Now that the 2012-13 revenue figures have been released by the NCAA, I slapped together some of the facts and figures that we toss around about a school's worth in realignment and have tweaked it based on other's suggestions. I have taken all of the FBS schools and given them a sliding scale (1-129) score in the following categories:

1. Undergraduate population (indicator of alumni quantity and current ability to support) - 10%

2. Academics - Combined scores of U.S. News and World Report, ARWU, and CMUP to give a decent indicator of undergraduate, graduate, and research capabilities - 20%

3. Director's Cup ranking - A good overview of the health of the entire athletic department. - 20%

4. Following - 75% football attendance and 25% men's basketball attendance. - 20%

5. Funding - 75% gross athletic revenue and 25% university endowment - 30%

The glaring item missing is TV markets, but I agree with JRSec that the future of major realignment will be value, not market potential. Also missing is the subjective "legacy" and "future potential". This is just an indicator of where things now stand.

1 Michigan
2 Texas
3 Ohio State
4 Florida
5 Penn State
6 Wisconsin
7 Texas A&M
8 UCLA
9 Georgia
10 Washington
11 Minnesota
12 California
13 Southern Cal
14 Michigan State
15 North Carolina
16 LSU
17 Oklahoma
18 Florida State
19 Notre Dame
20 Tennessee
21 Stanford
22 Alabama
23 Nebraska
24 Iowa
25 Kentucky
26 Purdue
27 Illinois
28 Virginia
29 Indiana
30 Arkansas
31 Auburn
32 Virginia Tech
33 South Carolina
34 Arizona
35 Arizona State
36 NC State
37 Duke
38 Oregon
39 Missouri
40 Maryland
41 Iowa State
42 Kansas
43 Northwestern
44 Oklahoma State
45 BYU
46 Louisville
47 Colorado
48 Vanderbilt
49 Rutgers
50 Syracuse
51 Texas Tech
52 Pittsburgh
53 Georgia Tech
54 Clemson
55 West Virginia
56 Miami
57 Kansas State
58 Baylor
59 Utah
60 Connecticut
61 Mississippi State
62 Central Florida
63 Oregon State
64 TCU
65 Mississippi
66 San Diego State
67 South Florida
68 Wake Forest
69 Boston College
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple
73 Washington State
74 Hawaii
75 Houston
76 Colorado State
77 Rice
78 Massachusetts
79 SMU
80 East Carolina
81 Buffalo
82 Tulsa
83 Memphis
84 Air Force
85 Old Dominion
86 UNLV
87 Tulane
88 Navy
89 Boise State
90 Army
91 Ohio
92 Utah State
93 UAB
94 Miami -OH
95 Akron
96 Wyoming
97 Fresno State
98 Kent State
99 North Texas
100 UTEP
101 UTSA
102 Central Michigan
103 Nevada
104 LA-Lafayette
105 Western Kentucky
106 Florida Intl
107 San Jose State
108 MTSU
109 New Mexico State
110 Toledo
111 Texas State
112 Appalachian State
113 Western Michigan
114 Northern Illinois
115 UNC-Charlotte
116 Marshall
117 Georgia State
118 Bowling Green
119 Idaho
120 Georgia Southern
121 Ball State
122 Arkansas State
123 South Alabama
124 Florida Atlantic
125 Southern Miss
126 Eastern Michigan
127 Louisiana Tech
128 Troy
129 LA-Monroe

For those wondering, the average conference scores are below. This shows where teams will be as of next year (e.g. Louisville in ACC, Rutgers/Maryland in Big 10):

Big 10 - 21.5
SEC - 29.28
PAC - 34.4
ACC - 42.2
Big 12 - 43.1
AAC - 75.5
MWC - 86.6
MAC - 103.1
CUSA - 105.7
Sun Belt - 117.6

