(07-27-2016 09:21 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  One thing I have found doing this kind of analysis for SEC related stuff as well is that you can make the objective analysis say whatever you want. Different criteria gives different rankings. So even choosing the appropriate criteria is subjective.

Save

(07-26-2016 04:15 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Methodology:
Big 12 has stated they will evaluate teams based on:
1 Academics
2 Fan Base
3 Athletic Program
4 Media Markets
5 "Reputation"

I looked at 22 schools. I chose all the AAC schools, Rice from CUSA, Boise, NM, Colorado State, UNLV, and Air Force from the MWC, then BYU, NIU and Buffalo as well (since they are an AAU school that has at least gotten mentioned in the past as a candidate for the Big 10). I apologize if I did not consider your school, no offense meant at all!

Since I cannot quantify "reputation" I used:
1) Academics (average of USN/ARW compared with Big 12 average. Teams that were within 10 points either way I considered to "meet" the standard, higher was "above" and lower was "below." I considered schools that did not have either of these rankings "below," SMU/Tulsa had an USN score but not an ARW score, however they were Carnegie "higher research," and their USN scores were above average for the Big 12 so I considered them "meet." The academies I didn't quite know how to quantify so I considered them "meet," as well). These were then ranked 1-22 (1s for the "above," 7s for the "meets", 14s for the belows)

2) Bowl Game Appearances - By counting bowl game appearances I quantify at least competent football seasons, and those schools with more history/better reputation would have higher numbers. These were then ranked 1-22.

3) NCAA Tournament appearances. See above. By including both basketball and football it accounts for basketball first schools as well as gives a more holistic view of the athletic department. I chose not to include baseball or other Olympic sports for simplicity's sake. These were ranked 1-22

4) 2015 Football Average Home Game Attendance: This helps see the "fan base" of each school. Ranked 1-22

5) Media markets: I admittedly used a reddit chart for this category (google search: fbs schools media market). This chart gave schools like SMU credit for Dallas, so I did the same, then ranked the schools 1-22.

Final tallies (fewer points means better scoring school):
BYU 18
Temple 32
Cincy 34
Houston 38
Navy 38
Colorado S 43
UConn 44
SMU 45
Rice 50
Memphis 54
Tulsa/Air Force/SDSU 57
USF 60
UCF/Boise 63
New Mexico 64
Tulane 66
ECU/NIU 68
UNLV 74
Buffalo 82

BYU is the far and away highest ranked option, and this isn't that surprising.

Since geography was not mentioned as a category, Temple should not be surprising as a top performer. But they are not being mentioned very often in connection with the Big 12.

After Temple was Cincy. There is a reason Cincy was the "leader in the clubhouse."

Navy performed well too, but is also not often mentioned. Not sure how Big 12 views Navy.

Houston, Colorado State and UConn are all bunched together next. I'm not surprised by this at all.

My assumption is that SMU and Rice are non-starters, though Rice certainly has the academic advantage.

Memphis is borderline at 10th place but they do expand the conference into Tennessee and encroach on SEC territory.

As to Tulsa, I'm not sure the league needs a 3rd OK school (same argument with Houston but in a smaller state). Air Force is clearly second to Colorado State in the rankings and I don't see the need to bring in both. SDSU would take the conference into Cal though.

Surprising to me were: low scores of the Florida schools. My best guess is this is due to lack of history. Same is true of Boise.

UNM was lower than I expected in every category. Tulane's academics don't make up for its lack of on field power.

Also surprisingly low was ECU. Even with the Chicago market NIU's low football attendance and academics keep it low.

UNLV was another surprise to me. It seems to have a great market and a solid bb team. However this assessment focused alot on football statistics which hurt it.

Buffalo was dead last, which was not too surprising. They can grow up alot and this is not an indictment on their school.

So, by the numbers, the top 4 to invite would be BYU, Temple, Cincy and Houston.

Of the frequently mentioned: BYU, Cincy, Houston and Colorado State.

If the league wants to look eastward: BYU, Cincy, UConn, Houston/Memphis.

Other possibilities: Cincy + UConn/Memphis as full members, BYU and Navy as football only?

