SI puts a "value" on the P5 schools
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
I agree with you but also there’s a **** ton of craziness and a proven (OuT, USC/UCLA) uktra-high level of secrecy about this stuff. Us plebes and the media don’t know **** about realignment. Just farts in the wind that either end up stinking out of luck or don’t stink at all.
End the series and we dont have to worry about it.
No matter what comes out of this latest realignment saga I hope it is the end of that ********.
It won't be. As crazy as it sounds, Rick Neuheisel was talking this morning about the investments Baylor and TT have made and how they are attractive schools.
He said up until a recent renovation by TX, Baylor had better facilities than TX, and that Baylor pumps A LOT of money into the AD.
This list shows me that after about the Top 10-15, its just a big mess of teams. Each has their own pluses and minuses but they aren't going to move the needle enough to be taken serious in today's conference realignment world. The Top 14 are all current or future Big Ten or SEC teams.
Consider yourself lucky if you are in the club (SEC, Big Ten) and not in the Top 10-15. For those not in the club, think outside the box because no one around you is really all that better than you.
Consider yourself lucky if you are in the club (SEC, Big Ten) and not in the Top 10-15. For those not in the club, think outside the box because no one around you is really all that better than you.
Probably because some schools played 6 games and others played 11 or 12. Potential skew of data.
I believe it was total count of games with a certain number of viewers.
I would also say the all sport metric is nice to evaluate the broad strength of an athletic department. But if we are talking media value, then I would focus on the main viewership sports: FB, MBB, WBB, Volleyball, Softball, Baseball average ranking.
If they did include 2020, ISU would get a nice bump. ISU pulled eyeballs in 2020.
Edit: oops, though I’m sure ISU will draw well in 3020 coached by cryo-Campbell, that’s just a guess.
Last edited:
I’m just worried about this year not close to 1000 years from now
Interesting methodology, and probably a good tool to get a general idea of where different programs stack up. I do have a couple of critiques:
- The five categories don't carry equal weight. There are two that matter a lot more (viewers, football success) and three that matter decidedly less (attendance, academics, other sports).
- Each of the conferences weighs the different categories differently - ie, Academics are more important to some conferences (Big 10) than others (SEC).
- 5 years is kind of a short window to look at for football success and can easily be an aberration either way. Think of Shiano's first run at Rutgers. A better window would be 20 years to gauge sustained success but skewing for a recency bias.
- Prestige is an important and totally unquantifiable metric that needs to be accounted for.
- Recruiting areas plays a bigger role in some of this than might be readily apparent - ei, the Big XII was able to get a foot in Florida UCF, which will likely help the rest of the conference recruit Florida more effectively. UCF wouldn't open up Florida for ACC schools, though, as they already have two of the bigger schools in the state. For that reason, UCF had more value to the Big XII than the ACC.
I agree. The bias of the media is skewed toward the coasts. They have been pumping themselves up for over a hundred years! That has equated big bucks and helped certain universities dominate - especially if that same media ranked the teams and chose the national champion!