(01-23-2014 05:35 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Now that the 2012-13 revenue figures have been released by the NCAA, I slapped together some of the facts and figures that we toss around about a school's worth in realignment and have tweaked it based on other's suggestions. I have taken all of the FBS schools and given them a sliding scale (1-129) score in the following categories:

1. Undergraduate population (indicator of alumni quantity and current ability to support) - 10%

2. Academics - Combined scores of U.S. News and World Report, ARWU, and CMUP to give a decent indicator of undergraduate, graduate, and research capabilities - 20%

3. Director's Cup ranking - A good overview of the health of the entire athletic department. - 20%

4. Following - 75% football attendance and 25% men's basketball attendance. - 20%

5. Funding - 75% gross athletic revenue and 25% university endowment - 30%

The glaring item missing is TV markets, but I agree with JRSec that the future of major realignment will be value, not market potential. Also missing is the subjective "legacy" and "future potential". This is just an indicator of where things now stand.

1 Michigan
2 Texas
3 Ohio State
4 Florida
5 Penn State
6 Wisconsin
7 Texas A&M
8 UCLA
9 Georgia
10 Washington
11 Minnesota
12 California
13 Southern Cal
14 Michigan State
15 North Carolina
16 LSU
17 Oklahoma
18 Florida State
19 Notre Dame
20 Tennessee
21 Stanford
22 Alabama
23 Nebraska
24 Iowa
25 Kentucky
26 Purdue
27 Illinois
28 Virginia
29 Indiana
30 Arkansas
31 Auburn
32 Virginia Tech
33 South Carolina
34 Arizona
35 Arizona State
36 NC State
37 Duke
38 Oregon
39 Missouri
40 Maryland
41 Iowa State
42 Kansas
43 Northwestern
44 Oklahoma State
45 BYU
46 Louisville
47 Colorado
48 Vanderbilt
49 Rutgers
50 Syracuse
51 Texas Tech
52 Pittsburgh
53 Georgia Tech
54 Clemson
55 West Virginia
56 Miami
57 Kansas State
58 Baylor
59 Utah
60 Connecticut
61 Mississippi State
62 Central Florida
63 Oregon State
64 TCU
65 Mississippi
66 San Diego State
67 South Florida
68 Wake Forest
69 Boston College
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple
73 Washington State
74 Hawaii
75 Houston
76 Colorado State
77 Rice
78 Massachusetts
79 SMU
80 East Carolina
81 Buffalo
82 Tulsa
83 Memphis
84 Air Force
85 Old Dominion
86 UNLV
87 Tulane
88 Navy
89 Boise State
90 Army
91 Ohio
92 Utah State
93 UAB
94 Miami -OH
95 Akron
96 Wyoming
97 Fresno State
98 Kent State
99 North Texas
100 UTEP
101 UTSA
102 Central Michigan
103 Nevada
104 LA-Lafayette
105 Western Kentucky
106 Florida Intl
107 San Jose State
108 MTSU
109 New Mexico State
110 Toledo
111 Texas State
112 Appalachian State
113 Western Michigan
114 Northern Illinois
115 UNC-Charlotte
116 Marshall
117 Georgia State
118 Bowling Green
119 Idaho
120 Georgia Southern
121 Ball State
122 Arkansas State
123 South Alabama
124 Florida Atlantic
125 Southern Miss
126 Eastern Michigan
127 Louisiana Tech
128 Troy
129 LA-Monroe

For those wondering, the average conference scores are below. This shows where teams will be as of next year (e.g. Louisville in ACC, Rutgers/Maryland in Big 10):

Big 10 - 21.5
SEC - 29.28
PAC - 34.4
ACC - 42.2
Big 12 - 43.1
AAC - 75.5
MWC - 86.6
MAC - 103.1
CUSA - 105.7
Sun Belt - 117.6

Crazy! Three schools most commonly mentioned as not deserving the P5 (WSU, BC, WF) are outside the top 65 while three schools most commonly listed as potential upgrades (UCONN, BYU, UCF) are inside the top 65. It would be great to see how these numbers look retrospectively and prospectively.