Basically, I see BYU and Cincy as near certain. Houston has a decent chance, and then a coin flip between Colorado S/UConn/Memphis based on what the league really values and wants to do. Of those schools Colorado state does seem the best fit with schools like OK State and Iowa State, but that doesn't mean much.

Not bad at all. Pretty reasonable criteria and the outcome is also reasonable.

(07-27-2016 09:12 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Everyone should give Soobahk a break. He performed an objective analysis for 22 teams, and posted the results so that we could all discuss and enjoy our expanded insight. If you have issues with his choices, go and compile the information and make the ratings yourself. I've found that doing stuff like that takes much more time than a post, and I appreciate the people who take the time to do the analysis and post their results.

Absolutely. And as someone who has done these sorts of comparisons for discussion on this board, I can tell you they take a LONG time to put together. The info he used is MUCH simpler to aggregate, and thus that is probably why he did it. One year of attendance is so much easier than trying to use ten different sheets, and adding them together on a spreadsheet, looking up each one, and cateloging it. Those little changes people suggest, are SO time consuming, and likely don't make drastic changes in the results, and maybe help one team (which is why the suggestions were given, to help the team that person roots for).

The only real issue I see with how it played out, is the artificial attendance bump for Temple, which may have impacted it. The bowl games, asking to shorten the time frame: that kind of stuff matters, so you just can't eliminate that. Attendance for 10+ years, takes too long, to really only affect one or two results. TV Markets: you have to make judgment calls. Me personally, if we are dealing with those on the outside at this point, it is probably safer to assume consservative more than aggressive, since the assumption is if the candidates had a commanding audience share, they'd already be in. You have to use the market they are in, when they are physically in a market (SMU in Dallas, Temple in Philly, etc), but neighboring markets, I know when I have done these I don't count them (no Chicago for NIU, NYC for UConn, etc), or you skew numbers. As long as it is consistent across the board, and applied sytematically, that is all you can ask for. I think, considering he was just trying to make a quick comparison here, and not write a thesis, that he did an excellent job.

I'd say if you (any person asking him to alter it, not you Hawkeye) want him to add something to the comparison, you supply the data so he can input it. You want 10-15 years of attendance, give him the numbers. Not just the adobe file on the NCAA site, but the actually aggregated numbers. I guarantee once you sit and to that, you will no longer complain to him about the numbers he used.

(07-27-2016 11:09 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  So Team A plays a light schedule and goes to a bowl every year and that is better than Team B that plays a tough schedule and goes to a bowl every other year. Bad or insufficient criteria to use IMHO. I'm sure the B12 or the firm it uses to select particular candidates will be much more thorough than that.

That is the same criteria I see many an ECU fan use to justify ECU being better than UNC or NC State...

(07-27-2016 11:19 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Connecticut is a state though, it's not just Hartford. So you're using a single market for the entire state.

The Hartford TV market is the entire state less Fairfield County, which is in the NYC market. Hartford at 945,000 TV HH. Fairfield County probably adds 300,000 to that total, which would increase it to the number 21 TV market.

Unlike schools in pro sports towns, UConn totally dominates the market in Connecticut. Much more like a southern or Midwestern flagship than a northeastern one in this manner. Really, the only other northeastern schools with similar fan bases are Penn St. and Syracuse.

UConn almost certainly has to be number one (or two after BYU) for fanbase, and number three for academics (after Rice and Tulane).

It would come as a great shock to find that the only school with any media in Charlotte is UNC-Charlotte, not Clemson, UNC, NC State, and to assign Dallas the SMU and TCU as if Texas and TAMU are not the top schools of interest in that market.

The attempt at a short hand analysis has produced very questionable results.

Any metric that ends up with Temple, as the second best addition to the Big 12, less than a decade or so after being thrown out of the Big East is laughable.

1. Academics are a threshold, not a metric with which to gain "points". You either have a competitive admissions program, or you let everyone into your community college. If academics were so important to the B12, West Va would out and Cincy would be in the B12.

2. The physical location of the media market and the physical location of the school need not be one and the same. VT and Clemson are located in the equivalent of bum **** SC and Va, however their fans and alums are locate throughout their state. Penn State is the classic example. Every been to Happy Valley? I have. And someone is going to claim that Philly is a Temple town instead of PSU, please.

