Interesting info from NYTimes on college football popularity

[Scooch]

Or more proof that I have a difference of opinion. I know how statistics work. I just think polls of 2,000 people when applied to an entire country is still not very representative even if all selection bias is removed.

Nope, that's wrong. A well built sample of 2,000 would be perfectly fine, depending on the depth of data that one would need. In this case you'd need a larger sample to get to each and every of the 120 FBS fanbases, cut by geography. But that's why there are certain research organizations that have samples of 25-30K built scientifically that can tell one exactly that. Nate should check 'em out, I think he'd dig 'em.

 

[Scooch]

So true. So full of themselves. Probably played in the band. :rolling:

Cheers,
Neil

Definitely. Nerdy band geeks suck.

 

[omniorange]

I'll say this again to you in response... please be advised that I have friends that work at ESPN and in the media and athletics, and I might have a little insight of my own.

Well, to be blunt, you haven't displayed it yet in this thread nor in a similar thread from last summer regarding BTN ad revenue.

Sorry, I call them as I see them.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[kyleslamb]

But Silver didn't do that, did he? He used the OPE/DOE report and used only the college football revenue figure per the article.

Cheers,
Neil

You're right on second glance. Good catch.

 

[kyleslamb]

Well, to be blunt, you haven't displayed it yet in this thread nor in a similar thread from last summer regarding BTN ad revenue.

Sorry, I call them as I see them.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry but I'll match industry knowledge with you all day. I offered to have offline conversations with you and you refused last time. Clearly it's easier for you to just assume something incorrectly than to be informed. I've offered my credentials, my background and my source of insights... but if you want to sit here and play the holier-than-thou approach, that's not prudent.

 

[kyleslamb]

Nope, that's wrong. A well built sample of 2,000 would be perfectly fine, depending on the depth of data that one would need. In this case you'd need a larger sample to get to each and every of the 120 FBS fanbases, cut by geography. But that's why there are certain research organizations that have samples of 25-30K built scientifically that can tell one exactly that. Nate should check 'em out, I think he'd dig 'em.

Nothing is perfect... hence why it's not a 100% confidence or no standard error.

Look, I'm not saying that poll he used was scientifically sound. I have no idea of their methods nor am I vouching for it. All I'm saying is that when the sample is large enough, selection bias becomes a lot less of a problem.

 

[omniorange]

Sorry but I'll match industry knowledge with you all day. I offered to have offline conversations with you and you refused last time. Clearly it's easier for you to just assume something incorrectly than to be informed. I've offered my credentials, my background and my source of insights... but if you want to sit here and play the holier-than-thou approach, that's not prudent.

I admit when I am mistaken. I have no problem with that. And if your knowledge base is truly so sound and superior to mine, then why am I and others pointing out the flaws of this particular survey while you attempted to defend it - without actually reading it and understanding the data he was using to arrive at his conclusions?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[kyleslamb]

I admit when I am mistaken. I have no problem with that. And if your knowledge base is truly so sound and superior to mine, then why am I and others pointing out the flaws of this particular survey while you attempted to defend it - without actually reading it and understanding the data he was using to arrive at his conclusions?

Cheers,
Neil

That's a strawman if I've ever heard one. What does a fan poll have to do with knowledge of the broadcasting/media industry?

I said from the beginning I realize there are some "scientific" issues with the survey. I'm not sure where I ever denied the potential issues. All I said is that because the sample is 10 times greater than one of a scientific variety, I tend to think the sample biases that would otherwise exist are lessened a bit (read: not entirely). Clearly from the get-go I said I understood there may be problems with a scientific analysis of his survey but nonetheless don't think the survey as a whole is terribly misrepresenting of reality. Not sure how that has anything to do with an understanding of science, broadcasting or any other subject. It's simply a personal testament to the fact that nothing is perfect even in science...

But again... what does this article have to do with industry knowledge? You're just looking for ways to unload your ego as if you're the only one on this board that has any insights. I'm not sure what my opinions of this poll have anything to do with advertising, media, broadcasting, rights fees, knowledge of how government data is collected, etc.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit, and consider that perhaps there are others that know how things work. It's not a vacuum... there's not a monopoly on industry insights. Not sure what this poll has anything to do with the accusations you've made (incorrectly, might I add) about the BTN, ESPN, media contracts, cable operators and the like.

