, and until somebody can come up with the value ratio and hard viewership numbers, you cannot conclude that IU is worth more in the media rights calculation. I can clearly state as I have, that in quantified contributions to B1G revenue, Purdue's contribution is larger.

Your attempt to make this about Males and Females is irrelevant. Purdue has 130k basketball fans that follow their account while IU has 1M+. Advertisers looking to market to basketball fans would choose the IU account every single time over the Purdue account. The accounts reflect the fan base overall. You can't find a single piece of data or happenstance that points to Purdue having a larger viewership than IU. Real world proof would be the Crossroads Classic attendance as IU dominated the crowd.

Purdue has (for some reason) long bragged about how all of their fans are alums, and that a good portion of the IU fan base are not IU alums. I'm not sure why you would brag about this, as it's clearly a better thing to have far more fans than only have fans that attended the school.

I've provided you with data that shows IU's football team is more valuable than Purdue's football team by about $50 mil/yr. You chose to ignore it. I didn't see you post any links to "ND Nation numbers", so please post them again for review. The precedent has been set (by you) that regardless of the findings there, I'm able to choose whether to believe them or not.

Revenue created from bowl appearances and NCAA Tournament appearances have absolutely nothing to do with media rights negotiations.

I can state with certainty that IU is more valuable to the Big Ten. I've provided sources that show IU's football team is worth about $50 mil more, and that IU's basketball team is worth at least $20 mil more. Sorry that I couldn't get you an exact number on how much more IU's basketball team is worth as Purdue didn't even qualify for the dataset.

Furthermore, I can also provide data showing that IU's Athletic program as a whole is more valuable than Purdue's.

2019 AD Revenues:

IU: 121 million
Purdue: 102 million

NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY

Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.

sports.usatoday.com

 

[B1G_Fan]

If you listened to warren and others it’s actually Fox/media markets(Rutgers and Maryland) and Football. So in the B1G case it’s just as much media footprint. The reason a North Carolina or Georgia tech would be considered is for their market area. So the B1G channel becomes part of the standard cable/streaming package instead of the premium package. So even the people who don’t watch Tech play still pay for B1G media rights. Now..keep in mind I’m not saying either one gets an invitation. I’m just stating using them as an example to what also drives the B1G. Add in the research money too. They have to fit all those. Not just a great football team. The SEC on the other hand was probably almost all football driven.

And Purdue basically has no market footprint. Indy is dominated by IU. They obviously don't have a big footprint in Chicago.

Long story short.... Purdue is little sister.

 

[B1G_Fan]

@arcb102000 I'm guessing this is a bad source too?

This is the average number of viewers per week for each football team in P5 plus some others. This includes 5 years worth of data (2015-2019).

34. Indiana (1.17 million viewers per week)
55. Purdue (620 thousand viewers per week)



You really make this far too easy.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

And Purdue basically has no market footprint. Indy is dominated by IU. They obviously don't have a big footprint in Chicago.

Long story short.... Purdue is little sister.

It’s a narrative. It’s not all about the football sports product. You do need a good brand to keep people interested but people are buying sports programming and not even knowing it. I mean UCLA is a brand but it’s the market they have. SC is the product.

 

[B1G_Fan]

It’s a narrative. It’s not all about the football sports product. You do need a good brand to keep people interested but people are buying sports programming and not even knowing it. I mean UCLA is a brand but it’s the market they have. SC is the product.

I get that. Purdue has no brand or market footprint.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

I get that. Purdue has no brand or market footprint.

Wait? You mean the drum doesn’t get clicks?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I will grant arcbtroll this much. He has succeeded in attracting the attention from his superiors he is so starved for and obviously willing to make a complete fool of himself to gather.

Not since he was cyber body slammed by Noel Eastern’s Mother has he gotten this much negative attention.

 

[arcb102000]

@arcb102000 I'm guessing this is a bad source too?

This is the average number of viewers per week for each football team in P5 plus some others. This includes 5 years worth of data (2015-2019).

34. Indiana (1.17 million viewers per week)
55. Purdue (620 thousand viewers per week)

View embedded media

You really make this far too easy.