3. Crap bowl wins are not the measure of a program. The measure of a program are butts in seats and wins that matter - wins over P-5 schools.

4. How big is the schools endowment compared to it's age? That is a measure of potential financial support for the athletic program outside of being carried by a conference.

Poorly chosen measures are the reason much research is no good. If I was siting on this particular committee I would tell the student to go back and redo his proposals and come back with legitimate measures, only then can he begin to answer his question.

Here's a suggestion to refine this thing:

1. Is the school in the AAU?
2. Has the school had an AAU vote in the last 20 years?
3. What is the admissions rate - is it under 70%
4. Do they place graduates in the media?
5. Do they place graduates in positions of power?

Those are a few academic measures.

What media markets currently show the schools games, not just the physical home. Add them up and don't forget that TV signals tend to ignore artificial jurisdiction lines.

1. What was the football attendance in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980.
2. Is the trend up or down.
3. Are the results skewed by a huge traveling opponent.
4. How many show up to watch the school play dog state university? 5. When were the last seats added?

How old is the school from the time it became a REAL school, not it's start as Podunk Methodist bible college?

1. How large is the endowment?
2. How many decades have they been building the endowment?
3. How many 7 figure donations have been made in the last decade?
4. Are they any big wheels that can finance an athletic project?

(07-27-2016 02:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  It would come as a great shock to find that the only school with any media in Charlotte is UNC-Charlotte, not Clemson, UNC, NC State, and to assign Dallas the SMU and TCU as if Texas and TAMU are not the top schools of interest in that market.

The attempt at a short hand analysis has produced very questionable results.

Any metric that ends up with Temple, as the second best addition to the Big 12, less than a decade or so after being thrown out of the Big East is laughable.

1. Academics are a threshold, not a metric with which to gain "points". You either have a competitive admissions program, or you let everyone into you community college. If academics were so important to the B12, West Va would out and Cincy would be in the B12.

2. The physical location of the media market and the physical location of the school need not be one and the same. VT and Clemson are located in the equivalent of bum **** SC and Va, however their fans and alums are locate througout their state. Penn State is the classic example. Every been to Happy Valley? I have. And someone is going to claim that Philly is a Temple town instead of PSU, please.

3. Crap bowl wins are not the measure of a program. The measure of a program are butts in seats and wins that matter - wins over P-5 schools.

Poorly chosen measures are the reason much research is no good. If I was siting on this particular committee I would tell the student to go back and redo his proposals and come back with legitimate measures, only then can he begin to answer his question.

I just thought I would give you the definition of "decade"...
Decade- A period of ten years.

Temple attendance last year minus ND/PSU was 31,623. Not bad for a team with Temple's history.

(07-27-2016 02:45 PM)templefan1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 02:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  It would come as a great shock to find that the only school with any media in Charlotte is UNC-Charlotte, not Clemson, UNC, NC State, and to assign Dallas the SMU and TCU as if Texas and TAMU are not the top schools of interest in that market.

The attempt at a short hand analysis has produced very questionable results.

Any metric that ends up with Temple, as the second best addition to the Big 12, less than a decade or so after being thrown out of the Big East is laughable.

1. Academics are a threshold, not a metric with which to gain "points". You either have a competitive admissions program, or you let everyone into you community college. If academics were so important to the B12, West Va would out and Cincy would be in the B12.

2. The physical location of the media market and the physical location of the school need not be one and the same. VT and Clemson are located in the equivalent of bum **** SC and Va, however their fans and alums are locate througout their state. Penn State is the classic example. Every been to Happy Valley? I have. And someone is going to claim that Philly is a Temple town instead of PSU, please.

3. Crap bowl wins are not the measure of a program. The measure of a program are butts in seats and wins that matter - wins over P-5 schools.

Poorly chosen measures are the reason much research is no good. If I was siting on this particular committee I would tell the student to go back and redo his proposals and come back with legitimate measures, only then can he begin to answer his question.

I just thought I would give you the definition of "decade"...
Decade- A period of ten years.

Temple attendance last year minus ND/PSU was 31,623. Not bad for a team with Temple's history.

You were tossed out of the Big East in 2004.

