http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a-radical-r...1406069526

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/image...221045.jpg

The wall street Journal has published an article based on a study done by the Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University

Quote:
The 10 teams that were most similar to each other, and far stronger than all other teams, were Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Texas.

EDIT: This is based on a study published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in sports.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjj...an_3a4.htm

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas.201...format=INT

Oh how funny, all the mouthbreathers here calling Iowa a hanger on and yet....the Wall Street Journal puts them in the same grouping with the likes of USC, Nebraska, Florida State, Penn State, Oregon, Tennessee, Michigan State, South Carolina, Clemson, Texas A&M and Wisconsin.

Obviously the WSJ are a bunch of idiots.

Nothing like quantitative results without any link to the actual parameters or measures. One could have counted available seats in the stadium and have generated nearly the same results.

It's the WSJ, most likely it was all about revenue production.

(07-23-2014 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's the WSJ, most likely it was all about revenue production.

It does appear as if money generated is all that mattered. But I don't put much faith in social sciences statistics until I see the model and the parameters. It's far too easy to take shortcuts and use easily available measures that measure nothing or measure something other than what you claim to be studying.

When's there's no link in the popular article to the actual study - I am reminded of that horrible work that appeared in the NYT that purported to tell us that GT was the most popular team in Georgia and that ECU was more popular than UNC in Eastern NC, using a online poll that was available to some but not all universities.

(07-23-2014 11:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's the WSJ, most likely it was all about revenue production.

It does appear as if money generated is all that mattered. But I don't put much faith in social sciences statistics until I see the model and the parameters. It's far too easy to take shortcuts and use easily available measures that measure nothing or measure something other than what you claim to be studying.

When's there's no link in the popular article to the actual study - I am reminded of that horrible work that appeared in the NYT that purported to tell us that GT was the most popular team in Georgia and that ECU was more popular than UNC in Eastern NC, using a online poll that was available to some but not all universities.

I noticed that ECU was by far the most popular team in Eastern NC long before I attended ECU. Anyone who drives through that part of the state and counts license plates & bumper stickers could tell you that. It may cut off around New Hanover county, but east of 95 and north of NHC is all ECU.

I grew up following family ties to Tennessee but respected ECU for their stronghold on the area I lived in (Wilmington and then Carteret county).

(07-24-2014 12:58 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's the WSJ, most likely it was all about revenue production.

It does appear as if money generated is all that mattered. But I don't put much faith in social sciences statistics until I see the model and the parameters. It's far too easy to take shortcuts and use easily available measures that measure nothing or measure something other than what you claim to be studying.

When's there's no link in the popular article to the actual study - I am reminded of that horrible work that appeared in the NYT that purported to tell us that GT was the most popular team in Georgia and that ECU was more popular than UNC in Eastern NC, using a online poll that was available to some but not all universities.

I noticed that ECU was by far the most popular team in Eastern NC long before I attended ECU. Anyone who drives through that part of the state and counts license plates & bumper stickers could tell you that. It may cut off around New Hanover county, but east of 95 and north of NHC is all ECU.

I grew up following family ties to Tennessee but respected ECU for their stronghold on the area I lived in (Wilmington and then Carteret county).

I live in Myrtle Beach where North Carolina vacations.
ECU is strong and so is Appalachian State see plenty of support for both.

I edited my original post to include links to the original study. Take it for what it is worth. The source material is from the
Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University.

Here is a summary

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjj...an_3a4.htm

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas.201...format=INT

What if statisticians ran college football? A re-conceptualization of the football bowl subdivision

Jonathan A. Jensen1 / Brian A. Turner1

1Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Corresponding author: Jonathan A. Jensen, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, A220 PAES Building 305 West 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1234, USA, e-mail: (email)

Citation Information: Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports. Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 37–48, ISSN (Online) 1559-0410, ISSN (Print) 2194-6388,DOI: 10.1515/jqas-2013-0071, February 2014

Publication HistoryPublished Online:2014-02-07

Abstract

Conference affiliation is an important consideration for institutions of higher learning, both athletically and academically. Traditionally, conference affiliation in the NCAA has been determined based largely on geography. However, recent events beg the question of what would be the result if conference affiliation, and classifications such as being a Bowl Championship Series Automatic Qualifier, were re-configured based not on traditional aspects of geography, tradition and like-mindedness, but solely on the financial and on-field performance of an institution’s football program. This paper utilizes a multivariate statistical technique (cluster analysis) to re-conceptualize conference affiliation, as well as the current Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) hierarchy, based solely on data reflecting the performance of each FBS institution’s football programs. The analysis results in a total of 23 programs being relegated from their current status, while several programs (such as Boise State, Louisville and Rutgers) have been promoted into the highest tier of the FBS based on their performance. The paper also presents a new clustering of four “super” conferences based on this same performance data, resulting in four conferences consisting of programs with similar on-field and financial performance over the past 10 seasons

Some interesting stuff from the study

Study 1: Division IV membership

As stated, Study 1 involved ascertaining which FBS institutions deserved membership in the new proposed Division IV, based on their actual performance (rather than conference membership) over the study’s 10-year period (2003–2012). Utilizing CA to cluster FBS institutions based on revenue, winning percentage, Sagarin rating, average attendance and percent capacity resulted in a total of only 45 of the 114 institutions being grouped together in the new Division IV.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=...221045.jpg

These 45 Division IV institutions had
a mean revenue of $323.23 million over the 10-year period,
a mean winning percentage of 0.657,
an average of 806.81 total Sagarin points,
average attendance of 69,232,
and on average filled their stadiums to 96.32% capacity.