 

[Scooch]

[quote="kyleslamb, post: 19062" nonetheless don't think the survey as a whole is terribly misrepresenting of reality.[/quote]

Well any survey that claims that Rutgers has double the fanbase of Notre Dame in NYC, or that Pitt has more fans than Florida State, or that Troy has more fans than Stanford is not representing any reality I'm aware of.

 

[omniorange]

That's a strawman if I've ever heard one. What does a fan poll have to do with knowledge of the broadcasting/media industry?

I said from the beginning I realize there are some "scientific" issues with the survey. I'm not sure where I ever denied the potential issues. All I said is that because the sample is 10 times greater than one of a scientific variety, I tend to think the sample biases that would otherwise exist are lessened a bit (read: not entirely). Clearly from the get-go I said I understood there may be problems with a scientific analysis of his survey but nonetheless don't think the survey as a whole is terribly misrepresenting of reality. Not sure how that has anything to do with an understanding of science, broadcasting or any other subject. It's simply a personal testament to the fact that nothing is perfect even in science...

These were your first two posts on in this thread:

Most of those polls are conducted with only 2-3,000 respondents. That this was a poll of 30,000 is probably a much better sampling and representation than those other polls you mention.

Are you saying Oregon should have a lot more or UCONN?

That's a strawman if I've ever heard one. What does a fan poll have to do with knowledge of the broadcasting/media industry? But again... what does this article have to do with industry knowledge?

Somebody familiar with college football in particular would see the flaws right away in this article, imho. One doesn't need to have knowledge of the industry to know that there is no way UConn has more college football fans than Oregon or that 7 ACC schools and 3 Big East schools have more college football fans than FSU. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in regard to perhaps these specific items you only had a cursory review of it and didn't realize that was what this article was saying.

But the article's MAIN thrust was that Rutgers has more college football fans in NYC than either ND or PSU and I do remember quite clearly and distinctly you buying into the $160 million in BTN ad revenue last summer that William(?) put forth in his excel speadsheet and later coming down to about $120 million.

Maybe I'm being too much of a hard-a$$ but I would think that someone with "knowledge" of the industry should have recognized immediately neither of those things would be accurate.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[kyleslamb]

[quote="kyleslamb, post: 19062" nonetheless don't think the survey as a whole is terribly misrepresenting of reality.

Well any survey that claims that Rutgers has double the fanbase of Notre Dame in NYC, or that Pitt has more fans than Florida State, or that Troy has more fans than Stanford is not representing any reality I'm aware of.[/quote]

Some of those things seem highly unlikely, but the truth is, we simply don't know. Since I'm sure you haven't polled every single football fan in America... polls are just that. They are never going to be perfect. It's all based on perception and limits in sampling. There are errors involved with all surveys and all reports. Even a scientific survey is not going to yield perfect results (hence why you don't see 100% confidence nor a standard error of zero). That's the point I'm making. I don't know how the original poll was conducted. I'm not saying it is or isn't complete junk. But the point is I also feel like measuring something national... 2,000 responses simply isn't enough, considering there are nearly 300 million people in the country. Even among college football fans, 2,000 responses is barely a fraction of the total number. This isn't a post supporting this specific poll as much as it is a testimony to the idea that even "scientific" polls have their limitations because of sample as a proportion to the entire population.

So my point is not that this survey is or isn't accurate, but it's that overall, because of such a large sample, some of the otherwise scientific problems in the collection are outweighed by the sheer number of responses. Of course, I would like to know what methods they took to eliminate double-counting (i.e. ballot stuffing). Obviously my opinions on this survey would change greatly if they did not go through proper methods to eliminate that. And yes, I'm well aware of all the other methodology problems. I did take a statistics class too.

Truthfully, I'm skeptical of all polls. This one is no different. The only difference is that at least it has a much larger portion of the population surveyed than most. So that's the only reason I'm giving it a little more benefit of doubt.