My quote was "a decade or so". Either you are stupid, can not read, did not read, or are so embarrassed about Temple football that you leaped to clutch a mirage of an error in order to assuage your own inferiority. Which is it?

(07-27-2016 01:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:09 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  So Team A plays a light schedule and goes to a bowl every year and that is better than Team B that plays a tough schedule and goes to a bowl every other year. Bad or insufficient criteria to use IMHO. I'm sure the B12 or the firm it uses to select particular candidates will be much more thorough than that.

That is the same criteria I see many an ECU fan use to justify ECU being better than UNC or NC State...

You are so far off base with what I'm questioning on his methods and you are mixing apples and oranges. I am an ECU fan and don't claim us to be better than any other school and I challenge you to see where I have. Troll somewhere else slick.

Pretty much any criteria you go by is arbitrary but the resulting listing for this algorithm at least seems reasonable.

(07-27-2016 02:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 02:45 PM)templefan1 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 02:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  It would come as a great shock to find that the only school with any media in Charlotte is UNC-Charlotte, not Clemson, UNC, NC State, and to assign Dallas the SMU and TCU as if Texas and TAMU are not the top schools of interest in that market.

The attempt at a short hand analysis has produced very questionable results.

Any metric that ends up with Temple, as the second best addition to the Big 12, less than a decade or so after being thrown out of the Big East is laughable.

1. Academics are a threshold, not a metric with which to gain "points". You either have a competitive admissions program, or you let everyone into you community college. If academics were so important to the B12, West Va would out and Cincy would be in the B12.

2. The physical location of the media market and the physical location of the school need not be one and the same. VT and Clemson are located in the equivalent of bum **** SC and Va, however their fans and alums are locate througout their state. Penn State is the classic example. Every been to Happy Valley? I have. And someone is going to claim that Philly is a Temple town instead of PSU, please.

3. Crap bowl wins are not the measure of a program. The measure of a program are butts in seats and wins that matter - wins over P-5 schools.

Poorly chosen measures are the reason much research is no good. If I was siting on this particular committee I would tell the student to go back and redo his proposals and come back with legitimate measures, only then can he begin to answer his question.

I just thought I would give you the definition of "decade"...
Decade- A period of ten years.

Temple attendance last year minus ND/PSU was 31,623. Not bad for a team with Temple's history.

You were tossed out of the Big East in 2004.

My quote was "a decade or so". Either you are stupid, can not read, did not read, or are so embarrassed about Temple football that you leaped to clutch a mirage of an error in order to assuage your own inferiority. Which is it?

Wrong, Temple was kicked out of the BE is 2001. They still played in the league until 2004 but that doesn't matter. They were kicked out in 2001 and at that point it didn't really matter that they played games till 2004 in the BE.

Your quote was actually "less than a decade or so". So you consider 15 years since being kicked out "less than a decade or so"...Gotcha.

Just admit you were shooting from the hip without actually researching your statement.

I know what embarrassment is watching a team win 1 game in two seasons. I sir, am not embarrassed by Temple Football's current status at all. More likely the case, you are an ill-informed poster who can't get over preconceived notions of Temple Football from 15 years ago.

(07-27-2016 02:51 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:09 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  So Team A plays a light schedule and goes to a bowl every year and that is better than Team B that plays a tough schedule and goes to a bowl every other year. Bad or insufficient criteria to use IMHO. I'm sure the B12 or the firm it uses to select particular candidates will be much more thorough than that.

That is the same criteria I see many an ECU fan use to justify ECU being better than UNC or NC State...

You are so far off base with what I'm questioning on his methods and you are mixing apples and oranges. I am an ECU fan and don't claim us to be better than any other school and I challenge you to see where I have. Troll somewhere else slick.

I am not of base at all. In fact there is an entire thread on the front page that proves this. Just because YOU don't donthat, doesn't make my statement untrue

(07-27-2016 05:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 02:51 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:09 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  So Team A plays a light schedule and goes to a bowl every year and that is better than Team B that plays a tough schedule and goes to a bowl every other year. Bad or insufficient criteria to use IMHO. I'm sure the B12 or the firm it uses to select particular candidates will be much more thorough than that.