You are picking the Hazell years and immediate aftermath when Purdue football was admittedly horrible, possibly worst in the P5. While the figure cited is valid, things have changed a bit since then with Brohm so I am not sure how valid it is to use outlaying data to make your point. Brohm has been to bowl games and won them, neither of which Hazell was able to do. Trying to infer accurate data from an outlier is generally not a wise way to do things. Should last year be the basis for judging IU football? I would argue that's not fair. Remember, there is a positive correlation between viewership and on-field performance.

You keep pointing out that the posted revenue for the IU AD is greater. I know that it is posted; that is not being challenged. What I am pointing out is that in Accounting there are different ways to recognize items in the balance sheet and income statement. When you are trying to compare two entities, it is important to be sure that the methods of each are the same (or then adjust to make them the same) so that the comparison has validity. Simply throwing out a number is not the way you do it. Revenue recognition has multiple ways to be done, some are more conservative than others, and that difference matters. I will clearly state that I do not know how either Purdue or IU recognizes revenue so I will not make the comparison as it may not be valid. By the way, the financial press has myriad examples of companies having to restate their published results because earlier accounting statements were invalid because revenue, expenses and asset valuation were incorrect.

As for my certification, I got it as the result of passing a series of examinations that are given worldwide last year to more than 200,000 candidates. I passed in the minimum time possible. The governing board thought that I knew enough to be an exam grader and on the committee that suggested passing scores. So I guess they think that I know more about these issues than you do.

As for the ND Nation link:https: //ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=449666;d=this

 

[T.M.P.]

As for my certification, I got it as the result of passing a series of examinations that are given worldwide last year to more than 200,000 candidates. I passed in the minimum time possible. The governing board thought that I knew enough to be an exam grader and on the committee that suggested passing scores. So I guess they think that I know more about these issues than you do.

NOGAFF.... this isn't a job interview it's a f**king basketball board.

Go away and take your boring ass drivel with you..

 

[B1G_Fan]

You are picking the Hazell years and immediate aftermath when Purdue football was admittedly horrible, possibly worst in the P5. While the figure cited is valid, things have changed a bit since then with Brohm so I am not sure how valid it is to use outlaying data to make your point. Brohm has been to bowl games and won them, neither of which Hazell was able to do. Trying to infer accurate data from an outlier is generally not a wise way to do things. Should last year be the basis for judging IU football? I would argue that's not fair. Remember, there is a positive correlation between viewership and on-field performance.

You keep pointing out that the posted revenue for the IU AD is greater. I know that it is posted; that is not being challenged. What I am pointing out is that in Accounting there are different ways to recognize items in the balance sheet and income statement. When you are trying to compare two entities, it is important to be sure that the methods of each are the same (or then adjust to make them the same) so that the comparison has validity. Simply throwing out a number is not the way you do it. Revenue recognition has multiple ways to be done, some are more conservative than others, and that difference matters. I will clearly state that I do not know how either Purdue or IU recognizes revenue so I will not make the comparison as it may not be valid. By the way, the financial press has myriad examples of companies having to restate their published results because earlier accounting statements were invalid because revenue, expenses and asset valuation were incorrect.

As for my certification, I got it as the result of passing a series of examinations that are given worldwide last year to more than 200,000 candidates. I passed in the minimum time possible. The governing board thought that I knew enough to be an exam grader and on the committee that suggested passing scores. So I guess they think that I know more about these issues than you do

So once again, it's an invalid source, because Arc says so!!!

3 of those 5 years were under Brohm. Those include two years where Purdue went to a bowl game. Also includes the year Purdue beat OSU. Just face it, IUFB is more viewed than PUFB regardless of year. They had almost double the viewership over the course of 2015-2019. That doesn't even include 2020 where Purdue was absolute dogwater and IU was very good.

I've now given you the following pieces of data:

1. Most valuable football teams 2018 (https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019)

IU: $182M
PU: $134M

2. Most valuable basketball teams (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ...ble-teams-ncaa-march-madness/?sh=42171b59285d)

Three year average revenue:

IU: $37.5 mil/year
PU: < $18.7 mil/year

3. The athletic department revenues from 2019 (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances)

IU: $120M
PU: $102M

4. The weekly viewership for the two football teams between 2015-2019 ()

IU: 1.17M viewers per game
PU: 620k viewers per game



NOW.... What data have you provided to me to back up your claim of Purdue being more valuable????

1. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

 

[Victorbmyboy]

NOGAFF.... this isn't a job interview it's a f**king basketball board.

Go away and take your boring ass drivel with you..

He can’t. They don’t want him either.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Don't forget, that same time period where he's moaning about Hazel, IU had 1 season with a winning record, 1 season. Our cumulative record for football in that timeframe was below .500 and we still out drew them by hundreds of thousands of viewers.
2019 8-5
2018 5-7
2017 5-7
2016 6-7
2015 6-7

 

[jimmygoiu]

Don't forget, that same time period where he's moaning about Hazel, IU had 1 season with a winning record, 1 season. Our cumulative record for football in that timeframe was below .500 and we still out drew them by hundreds of thousands of viewers.
2019 8-5
2018 5-7
2017 5-7
2016 6-7
2015 6-7

LEO?

 

[arcb102000]

Repeating the same comment does not make it more valuable or more relevant. You keep citing revenue numbers without knowing if they are generated similarly. You just choose to ignore the point. How anyone can make a comparison not knowing that is beyond me. I was always taught that you cannot compare apples and oranges. I note that you do not claim that the same revenue recognition protocols are followed.

As for your tv viewership numbers: the ND Nation data was 2021 and thus more recent. The data you cited was appreciably older and generated in a historically anomalous period. Generally, more recent data is better as it is closer to the present and thus more reliable in proper understanding. In general, when looking at sports viewership and attendance, while positively correlated, interest lags the W/L record both on the upside and downside. A team is bad and gets a low following, it begins to get better and then interest picks up. Likewise, a dominant team starts to slip. The interested fans still follow for a bit but as the decline continues they then slip away. It's analogous to predator/prey curves.

In your own posts, you never are able to translate Twitter followers into viewership as you have no viewership numbers, just assertions. According to Elon Musk, he is paying close attention to the reported numbers as he is trying to value Twitter properly as he is trying to buy the company, there are a high incidence of bots on Twitter, evidently exceeding Twitter's estimates, and bots are not real people. Bots don't buy stuff.

So, somehow you are taking Twitter following which may/may not include bots (and if so, how many bots there are) and then assert that because there are more Twitter followers that translates somehow into more tv viewers in an unquantifiable manner. Huh? That is not a serious analysis. And on top of that, it would seem that those supposedly large number of basketball fans (10X) don't watch the football games of the same institution as Purdue's number is a third larger. Which causes one to question how die-hard are the fans? And how die-hard is their supposed viewership of even basketball?

Then, there is the assertion that IU owns the Indianapolis metro market and that Purdue has no footprint in Chicago. That raises a couple of points: the first being how critical is metro population to viewership? Looking at Census data from 2021, Texas has 29 million residents; it has large cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. Metro Houston has a population of 6.6 million. Nebraska has a population of just under 2 million. The ND Nation viewership data puts Nebraska slightly ahead of Texas despite the fact that the state of Texas has more than 14 times Nebraska's population and Houston is 3 times larger as well. So the idea that you can translate metro population or even state population into viewership doesn't fly. And just so you know that I am not cherry-picking, Iowa has 1/7th the population of Texas but 3/4 of its football viewership and Texas is a football-centric state.

I do not know exactly where Purdue gets its football viewership but I do know that it comes close to the combined viewership of Illinois and Nortwestern.

I do not know the basketball viewership of either Purdue or IU - nor has anyone presented data that shows it. There are a lot of assertions without real data. There is just a lot of handwaving of numbers without delving into them to see if they are correct and comparing things that may not be validly compared.

 

[B1G_Fan]

Repeating the same comment does not make it more valuable or more relevant. You keep citing revenue numbers without knowing if they are generated similarly. You just choose to ignore the point. How anyone can make a comparison not knowing that is beyond me. I was always taught that you cannot compare apples and oranges. I note that you do not claim that the same revenue recognition protocols are followed.