 

[rrlbees]

Truthfully, I'm skeptical of all polls. This one is no different. The only difference is that at least it has a much larger portion of the population surveyed than most. So that's the only reason I'm giving it a little more benefit of doubt.

Here's my problem with the poll. They didn't "poll" or "survey" anyone. It was sort of an opt-in type thing if you knew about the poll. That makes it far more random than if they had called 30,000 people randomly themselves. Those kinds of polls are always garbage in a way. Go look at the post pinned at the top about the coaches poll and Marrone. We came across that poll and we tacked it and asked people to vote for Marrone. He has risen about 30 places since we did that. School ABC who may not have seen the poll, or got actively involved with it, may have a better coach but that poll will never reflect that. So in this case, a scientific poll of 2,000 IMO is better than this 30,000 solely because of how the 30,000 was obtained.

 

[kyleslamb]

These were your first two posts on in this thread:

Most of those polls are conducted with only 2-3,000 respondents. That this was a poll of 30,000 is probably a much better sampling and representation than those other polls you mention.

Are you saying Oregon should have a lot more or UCONN?

Somebody familiar with college football in particular would see the flaws right away in this article, imho. One doesn't need to have knowledge of the industry to know that there is no way UConn has more college football fans than Oregon or that 7 ACC schools and 3 Big East schools have more college football fans than FSU. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in regard to perhaps these specific items you only had a cursory review of it and didn't realize that was what this article was saying.

But the article's MAIN thrust was that Rutgers has more college football fans in NYC than either ND or PSU and I do remember quite clearly and distinctly you buying into the $160 million in BTN ad revenue last summer that William(?) put forth in his excel speadsheet and later coming down to about $120 million.

Maybe I'm being too much of a hard-a$$ but I would think that someone with "knowledge" of the industry should have recognized immediately neither of those things would be accurate.

Cheers,
Neil

Part of the problem is that generally speaking, people who identify with an institution are fans of the institution and not just the institution on a sport-specific basis. If you grow up a UCONN Huskies fan, while you might like basketball better or football better, you might consider yourself a fan of both. And usually this will be the case, though there are those people out there that might be a Notre Dame football fan and UCONN basketball fan, or what have you.

So put it this way: is it possible Connecticut has more fans than Oregon just in general? Records show Connecticut has collected more in royalties the last few years by a large margin, so this premise could have merit to it. I don't dispute the notion that it's unlikely more people identify as college football fans and follow Connecticut than Oregon, but again: being a Connecticut fan and being a Connecticut football fan are not mutually exclusive. For that reason, I think the focus on the sport itself can be misleading.

Also, I don't know where you got the idea I bought into the $160 million in ad revenue. The Big Ten's total revenue for that year was around $220 million. The cable-wide average in ad revenue for last year was about 40-45% among all networks. I believe the Big Ten's total ad revenue was probably roughly about 20% of the $220 million figure since they were around 36 cents per month of 45 million subs. That leaves some $40 million or less in advertising.

I never supported those figures... though I did say that advertising on some sports-networks can approach 60 or 70% of total revenues. But those advertising revenues always felt inflated to me. I think you're conflating my agreement that ratio could be possible in the future with my assessment of the BTN as it stands today.

 

[kyleslamb]

Here's my problem with the poll. They didn't "poll" or "survey" anyone. It was sort of an opt-in type thing if you knew about the poll. That makes it far more random than if they had called 30,000 people randomly themselves. Those kinds of polls are always garbage in a way. Go look at the post pinned at the top about the coaches poll and Marrone. We came across that poll and we tacked it and asked people to vote for Marrone. He has risen about 30 places since we did that. School ABC who may not have seen the poll, or got actively involved with it, may have a better coach but that poll will never reflect that. So in this case, a scientific poll of 2,000 IMO is better than this 30,000 solely because of how the 30,000 was obtained.

And that's absolutely fair. As I said, certainly there are some technical issues with the poll. I'm not saying it's anywhere near perfect. I just chuckle when people buy into polls that comprise less than 6 millionths of a percent of the population. At the end of the day, no poll is truly without major flaws.