That is the same criteria I see many an ECU fan use to justify ECU being better than UNC or NC State...

You are so far off base with what I'm questioning on his methods and you are mixing apples and oranges. I am an ECU fan and don't claim us to be better than any other school and I challenge you to see where I have. Troll somewhere else slick.

I am not of base at all. In fact there is an entire thread on the front page that proves this. Just because YOU don't donthat, doesn't make my statement untrue

Yes, fact is your wrong.

I am not sure you seem to understand the meaning of the word "fact?" Norr have the ability to look around this site. And do not understand the use of proper grammar (it is you are, or you're, not "your," which is relevant when telling someone how "wrong" they are). So why would I waste time responding further?

(07-26-2016 04:15 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Methodology:
Big 12 has stated they will evaluate teams based on:
1 Academics
2 Fan Base
3 Athletic Program
4 Media Markets
5 "Reputation"

I looked at 22 schools. I chose all the AAC schools, Rice from CUSA, Boise, NM, Colorado State, UNLV, and Air Force from the MWC, then BYU, NIU and Buffalo as well (since they are an AAU school that has at least gotten mentioned in the past as a candidate for the Big 10). I apologize if I did not consider your school, no offense meant at all!

Since I cannot quantify "reputation" I used:
1) Academics (average of USN/ARW compared with Big 12 average. Teams that were within 10 points either way I considered to "meet" the standard, higher was "above" and lower was "below." I considered schools that did not have either of these rankings "below," SMU/Tulsa had an USN score but not an ARW score, however they were Carnegie "higher research," and their USN scores were above average for the Big 12 so I considered them "meet." The academies I didn't quite know how to quantify so I considered them "meet," as well). These were then ranked 1-22 (1s for the "above," 7s for the "meets", 14s for the belows)

2) Bowl Game Appearances - By counting bowl game appearances I quantify at least competent football seasons, and those schools with more history/better reputation would have higher numbers. These were then ranked 1-22.

3) NCAA Tournament appearances. See above. By including both basketball and football it accounts for basketball first schools as well as gives a more holistic view of the athletic department. I chose not to include baseball or other Olympic sports for simplicity's sake. These were ranked 1-22

4) 2015 Football Average Home Game Attendance: This helps see the "fan base" of each school. Ranked 1-22

5) Media markets: I admittedly used a reddit chart for this category (google search: fbs schools media market). This chart gave schools like SMU credit for Dallas, so I did the same, then ranked the schools 1-22.

Final tallies (fewer points means better scoring school):
BYU 18
Temple 32
Cincy 34
Houston 38
Navy 38
Colorado S 43
UConn 44
SMU 45
Rice 50
Memphis 54
Tulsa/Air Force/SDSU 57
USF 60
UCF/Boise 63
New Mexico 64
Tulane 66
ECU/NIU 68
UNLV 74
Buffalo 82

BYU is the far and away highest ranked option, and this isn't that surprising.

Since geography was not mentioned as a category, Temple should not be surprising as a top performer. But they are not being mentioned very often in connection with the Big 12.

After Temple was Cincy. There is a reason Cincy was the "leader in the clubhouse."

Navy performed well too, but is also not often mentioned. Not sure how Big 12 views Navy.

Houston, Colorado State and UConn are all bunched together next. I'm not surprised by this at all.

My assumption is that SMU and Rice are non-starters, though Rice certainly has the academic advantage.

Memphis is borderline at 10th place but they do expand the conference into Tennessee and encroach on SEC territory.

As to Tulsa, I'm not sure the league needs a 3rd OK school (same argument with Houston but in a smaller state). Air Force is clearly second to Colorado State in the rankings and I don't see the need to bring in both. SDSU would take the conference into Cal though.

Surprising to me were: low scores of the Florida schools. My best guess is this is due to lack of history. Same is true of Boise.

UNM was lower than I expected in every category. Tulane's academics don't make up for its lack of on field power.

Also surprisingly low was ECU. Even with the Chicago market NIU's low football attendance and academics keep it low.

UNLV was another surprise to me. It seems to have a great market and a solid bb team. However this assessment focused alot on football statistics which hurt it.