As for your tv viewership numbers: the ND Nation data was 2021 and thus more recent. The data you cited was appreciably older and generated in a historically anomalous period. Generally, more recent data is better as it is closer to the present and thus more reliable in proper understanding. In general, when looking at sports viewership and attendance, while positively correlated, interest lags the W/L record both on the upside and downside. A team is bad and gets a low following, it begins to get better and then interest picks up. Likewise, a dominant team starts to slip. The interested fans still follow for a bit but as the decline continues they then slip away. It's analogous to predator/prey curves.

In your own posts, you never are able to translate Twitter followers into viewership as you have no viewership numbers, just assertions. According to Elon Musk, he is paying close attention to the reported numbers as he is trying to value Twitter properly as he is trying to buy the company, there are a high incidence of bots on Twitter, evidently exceeding Twitter's estimates, and bots are not real people. Bots don't buy stuff.

So, somehow you are taking Twitter following which may/may not include bots (and if so, how many bots there are) and then assert that because there are more Twitter followers that translates somehow into more tv viewers in an unquantifiable manner. Huh? That is not a serious analysis. And on top of that, it would seem that those supposedly large number of basketball fans (10X) don't watch the football games of the same institution as Purdue's number is a third larger. Which causes one to question how die-hard are the fans? And how die-hard is their supposed viewership of even basketball?

Then, there is the assertion that IU owns the Indianapolis metro market and that Purdue has no footprint in Chicago. That raises a couple of points: the first being how critical is metro population to viewership? Looking at Census data from 2021, Texas has 29 million residents; it has large cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. Metro Houston has a population of 6.6 million. Nebraska has a population of just under 2 million. The ND Nation viewership data puts Nebraska slightly ahead of Texas despite the fact that the state of Texas has more than 14 times Nebraska's population and Houston is 3 times larger as well. So the idea that you can translate metro population or even state population into viewership doesn't fly. And just so you know that I am not cherry-picking, Iowa has 1/7th the population of Texas but 3/4 of its football viewership and Texas is a football-centric state.

I do not know exactly where Purdue gets its football viewership but I do know that it comes close to the combined viewership of Illinois and Nortwestern.

I do not know the basketball viewership of either Purdue or IU - nor has anyone presented data that shows it. There are a lot of assertions without real data. There is just a lot of handwaving of numbers without delving into them to see if they are correct and comparing things that may not be validly compared.

Post the ND Nation Data like I’ve asked 6 times. You’ve yet to post a link.

I’ll stop the response there for now so you can’t be a bitch and ignore my request.

 

[arcb102000]

Don't forget, that same time period where he's moaning about Hazel, IU had 1 season with a winning record, 1 season. Our cumulative record for football in that timeframe was below .500 and we still out drew them by hundreds of thousands of viewers.
2019 8-5
2018 5-7
2017 5-7
2016 6-7
2015 6-7

Hooky, over the same time period, Purdue went 2-10, 3-9, 7-6, 6-7, 4-8. That is 30-33 vs 22-40. Why would anyone be shocked over that timeframe which as I pointed out was an anomalous one. Do you really think that a valid trend can be calculated from that period? What would have been truly astounding is if the Purdue viewership was even close. IU should have dominated and they did.

From 1942-45, the unemployment rate in the US was essentially 0% because people were either working or in the military fighting WW2. Economists don't try to extrapolate employment trends using data from that period either.

It is a bad idea to try to draw conclusions and trends from outlaying data.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

Repeating the same comment does not make it more valuable or more relevant. You keep citing revenue numbers without knowing if they are generated similarly. You just choose to ignore the point. How anyone can make a comparison not knowing that is beyond me. I was always taught that you cannot compare apples and oranges. I note that you do not claim that the same revenue recognition protocols are followed.

As for your tv viewership numbers: the ND Nation data was 2021 and thus more recent. The data you cited was appreciably older and generated in a historically anomalous period. Generally, more recent data is better as it is closer to the present and thus more reliable in proper understanding. In general, when looking at sports viewership and attendance, while positively correlated, interest lags the W/L record both on the upside and downside. A team is bad and gets a low following, it begins to get better and then interest picks up. Likewise, a dominant team starts to slip. The interested fans still follow for a bit but as the decline continues they then slip away. It's analogous to predator/prey curves.