45 BYU
60 UConn
62 UCF
66 San Diego St.
67 USF
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple

Only G5 schools ranked above bottom P5 school-Washington St.

Based on 2014 conference:
#77 Rice top CUSA member
#78 UMass top MAC
#81 Buffalo top full MAC
#104 Louisiana top Sun Belt

These rankings have arbitrary methodology, but they still show something.

You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

(01-23-2014 07:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  45 BYU
60 UConn
62 UCF
66 San Diego St.
67 USF
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple

Only G5 schools ranked above bottom P5 school-Washington St.

Those are basically what is left for the P5 to consider, and all of them have been discussed ad nauseum on this board as candidates with the exception of perhaps New Mexico. I wouldn't have expected them that high, but good for New Mexico.

(01-23-2014 08:43 PM)btstimpy Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 07:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  45 BYU
60 UConn
62 UCF
66 San Diego St.
67 USF
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple

Only G5 schools ranked above bottom P5 school-Washington St.

Those are basically what is left for the P5 to consider, and all of them have been discussed ad nauseum on this board as candidates with the exception of perhaps New Mexico. I wouldn't have expected them that high, but good for New Mexico.

New Mexico was pretty consistently top 5 in basketball attendance from the late 60s/early 70s until the 90s when some other schools bumped up their facility size. They are still frequently top 10.

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

From the standpoint of the decision makers in the conferences, USNWR is worth basically nothing. They fear it, but don't respect it.

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

What's more interesting to me is not the order of the Top 60. We've debated about the Research emphasis verses USNWR all day. I don't think it should be a factor, but it stayed in. This is biased towards schools with big football stadiums and high football attendance. They drive the most revenue in tickets sold.

What interesting is where 61 through 80 fall. Those are the CR candidates for the P5 should the P5 expand. Those closer to 80 have work to get closer to 60, and those closer to 60 have work to move up. And it clearly shows that BYU should be in a P5 conference.

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

Agree. Gross athletic revenue is a tricky criteria. If it's about a school's realignment worth, then including current conference payout as a part of gross revenue doesn't really work.

You've done a helluva job compiling this data BigBlue...very interesting

(01-23-2014 08:56 PM)btstimpy Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

What's more interesting to me is not the order of the Top 60. We've debated about the Research emphasis verses USNWR all day. I don't think it should be a factor, but it stayed in. This is biased towards schools with big football stadiums and high football attendance. They drive the most revenue in tickets sold.

What interesting is where 61 through 80 fall. Those are the CR candidates for the P5 should the P5 expand. Those closer to 80 have work to get closer to 60, and those closer to 60 have work to move up. And it clearly shows that BYU should be in a P5 conference.

I think that the only folks who disagree with that are BYU fans/admins. They like the flexibility of being indy. It helps them accomplish their religious mission and keeps them out of Sunday games.

Interesting and a lot of hard work. Kudos. Makes me think about doing something like this. It's not perfect (then again nothing is). Alabama stands out as severely undervalued. Academics are weighted a little too high, probably why private universities are overvalued. I think Kansas (my school) is about 15 spots too low based on revenue and merchandise sold, but it is hard to please everyone. A few comments:

1) Director's cup seems kind of weak to be a 20% weight. The only sports that matter at all in conference expansion are football and, to a lesser extent, men's basketball. Anything else is just content filler for conference networks for the most part (exceptions B1G hockey and SEC baseball maybe). Maybe some composite ranking from the last decade for football and basketball weighting 2/3 FB and 1/3 BB would be better. Director's cup is heavily influenced by how many sports you sponsor. That is nice, but also a reason so many AD's run in red ink (see UMD). Too many non-revenue sports.
2) Funding: IMO, endowment should really be in academics which it is almost exclusively used for, IMO. I would probably just toss it. You could strictly use AD revenue here and it would be a much stronger indicator. Including endowment here bumps up quite a few programs who really are not all that valuable, but have a few very rich alums or are very old universities with a lot of time for the interest to pile up on their endowments.
3) Following: It should probably be total or avg. football attendance, plus total or avg. basketball attendance, if you use it. It is following, not revenue generated by TV contracts so weighting it so heavily towards football seems unnecessary. Most fans follow both.
4) Markets covered would be a nice addition, even though you feel it will be less important in the future. So far it has been very important for most of the conferences with networks. Population or media markets. Not perfect, but usable. Maybe weight it 10% and cut academics down to 10%.
5) Academics have a part, but 20% is overstating it, unless the B1G is looking at the school, maybe. Ten percent would probably be better if you are valuing for all conferences. Reducing this one thing would probably really help your value chart become more accurate.


Anyway, great job.

(01-23-2014 09:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:56 PM)btstimpy Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

What's more interesting to me is not the order of the Top 60. We've debated about the Research emphasis verses USNWR all day. I don't think it should be a factor, but it stayed in. This is biased towards schools with big football stadiums and high football attendance. They drive the most revenue in tickets sold.

What interesting is where 61 through 80 fall. Those are the CR candidates for the P5 should the P5 expand. Those closer to 80 have work to get closer to 60, and those closer to 60 have work to move up. And it clearly shows that BYU should be in a P5 conference.

I think that the only folks who disagree with that are BYU fans/admins. They like the flexibility of being indy. It helps them accomplish their religious mission and keeps them out of Sunday games.

I think the BYU fans would prefer to be in the P5. It is the church and admins who are keeping them outside the P5 due to their demands. They were a shoe in for the B12, if they had not been so demanding. I think the admins realize they made a mistake now. If they get another chance they will jump on it. Problem for them is the B12 was the only one interested and they really damaged that relationship.

(01-24-2014 01:33 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 09:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:56 PM)btstimpy Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

What's more interesting to me is not the order of the Top 60. We've debated about the Research emphasis verses USNWR all day. I don't think it should be a factor, but it stayed in. This is biased towards schools with big football stadiums and high football attendance. They drive the most revenue in tickets sold.

What interesting is where 61 through 80 fall. Those are the CR candidates for the P5 should the P5 expand. Those closer to 80 have work to get closer to 60, and those closer to 60 have work to move up. And it clearly shows that BYU should be in a P5 conference.

I think that the only folks who disagree with that are BYU fans/admins. They like the flexibility of being indy. It helps them accomplish their religious mission and keeps them out of Sunday games.

I think the BYU fans would prefer to be in the P5. It is the church and admins who are keeping them outside the P5 due to their demands. They were a shoe in for the B12, if they had not been so demanding. I think the admins realize they made a mistake now. If they get another chance they will jump on it. Problem for them is the B12 was the only one interested and they really damaged that relationship.

As far as being in the P-5, I think BYU is trying to pattern themselves after Notre Dame.

JMHO

(01-23-2014 05:35 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Now that the 2012-13 revenue figures have been released by the NCAA, I slapped together some of the facts and figures that we toss around about a school's worth in realignment and have tweaked it based on other's suggestions. I have taken all of the FBS schools and given them a sliding scale (1-129) score in the following categories:

1. Undergraduate population (indicator of alumni quantity and current ability to support) - 10%

2. Academics - Combined scores of U.S. News and World Report, ARWU, and CMUP to give a decent indicator of undergraduate, graduate, and research capabilities - 20%

3. Director's Cup ranking - A good overview of the health of the entire athletic department. - 20%

4. Following - 75% football attendance and 25% men's basketball attendance. - 20%

5. Funding - 75% gross athletic revenue and 25% university endowment - 30%

The glaring item missing is TV markets, but I agree with JRSec that the future of major realignment will be value, not market potential. Also missing is the subjective "legacy" and "future potential". This is just an indicator of where things now stand.

