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.

Well done

If UConn is out due to geography, it comes down to Memphis and CSU and I do not see CSU getting that bid over Memphis.

To me, the real battle is Memphis versus UConn.

How many of those "bowl appearances" were at the end of 6-5 (for example) seasons. What teams did those teams beat to get to each of those bowls. Did you have any weighting criteria for victories over contract conference teams versus fcs wins? Or was it simply the number of bowl appearances. Did you consider whether they won the bowl or not or who the opponent was? Just curious. If all you did was count the number of the appearances does that tell the whole story?

(07-26-2016 05:46 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  How many of those "bowl appearances" were at the end of 6-5 (for example) seasons. What teams did those teams beat to get to each of those bowls. Did you have any weighting criteria for victories over contract conference teams versus fcs wins? Or was it simply the number of bowl appearances. Did you consider whether they won the bowl or not or who the opponent was? Just curious. If all you did was count the number of the appearances does that tell the whole story?

Straight number of bowl appearances, no weighting for opponent or victories.

It depends on what story you want to tell. I was focused on "has a reasonable athletic team" versus "has had an elite team,"

At a minimum, you need to add TV ratings and top-25 finishes to help measure Reputation, Fan Base, and Athletics Program....

So "all time" bowl games, even from 100 years ago. Ie Navy 22; USF 7. Maybe a better analysis would be how many years playing football divided by number of bowl games.

ONLY 2015 attendance, not "all time" average. Not sure why except maybe easier

"All time" NCAA tourney appearances. Again, only helps teams playing hoops for a hundred years

Kudos for the effort though
ps; basketball means nothing in expansion unless you are the Big East

Bonus points should be added as well. Look at Boise State? They usually draw more viewers than the population of their state. As it is, they are ratings gold for ESPN than most of the other G5 schools.

(07-26-2016 06:42 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So "all time" bowl games, even from 100 years ago. Ie Navy 22; USF 7. Maybe a better analysis would be how many years playing football divided by number of bowl games.

ONLY 2015 attendance, not "all time" average. Not sure why except maybe easier

"All time" NCAA tourney appearances. Again, only helps teams playing hoops for a hundred years

Kudos for the effort though
ps; basketball means nothing in expansion unless you are the Big East

I admit it is a simple analysis. And I would say that while basketball means little compared to football it is a factor. Otherwise UConn might not have as much potential.

(07-26-2016 09:19 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:42 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So "all time" bowl games, even from 100 years ago. Ie Navy 22; USF 7. Maybe a better analysis would be how many years playing football divided by number of bowl games.

ONLY 2015 attendance, not "all time" average. Not sure why except maybe easier

"All time" NCAA tourney appearances. Again, only helps teams playing hoops for a hundred years

Kudos for the effort though
ps; basketball means nothing in expansion unless you are the Big East

I admit it is a simple analysis. And I would say that while basketball means little compared to football it is a factor. Otherwise UConn might not have as much potential.

I certainly appreciate your personal effort and analysis more than most of the click bait hacks who just regurgitate other people's lame opinions.

(07-26-2016 09:36 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:19 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:42 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So "all time" bowl games, even from 100 years ago. Ie Navy 22; USF 7. Maybe a better analysis would be how many years playing football divided by number of bowl games.

ONLY 2015 attendance, not "all time" average. Not sure why except maybe easier

"All time" NCAA tourney appearances. Again, only helps teams playing hoops for a hundred years

Kudos for the effort though
ps; basketball means nothing in expansion unless you are the Big East

I admit it is a simple analysis. And I would say that while basketball means little compared to football it is a factor. Otherwise UConn might not have as much potential.

I certainly appreciate your personal effort and analysis more than most of the click bait hacks who just regurgitate other people's lame opinions.

Thanks. And to be fair, I really was surprised that USFs ranking and other factors would certainly.improve it.

I think you have a lot of not useful info. I would look at bowl appearances over the last 10 or 15 years only. 2nd attendance should be a 5 to 10 year average, not just 2015. Same with NCAA trips, go back 10 to 15 years. If you want an extra category for age great. But don't use stuff from 40 to 00 years ago in 3 to 5 different ways, it is mostly irrelevant.

Bottom line is you need to end up with a good reflection of programs over the last 5 to 15 years. And future projections on direction of the same programs.

(07-27-2016 07:06 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I think you have a lot of not useful info. I would look at bowl appearances over the last 10 or 15 years only. 2nd attendance should be a 5 to 10 year average, not just 2015. Same with NCAA trips, go back 10 to 15 years. If you want an extra category for age great. But don't use stuff from 40 to 00 years ago in 3 to 5 different ways, it is mostly irrelevant.

Bottom line is you need to end up with a good reflection of programs over the last 5 to 15 years. And future projections on direction of the same programs.

Quit copying me...

(07-27-2016 07:06 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I think you have a lot of not useful info. I would look at bowl appearances over the last 10 or 15 years only. 2nd attendance should be a 5 to 10 year average, not just 2015. Same with NCAA trips, go back 10 to 15 years. If you want an extra category for age great. But don't use stuff from 40 to 00 years ago in 3 to 5 different ways, it is mostly irrelevant.

Bottom line is you need to end up with a good reflection of programs over the last 5 to 15 years. And future projections on direction of the same programs.

The last 15 years is most relevant, but older is also relevant, both because it shows what a school has done over an extended period of time and because it means more general name recognition. Its a mistake to take a school in a P5 who hasn't even been top division for 20 years. More casual fans (not the ones on message boards) are going to ask, "I didn't think UConn played football?" or "What is a UCF-Is that where Ronda Rousey fights?" or may remember South Florida winning a national chess championship as well as being in the Big East.

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.

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.

(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.

Wonder why this was not in your original post ? Your evaluation is skewed.

(07-26-2016 06:02 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 05:46 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  How many of those "bowl appearances" were at the end of 6-5 (for example) seasons. What teams did those teams beat to get to each of those bowls. Did you have any weighting criteria for victories over contract conference teams versus fcs wins? Or was it simply the number of bowl appearances. Did you consider whether they won the bowl or not or who the opponent was? Just curious. If all you did was count the number of the appearances does that tell the whole story?

Straight number of bowl appearances, no weighting for opponent or victories.

It depends on what story you want to tell. I was focused on "has a reasonable athletic team" versus "has had an elite team,"

The story you want to tell? The media does that well enough by itself.

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.

(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.

(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.

Connecticut is a state though, it's not just Hartford. So you're using a single market for the entire state.