In your own posts, you never are able to translate Twitter followers into viewership as you have no viewership numbers, just assertions. According to Elon Musk, he is paying close attention to the reported numbers as he is trying to value Twitter properly as he is trying to buy the company, there are a high incidence of bots on Twitter, evidently exceeding Twitter's estimates, and bots are not real people. Bots don't buy stuff.

So, somehow you are taking Twitter following which may/may not include bots (and if so, how many bots there are) and then assert that because there are more Twitter followers that translates somehow into more tv viewers in an unquantifiable manner. Huh? That is not a serious analysis. And on top of that, it would seem that those supposedly large number of basketball fans (10X) don't watch the football games of the same institution as Purdue's number is a third larger. Which causes one to question how die-hard are the fans? And how die-hard is their supposed viewership of even basketball?

Then, there is the assertion that IU owns the Indianapolis metro market and that Purdue has no footprint in Chicago. That raises a couple of points: the first being how critical is metro population to viewership? Looking at Census data from 2021, Texas has 29 million residents; it has large cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. Metro Houston has a population of 6.6 million. Nebraska has a population of just under 2 million. The ND Nation viewership data puts Nebraska slightly ahead of Texas despite the fact that the state of Texas has more than 14 times Nebraska's population and Houston is 3 times larger as well. So the idea that you can translate metro population or even state population into viewership doesn't fly. And just so you know that I am not cherry-picking, Iowa has 1/7th the population of Texas but 3/4 of its football viewership and Texas is a football-centric state.

I do not know exactly where Purdue gets its football viewership but I do know that it comes close to the combined viewership of Illinois and Nortwestern.

I do not know the basketball viewership of either Purdue or IU - nor has anyone presented data that shows it. There are a lot of assertions without real data. There is just a lot of handwaving of numbers without delving into them to see if they are correct and comparing things that may not be validly compared.

Good lord man. Take a frigin breath.

 

[arcb102000]

Post the ND Nation Data like I’ve asked 6 times. You’ve yet to post a link.

I’ll stop the response there for now so you can’t be a bitch and ignore my request.

Did you not see the link that I posted for ND Nation? It was done at 4:22 PM. You'll find it there. I'll do it again:

Schools ranked by average number of TV viewers

ndnation.com

 

[B1G_Fan]

Did you not see the link that I posted for ND Nation? It was done at 4:22 PM. You'll find it there. I'll do it again:

Schools ranked by average number of TV viewers

ndnation.com

Lol so you used the same source I did for the 5 year viewership? But since you pulled it off a random internet message board, yours is credible, and mine isn’t?

Here is the original where those numbers came from:



So now that we have 6 years of data (excluding 2020 which is very good for Purdue since they were dogwater) we can look at the average viewership for the last 6 years. I think you will agree that’s more fair than looking at a single year.

IU: 1.18M viewers per game
PU: 788k viewers per game

Now that we have established this as a trusted source since you are citing information from it (indirectly of course), we know the following article is accurate.

This article ranks the most valuable football teams for conference re-alignment:

IU: 52nd
Purdue: 54th




IU will have far more weekly views this coming year as well than Purdue will.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Hooky, over the same time period, Purdue went 2-10, 3-9, 7-6, 6-7, 4-8. That is 30-33 vs 22-40. Why would anyone be shocked over that timeframe which as I pointed out was an anomalous one. Do you really think that a valid trend can be calculated from that period? What would have been truly astounding is if the Purdue viewership was even close. IU should have dominated and they did.

From 1942-45, the unemployment rate in the US was essentially 0% because people were either working or in the military fighting WW2. Economists don't try to extrapolate employment trends using data from that period either.

It is a bad idea to try to draw conclusions and trends from outlaying data.

Its a difference of 8 wins over the time period. IU hasn't had any sustained football success since Mallory in the 80s into the very early 90s, yet here we are drawing hundreds of thousands more viewers than the "cradle" does. Good grief, man. You cherry picked the last decade with your horse crap bowl and tournament appearance narrative that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the big picture. You ask for data and then don't like the data that's presented because...just because. You guys can't draw a crowd anywhere outside of west Laffy for the most part. You're delusional in this idea that you're bringing more value to the table than IU.

I'm putting this moron on ignore. You guys can keep fighting with him.