Buffalo was dead last, which was not too surprising. They can grow up alot and this is not an indictment on their school.

So, by the numbers, the top 4 to invite would be BYU, Temple, Cincy and Houston.

Of the frequently mentioned: BYU, Cincy, Houston and Colorado State.

If the league wants to look eastward: BYU, Cincy, UConn, Houston/Memphis.

Other possibilities: Cincy + UConn/Memphis as full members, BYU and Navy as football only?

Basically, I see BYU and Cincy as near certain. Houston has a decent chance, and then a coin flip between Colorado S/UConn/Memphis based on what the league really values and wants to do. Of those schools Colorado state does seem the best fit with schools like OK State and Iowa State, but that doesn't mean much.

Yes, all Memphis fans know that Tennessee fans are holding their breath, praying that UM is NOT one of the schools invited to the B12.........along with Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas. So, this orange-colored canvas is no surprise whatsoever.

TM

(07-28-2016 08:33 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not sure you seem to understand the meaning of the word "fact?" Norr have the ability to look around this site. And do not understand the use of proper grammar (it is you are, or you're, not "your," which is relevant when telling someone how "wrong" they are). So why would I waste time responding further?

Best that you can come back with is a grammar mistake from using a phone keypad that autocorrects to the word it thinks you are trying to type. The bottom line is you are trolling and you are wrong about what I was asking the other poster. Move on.

(07-28-2016 09:09 AM)Tigermemphis Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 04:15 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Methodology:
Big 12 has stated they will evaluate teams based on:
1 Academics
2 Fan Base
3 Athletic Program
4 Media Markets
5 "Reputation"

I looked at 22 schools. I chose all the AAC schools, Rice from CUSA, Boise, NM, Colorado State, UNLV, and Air Force from the MWC, then BYU, NIU and Buffalo as well (since they are an AAU school that has at least gotten mentioned in the past as a candidate for the Big 10). I apologize if I did not consider your school, no offense meant at all!

Since I cannot quantify "reputation" I used:
1) Academics (average of USN/ARW compared with Big 12 average. Teams that were within 10 points either way I considered to "meet" the standard, higher was "above" and lower was "below." I considered schools that did not have either of these rankings "below," SMU/Tulsa had an USN score but not an ARW score, however they were Carnegie "higher research," and their USN scores were above average for the Big 12 so I considered them "meet." The academies I didn't quite know how to quantify so I considered them "meet," as well). These were then ranked 1-22 (1s for the "above," 7s for the "meets", 14s for the belows)

2) Bowl Game Appearances - By counting bowl game appearances I quantify at least competent football seasons, and those schools with more history/better reputation would have higher numbers. These were then ranked 1-22.

3) NCAA Tournament appearances. See above. By including both basketball and football it accounts for basketball first schools as well as gives a more holistic view of the athletic department. I chose not to include baseball or other Olympic sports for simplicity's sake. These were ranked 1-22

4) 2015 Football Average Home Game Attendance: This helps see the "fan base" of each school. Ranked 1-22

5) Media markets: I admittedly used a reddit chart for this category (google search: fbs schools media market). This chart gave schools like SMU credit for Dallas, so I did the same, then ranked the schools 1-22.

Final tallies (fewer points means better scoring school):
BYU 18
Temple 32
Cincy 34
Houston 38
Navy 38
Colorado S 43
UConn 44
SMU 45
Rice 50
Memphis 54
Tulsa/Air Force/SDSU 57
USF 60
UCF/Boise 63
New Mexico 64
Tulane 66
ECU/NIU 68
UNLV 74
Buffalo 82

BYU is the far and away highest ranked option, and this isn't that surprising.

Since geography was not mentioned as a category, Temple should not be surprising as a top performer. But they are not being mentioned very often in connection with the Big 12.

After Temple was Cincy. There is a reason Cincy was the "leader in the clubhouse."

Navy performed well too, but is also not often mentioned. Not sure how Big 12 views Navy.

Houston, Colorado State and UConn are all bunched together next. I'm not surprised by this at all.

My assumption is that SMU and Rice are non-starters, though Rice certainly has the academic advantage.

Memphis is borderline at 10th place but they do expand the conference into Tennessee and encroach on SEC territory.