 

[rrlbees]

And that's absolutely fair. As I said, certainly there are some technical issues with the poll. I'm not saying it's anywhere near perfect. I just chuckle when people buy into polls that comprise less than 6 millionths of a percent of the population. At the end of the day, no poll is truly without major flaws.

I also have a problem with the guy leading fans down the wrong road when he himself says in the text that the school with the most fans in NYC is rutgers. That is 100% false. It should be worded the NYC MTA (or whatever it is called) which includes most of northern and central NJ. With the few college football fans in the first place that live in NYC, its no wonder that a poll that includes those parts of NJ will indicate rutgers as first. If you were to poll ONLY people that live in the 5 boroughs of NYC, rutgers doesn't come close to SU, ND or PSU. Most NYC people hate anything NJ and don't even know what a rutgers is.

 

[rrlbees]

At the end of the day, no poll is truly without major flaws.

Agree and this poll is flawed more than most simply based upon how the data was collected.

 

[kyleslamb]

I also have a problem with the guy leading fans down the wrong road when he himself says in the text that the school with the most fans in NYC is rutgers. That is 100% false. It should be worded the NYC MTA (or whatever it is called) which includes most of northern and central NJ. With the few college football fans in the first place that live in NYC, its no wonder that a poll that includes those parts of NJ will indicate rutgers as first. If you were to poll ONLY people that live in the 5 boroughs of NYC, rutgers doesn't come close to SU, ND or PSU. Most NYC people hate anything NJ and don't even know what a rutgers is.

Perhaps, but he did say explicitly at the beginning of the article he was referring to "media markets" and under the heading of the New York City graphic, it specifically states: "New York City TV Market." Maybe he could have better worded the text, but he made mention several times that the measure had to do with TV markets.

I don't disagree regarding NYC Metro. The NYC DMA as a whole would definitely have Rutgers as the most popular. But NYC MSA polls show Notre Dame typically is the most popular college football team.

 

[rrlbees]

Perhaps, but he did say explicitly at the beginning of the article he was referring to "media markets" and under the heading of the New York City graphic, it specifically states: "New York City TV Market." Maybe he could have better worded the text, but he made mention several times that the measure had to do with TV markets.

I don't disagree regarding NYC Metro. The NYC DMA as a whole would definitely have Rutgers as the most popular. But NYC MSA polls show Notre Dame typically is the most popular college football team.

I know he was clearer in other places, but he did speicifually say NYC in the text. And as I pointed it out in another thread on the subject, rutgers posters have now dropped the "C" and have declared themselves the most popular in NY. Thus they want to make sure the B10 knows this. :rolling::crazy:

 

[omniorange]

Part of the problem is that generally speaking, people who identify with an institution are fans of the institution and not just the institution on a sport-specific basis. If you grow up a UCONN Huskies fan, while you might like basketball better or football better, you might consider yourself a fan of both. And usually this will be the case, though there are those people out there that might be a Notre Dame football fan and UCONN basketball fan, or what have you.

So put it this way: is it possible Connecticut has more fans than Oregon just in general? Records show Connecticut has collected more in royalties the last few years by a large margin, so this premise could have merit to it. I don't dispute the notion that it's unlikely more people identify as college football fans and follow Connecticut than Oregon, but again: being a Connecticut fan and being a Connecticut football fan are not mutually exclusive. For that reason, I think the focus on the sport itself can be misleading.

Also, I don't know where you got the idea I bought into the $160 million in ad revenue. The Big Ten's total revenue for that year was around $220 million. The cable-wide average in ad revenue for last year was about 40-45% among all networks. I believe the Big Ten's total ad revenue was probably roughly about 20% of the $220 million figure since they were around 36 cents per month of 45 million subs. That leaves some $40 million or less in advertising.

I never supported those figures... though I did say that advertising on some sports-networks can approach 60 or 70% of total revenues. But those advertising revenues always felt inflated to me. I think you're conflating my agreement that ratio could be possible in the future with my assessment of the BTN as it stands today.

Kyle, I remember the discussion quite succinctly. I came on the Scout board and challenged the info coming from William over on FrankTheTank site. You jumped in, like you did this thread, and you supported the original figures William put out there but after a few posts hedged and said they may be slightly less, adjusting them down to $120 million. You challenged me so much that I had to go back and check a couple of sources in the industry just to make sure that I wasn't wrong.