Interesting but I'd like to see your rankings done over a period of 15-20 years. I expect some things to remain constant, but I think your numbers might change some if you did it over that range of time that I specified. When you do rankings for that period, please take the median of those rankings to use. I don't like averages either because overly high or overly low numbers tend to inflate or deflate from the true number. I like the median because it takes the middle rankings which are truer indicator of where the program might be.

I certainly appreciate all the time you've put into this.

With that said, Catagory #5 is pretty flawed. Without backing out revenue earned from conference television contracts, the footing is not equal. I also don't know if endowment has anything to do with athletic funding, but if that is included shouldn't state support also be included?

Perhaps endowment could be combined with undergrad population in catagory 1 in a way to connect the population size to the level of support of said population.

Other than that , this is awesome.

(01-23-2014 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Based on 2014 conference:
#77 Rice top CUSA member
#78 UMass top MAC
#81 Buffalo top full MAC
#104 Louisiana top Sun Belt

These rankings have arbitrary methodology, but they still show something.

Ultimately, are not all ranking methodologies arbitrary? I did take into account pretty much every indicator that was readily available.

(01-23-2014 08:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You are emphasizing research way too much and you aren't normalizing conference payouts.

Yes, US News has its flaws, but it's undeniably influential. Anyway, those flaws are grossly overstated. The split should be about 70% USNWR and 15% going to each of the other two.

Also, as noted earlier, you should normalize for conference payouts. If school A and school B are exactly the same, only school A is in the SEC, whereas the other is in the Sun Belt, your rankings will make school A look better because it's revenue will be higher due to conference payouts. However, that shouldn't count because if the school were to realign, it wouldn't be getting those payouts. Therefore, this is biased towards the SEC and the B1G.

While I'm at it, following shouldn't be weighted (beyond taking ticket prices* and frequency of the event into consideration). Eye balls are eye balls and fans in seats are fans in seats. This is another factor that is biasing these rankings towards B1G and SEC schools (way more SEC than B1G, though)

Yes, the B1G and the SEC should be #1 and #2, but not by as much as you have. Also, ND is not the #19 most wanted school. That alone shows the flaws.

*Ticket prices matter de to demand elasticity. Schools might be upping prices to maximize profit. However, in doing so, they might be driving away fans who would otherwise go to the game if it was priced at the same level as the other sport.

Have at it; I'll be glad to read what you come up with. About Notre Dame at #19... they are the #11 highest grossing athletic department. Considering the other metrics, yes, they are a program of lore, but it is not monetized or reflected in other attributes in the university as well as those ranked above them. That is part of this exercise; put numbers against assumptions.

(01-23-2014 08:43 PM)btstimpy Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 07:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  45 BYU
60 UConn
62 UCF
66 San Diego St.
67 USF
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple

Only G5 schools ranked above bottom P5 school-Washington St.

Those are basically what is left for the P5 to consider, and all of them have been discussed ad nauseum on this board as candidates with the exception of perhaps New Mexico. I wouldn't have expected them that high, but good for New Mexico.

I was surprised by New Mexico, as well. They are very solid in graduate and research work and are actually top 50 in Director's Cup, meaning they are pretty solid all around in athletics. Their basketball following helps, as well. If they can increase their undergraduate perception and bulk up that football, the Big 12 could do much worse.

(01-23-2014 08:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 08:43 PM)btstimpy Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 07:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  45 BYU
60 UConn
62 UCF
66 San Diego St.
67 USF
70 New Mexico
71 Cincinnati
72 Temple

Only G5 schools ranked above bottom P5 school-Washington St.

Those are basically what is left for the P5 to consider, and all of them have been discussed ad nauseum on this board as candidates with the exception of perhaps New Mexico. I wouldn't have expected them that high, but good for New Mexico.

New Mexico was pretty consistently top 5 in basketball attendance from the late 60s/early 70s until the 90s when some other schools bumped up their facility size. They are still frequently top 10.

Right... they are #15 with 14,454, but #7 is Tennessee at 16,543. They are in the ballpark.