As to Tulsa, I'm not sure the league needs a 3rd OK school (same argument with Houston but in a smaller state). Air Force is clearly second to Colorado State in the rankings and I don't see the need to bring in both. SDSU would take the conference into Cal though.

Surprising to me were: low scores of the Florida schools. My best guess is this is due to lack of history. Same is true of Boise.

UNM was lower than I expected in every category. Tulane's academics don't make up for its lack of on field power.

Also surprisingly low was ECU. Even with the Chicago market NIU's low football attendance and academics keep it low.

UNLV was another surprise to me. It seems to have a great market and a solid bb team. However this assessment focused alot on football statistics which hurt it.

Buffalo was dead last, which was not too surprising. They can grow up alot and this is not an indictment on their school.

So, by the numbers, the top 4 to invite would be BYU, Temple, Cincy and Houston.

Of the frequently mentioned: BYU, Cincy, Houston and Colorado State.

If the league wants to look eastward: BYU, Cincy, UConn, Houston/Memphis.

Other possibilities: Cincy + UConn/Memphis as full members, BYU and Navy as football only?

Basically, I see BYU and Cincy as near certain. Houston has a decent chance, and then a coin flip between Colorado S/UConn/Memphis based on what the league really values and wants to do. Of those schools Colorado state does seem the best fit with schools like OK State and Iowa State, but that doesn't mean much.

Yes, all Memphis fans know that Tennessee fans are holding their breath, praying that UM is NOT one of the schools invited to the B12.........along with Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas. So, this orange-colored canvas is no surprise whatsoever.

TM

Though it won't mean much I will say I had no intention to disperage Memphis. I don't think SMU and Rice are really being considered (Houston is the Texas option) so this analysis shows what other people have said: It may come down between UConn and Memphis.

UConn does have more respected academics but Memphis is a better fit for sure. If I have a bias, I actually have more animosity toward UConn than Memphis because of Summitt. But I hope I am fair to both teams.

Still, I think it is wrong to put Boise State way down there.

1.They are in first place of all FBS with the most wins since 2000.
2.Finished in the top 25 in the polls at the end of the year more times than any of the other G5 schools in that same time period.
3.Went to more access bowls than other G5 schools.
4.Boise State did drew more than 5 millions viewers when they played Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl. It was like 7 times more than the population of the state of Idaho.
5.They are becoming a National Brand name school because of their winning thanks to ESPN.
6.Boise State had 5 20 plus wins in men's basketball in the past 5 years, made the 68 field twice, and in some other post game tournaments.
7.Won the PAC 12 wrestling championship.
8.They are one of the top choices than some of the schools listed like Rice, Tulane and others.

Your idea is great, but it does do some kind of disservice to Boise State who is one of the most attractive brands of the G5 because of a very strong football program.

(07-28-2016 10:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Still, I think it is wrong to put Boise State way down there.

1.They are in first place of all FBS with the most wins since 2000.
2.Finished in the top 25 in the polls at the end of the year more times than any of the other G5 schools in that same time period.
3.Went to more access bowls than other G5 schools.
4.Boise State did drew more than 5 millions viewers when they played Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl. It was like 7 times more than the population of the state of Idaho.
5.They are becoming a National Brand name school because of their winning thanks to ESPN.
6.Boise State had 5 20 plus wins in men's basketball in the past 5 years, made the 68 field twice, and in some other post game tournaments.
7.Won the PAC 12 wrestling championship.
8.They are one of the top choices than some of the schools listed like Rice, Tulane and others.

Your idea is great, but it does do some kind of disservice to Boise State who is one of the most attractive brands of the G5 because of a very strong football program.

I appreciate the compliment and definitely agree that Boise is one of the most attractive brands. However, it cannot help its market size (one of the big things that hurt it in my analysis - put Boise in Chicago without changing anything else and they are fourth behind BYU, Temple and Cincy.)

While Boise itself is a small market (22nd place out of 22 teams analysed), I do agree that is does have a national following at this point. That is harder to quantify. But the other issue for Boise is that it is still a newcomer. With more time and sustained football success alone it will climb the list. With even slight improvements to academics and a couple more tourney appearances it will certainly improve its chances of getting into a P5 program.