I then provided links to all the Kagan (now SNLi) data on ad revenue in general (since I couldn't provide the real data of another sports entity since that wasn't public) to prove why those figures were overinflated. And then you went onto another site after a couple of days (I forget if it was FrankTheTank's site or the Buckeye site) and you used those same links I gave you as to why William was incorrect and that the ad revenue needed to be adjusted downward.

I was going to call you on it at the time, but didn't want to embarrass you any further. Probably explains why I have little patience for you now though.

Best of luck. I'm done with responding to you in this thread. You can have the final say, if you so desire on this part of the thread.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[kyleslamb]

Kyle, I remember the discussion quite succinctly. I came on the Scout board and challenged the info coming from William over on FrankTheTank site. You jumped in, like you did this thread, and you supported the original figures William put out there but after a few posts hedged and said they may be slightly less, adjusting them down to $120 million. You challenged me so much that I had to go back and check a couple of sources in the industry just to make sure that I wasn't wrong.

I then provided links to all the Kagan (now SNLi) data on ad revenue in general (since I couldn't provide the real data of another sports entity since that wasn't public) to prove why those figures were overinflated. And then you went onto another site after a couple of days (I forget if it was FrankTheTank's site or the Buckeye site) and you used those same links I gave you as to why William was incorrect and that the ad revenue needed to be adjusted downward.

I was going to call you on it at the time, but didn't want to embarrass you any further. Probably explains why I have little patience for you now though.

Best of luck. I'm done with responding to you in this thread. You can have the final say, if you so desire on this part of the thread.

Cheers,
Neil

I will respond because I'm not about to let a character assassination based on faulty memory stand without challenge.

Not only is your ego out of bounds, but you have completely revised history beyond repair. I have never posted on Frank's site until just two weeks ago, and only because there were questions about an article I'd written that landed on there, and I am certain I never have quoted those numbers anywhere for that matter. Your memory is as imbalanced as your ego on this. I have never -- repeat EVER -- supported those numbers for the BTN. My ONLY comments was that industry advertising revenue does sometimes approach 70%. That's it. That's always been the extent of my discussions about those numbers.

Call me out all you like. I've nothing to be embarrassed over as clearly your perception of my views on this subject is so distorted it's fiction. Your "patience" for me is based on a wildly distorted recollection of a conversation that happened 18 months ago, and came after I offered a few times to vet my stance on the subject in private so I could speak more freely. YOU declined. It's clear that your narrative is one you wish not be challenged since I have told you several times I'd be glad to have off-the-record conversations and you've declined such invitations several times. Now I can see why: you'd rather make things up and spin conversations out of control than find out what someone really thinks about a subject. It must be easier for you to maintain the illusion you're the only one that knows anything than find out others may know what they're talking about. This is evidenced by the fact you need to use someone else's numbers that are clearly off base to link to my thoughts, as I haven't made any such remarks. As I posted in this thread... the math would not work out. Since it's 36 cents per each of the 45 million subscribers, there's no way that advertising revenue could have been accurate.

Clearly anyone can sit here and make things up pretty easily without repercussions. Not only have you done so, but I've offered to set the record straight on multiple occasions offline and you've declined. That speaks volumes.

I think you need to fine-tune that ego of yours. If you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back, I'd be worried about the fictional accounts you've created in your mind...

 

[Scooch]

Rutgers is not the most popular team in the New York market, a.k.a. DMA. Not the city, and not the market. Again, that is Notre Dame and Penn State.

Maybe central Jersey, I'll give you that. Maybe.

 

[Cuseman78]

Rutgers is not the most popular team in the New York market, a.k.a. DMA. Not the city, and not the market. Again, that is Notre Dame and Penn State.

Maybe central Jersey, I'll give you that. Maybe.

Yes, not even the state of NJ. Central Jersey only

 

[omniorange]

I think Rutgers had a chance to build a decent fanbase in the NYC Market area (considering the apathy in that area for college football) after the 2006 campaign. But they've totally lost momentum. And it's so tough to get it back.

Cheers,
Neil