In contrast, the 69 FBS institutions that were not grouped in Division IV had a mean revenue of $98.17 million,
a mean winning percentage of 0.438,
an average of 651.07 Sagarin points,
average attendance of just 28,851,
filled their stadiums to just 68.83% capacity over the 10-year period.

While this is a general statement about the football programs, it does provide an independent metric for comparing schools.
Here is some analysis of Big 12 teams and potential adds.

Cluster 1: Texas, Oklahoma
Cluster 2: none (Lost Nebraska, A&M)
Cluster 3: Kansas St (SWC lost Arkansas)
Cluster 4: Okie St., TCU, TTech, WVU (Lost Missouri, missed LVille, BYU, Boise)

Other teams that have moved recently:
Cluster 1: Notre Dame (Partial Big East to Partial ACC)
Cluster 2: South Carolina (SEC)
Cluster 3: Miami (ACC)
Cluster 4: VTech (ACC)

It is interesting that the Big 12/SWC has been involved in the movement of so many of these programs. Lots of flux, and replacing two cluster 2 and one cluster 4 school with two cluster 4 was not a step up. Meanwhile, replacing Colorado with BYU would actually move them up the scale. Adding BYU and Boise for football only would give the Big 12 more "Cluster teams" than before.

It seems that just like the Big East, the Big 12 is being "penny wise, pound foolish" by not expanding with good teams when available, and instead having a death clutch to not give up any TV money no matter the consequences. The strategic inflexibility leaves them vulnerable. Back when the Big East was raided the first time they could have had a national conference with a western football-only wing that would have been a "best of the rest conference." Instead, they wanted to divide the BCS money up fewer ways and the "western wing" broke down when the Big East needed them to survive. Thus, Big East football no longer exists. The inbalance of the Big 12 leaves them vulnerable to a poaching of the top two, which would leave a mess of level 4 teams that may not be that attractive (and also unstable) when something does happen. The mass of the Big 12 would be much more strategicly served in giving up a relative pittance of TV money now to add two cluster 4 teams as football only.

By P5 Conferences:

SEC: 11 schools
PAC: 9 schools (0 in cluster 1)
B1G: 7 schools
B12: 7 schools
ACC: 6 schools (0 in cluster 1)

Independents: 2 schools
MWC: 1 school

This seems to correspond to conference power, in a rough way.

(07-24-2014 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  By P5 Conferences:

SEC: 11 schools
PAC: 9 schools (0 in cluster 1)
B1G: 7 schools
B12: 7 schools
ACC: 6 schools (0 in cluster 1)

Independents: 2 schools
MWC: 1 school

This seems to correspond to conference power, in a rough way.

The Big Ten seems to be broken down pretty much along the lines of attendance.

The 7 teams that typically average above 65k were deemed worthy. The 7 that average less than 50k were not worthy.

Although you can argue football success has a lot to do with attendance.

(07-24-2014 02:32 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 12:58 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's the WSJ, most likely it was all about revenue production.

It does appear as if money generated is all that mattered. But I don't put much faith in social sciences statistics until I see the model and the parameters. It's far too easy to take shortcuts and use easily available measures that measure nothing or measure something other than what you claim to be studying.

When's there's no link in the popular article to the actual study - I am reminded of that horrible work that appeared in the NYT that purported to tell us that GT was the most popular team in Georgia and that ECU was more popular than UNC in Eastern NC, using a online poll that was available to some but not all universities.

I noticed that ECU was by far the most popular team in Eastern NC long before I attended ECU. Anyone who drives through that part of the state and counts license plates & bumper stickers could tell you that. It may cut off around New Hanover county, but east of 95 and north of NHC is all ECU.

I grew up following family ties to Tennessee but respected ECU for their stronghold on the area I lived in (Wilmington and then Carteret county).

I live in Myrtle Beach where North Carolina vacations.
ECU is strong and so is Appalachian State see plenty of support for both.

I see lots of ECU whenever I'm down there but also a lot of State fans. It's actually closer for people who live in Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and western NC to go to Myrtle beach than it is the North Carolina beaches. Emerald Isle is really ECU's beach .

Quote:It is interesting that the Big 12/SWC has been involved in the movement of so many of these programs. Lots of flux, and replacing two cluster 2 and one cluster 4 school with two cluster 4 was not a step up.

Texas is essentially this lone island of high population in the middle of an otherwise low population sea.

The SWC and Big 12 represent that island trying to make it on own/with the other tiny islands surrounding it rather than allying with the two big population coasts on either side of it.

Maybe that will work...but maybe it wont

(07-24-2014 02:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:It is interesting that the Big 12/SWC has been involved in the movement of so many of these programs. Lots of flux, and replacing two cluster 2 and one cluster 4 school with two cluster 4 was not a step up.

Texas is essentially this lone island of high population in the middle of an otherwise low population sea.

The SWC and Big 12 represent that island trying to make it on own/with the other tiny islands surrounding it rather than allying with the two big population coasts on either side of it.

Maybe that will work...but maybe it wont

As someone who has worked for the electric company, I agree there is something about Texas wanting to be isolated from both the east and west.

Texas even has its own electrical grid that is somewhat isolated from the eastern grid that connects everything else together that is east of the rockies. Then there is another grid west of the rockies somewhat isolated from everything east of the rockies.