Jump to content

LTbear

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LTbear

  1. Man, I just realized one other obvious bias that Mandel admits himself: the PAC's late-night game skews their average because they're up against no competition. So his numbers are already including many more (by %) low-rating Big XII games than Pac games, but he's also skewing Pac numbers with an uncontested timeslot that would (obviously) go to the Big XII if the Big XII were to absorb some Pac members. And: 45% or so of the Big 12's games he sampled were on FS1 or ESPNU. 28% for the PAC. 49% of the PAC was on ABC/ESPN/FOX. 22% for the Big 12. (last bit from external source, not my math)
  2. Seeing as Mandel's numbers only use half of Big XII games, then for this "analysis"/ the convo at hand that you're replying to, likely no.
  3. This exactly. Doing a true apples to apples comparison is possible, and I actually have no idea how it might come out, but it definitely takes a lot more work than what Mandel put in. He did only the most basic, shallow-level "correction;" enough to make the general reader say "oh gee golly this is really well thought out" but not nearly enough for anyone with a mind towards stats and potential statistical biases.
  4. To be fair, Wilner and Mandel are absolutely homers. Wilner makes a career covering PAC sports, and Mandel does the same in large part. Other writers, including others from The Athletic, are much more unbiased. Like I said, Mandel's quick "analyses" are a good starting point, but someone like me who just happens to have dealt with stats a good bit immediately recognized some sources of bias in his breakdown. Taking out UT, OU, USC and UCLA is obviously a good move, but you also have to compare the same quality and depth of game across both conferences to have an apples to apples comparison. You could take other data like this and quickly calculate that the Big 12 - OU/ UT gets more views than the PAC - USC/ UCLA. (No, that's not a great analysis at all, but just as an example).
  5. No idea why now, but for years I had thought you were a Colorado fan.
  6. Ah I missed this. It might get roughly at what I was wondering about. Like it would roughly be considering the top 38% or so of PAC games and the top 55% or so of Big XII games.
  7. Good summary, but I'm curious about one aspect of the way he sets up the analysis. He always throws out 2020, if I remember correctly, which is the right call. He also says he doesn't include ESPN+ that started carrying a few lousy Big XII games in 2019 and 2021, but he's not including PACN games for any of the years studied, which carried a good number of lousy Pac games. As such I wonder if his numbers are biased towards including more of the "upper" Pac 12 games while mostly including all of the Big XII "lower" games, because 1) The PACN carries more games throughout the study period due to better setup and more teams/ inventory, and 2) ESPN+ carried fewer game and didn't begin until the last two years of the study period. /nerd data rant over
  8. It has been foretold
  9. I would have fun watching Boise in the PAC.
  10. "The ability to provide 10:30ET games," just like I have the ability to provide Scarlett Johansen with 15 of the most okay seconds of her life.
  11. Not sure if already mentioned, but Colorado has scheduled yet another emergency regents meeting on "PAC 12 contracts" for tomorrow.
  12. 1. Better than their normal helmet 2. Shame they decided to give their fans seizures with that little hype vid
  13. $33M per school was the PAC's total revenue distribution. MHVer is saying $25M per school in TV contracts, which might still mean above $33M per school total. But MHVer is probably full of shit.
  14. Sadly that's become a common excuse readily adopted by any PAC schools. Which is fine, I suppose - when I did my M.S. at CU, I went and hiked 14ers or camped instead of watching CU lose to Kansas, Montana State, etc. I get the appeal of having too much outdoor options to draw your attention. But that excuse doesn't make the low TV attendance/ fan engagement/ TV draw any less real.
  15. *Does look 4 hours of sleep
  16. Does it look mighty bad for the PAC, unfortunately.
  17. His blinding loyalty to the PAC is so blatantly coloring everything he does, as it has his writing for the past coupe years.
  18. Anyone know the article that's being referenced here?
  19. That doesn't sound right
  20. Hence why I said "long term" and "at some point."
  21. Long term, a Big XII mega-conference that picks up Pitt, Louisville, and perhaps a couple others to fill out an eastern wing would be ok with me (this obviously supposing that the ACC collapses at some point as the most valuable properties there get picked off).
  22. +1
  23. *David Attenborough voice: "For now..." I hope so. It's getting a bit ridiculous, to put it lightly.
×
×
  • Create New...