His methodology ranks home attendance, market size/share, valuation & social media following. He includes all 65 P5 schools, plus 8 possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach...e840f42189

1) Ohio State
2) Michigan
3) Alabama
4) Texas
5) Penn State
6) Notre Dame
7) LSU
8) Georgia
9) Auburn
10) Texas A&M
11) Florida
12) Oklahoma
13) Tennessee
14) Clemson
15) Wisconsin
16) Nebraska
17) South Carolina
18) Iowa
19) Michigan State
20) Arkansas
21) Florida State
22) Virginia Tech
23) Southern Cal
24) Miami
25) Washington
26) Oregon
27) UCLA
28) Mississippi
29) Kentucky
30) Mississippi State
31) Oklahoma State
32) Texas Tech
33) Missouri
34) Georgia Tech
35) Arizona State
36) Minnesota
37) West Virginia
38) North Carolina
39) BYU
40) Iowa State
41) Utah
42) NC State
43) Kansas State
44) California
45) Louisville
46) Illinois
47) TCU
48) Stanford
49) Pittsburgh
50) Arizona
51) Rutgers
52) Indiana
53) Colorado
54) Purdue
55) Kansas
56) UCF
57) Virginia
58) Maryland
59) Baylor
60) Syracuse
61) Northwestern
62) Boise State
63) Oregon State
64) Boston College
65) USF
66) Washington State
67) Duke
68) Vanderbilt
69) Memphis
70) Houston
71) Cincinnati
72) Wake Forest
73) SMU

So this is how I learn UMass isn't an expansion candidate for the Big 12? Madness.

I would remove social media following entirely. Only 2% of the country is active on twitter.

So USC is #23 sitting behind Arky, Mich ST, Iowa and South Carolina?

Something seems off here. I guess the Big Ten and SEC must have a tendency to raise all the boats in their harbor.

Location is everything, especially for Olympic sports. Doubt you would want your cross country team flying across country on a bi monthly basis for meets or your field hockey team making it weekly.

(08-05-2021 09:50 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I would remove social media following entirely. Only 2% of the country is active on twitter.

The social media element is false data. Nate Silver used it before finding out the methodology was to allow college kids to vote on a website and vote early and often.

That's how Rutgers became the most popular football program in NYC and how ECU became more popular than NC State and UNC in eastern NC. Also, everyone who shares a home DMA/CSA footprint are somewhat cannabalizing each other and would look different if they were the only one in a conference in that market.

That applies to USC/UCLA, UGa/GT. NC State/Duke/UNC, and to a lesser degree Michigan and MSU.

(08-05-2021 11:00 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 09:50 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I would remove social media following entirely. Only 2% of the country is active on twitter.

The social media element is false data. Nate Silver used it before finding out the methodology was to allow college kids to vote on a website and vote early and often.

That's how Rutgers became the most popular football program in NYC and how ECU became more popular than NC State and UNC in eastern NC.

Yep, that stuff is so easily manipulated I would never include it in anything.

I've bolded those schools that face a professional football franchise in their home market. None of the top 20 face that issue. I would also note that USC, Miami, Washington, UCLA, GT, Arizona State, Cal, Minnesota, Colorado, and Vandy picked up their professional rivals over 50 years after playing in their home markets without professional football.

(08-05-2021 06:42 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  His methodology ranks home attendance, market size/share, valuation & social media following. He includes all 65 P5 schools, plus 8 possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach...e840f42189

1) Ohio State
2) Michigan
3) Alabama
4) Texas
5) Penn State
6) Notre Dame
7) LSU
8) Georgia
9) Auburn
10) Texas A&M
11) Florida
12) Oklahoma
13) Tennessee
14) Clemson
15) Wisconsin
16) Nebraska
17) South Carolina
18) Iowa
19) Michigan State
20) Arkansas
21) Florida State
22) Virginia Tech
23) Southern Cal
24) Miami
25) Washington
26) Oregon
27) UCLA
28) Mississippi
29) Kentucky
30) Mississippi State
31) Oklahoma State
32) Texas Tech
33) Missouri
34) Georgia Tech
35) Arizona State
36) Minnesota
37) West Virginia
38) North Carolina
39) BYU
40) Iowa State
41) Utah
42) NC State
43) Kansas State
44) California
45) Louisville
46) Illinois
47) TCU
48) Stanford
49) Pittsburgh
50) Arizona
51) Rutgers
52) Indiana
53) Colorado
54) Purdue
55) Kansas
56) UCF
57) Virginia
58) Maryland
59) Baylor
60) Syracuse
61) Northwestern
62) Boise State
63) Oregon State
64) Boston College
65) USF
66) Washington State
67) Duke
68) Vanderbilt
69) Memphis
70) Houston
71) Cincinnati
72) Wake Forest
73) SMU

(08-05-2021 06:42 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  His methodology ranks home attendance, market size/share, valuation & social media following. He includes all 65 P5 schools, plus 8 possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

I prefer the WSJ or Forbes rankings. IMO this guy adds in some extraneous stuff.

All ratings will produce similar results, of course. I think the last time the WSJ did theirs, the rankings were:

1) Texas
2) Ohio State
3) Alabama
4) Michigan
5) Notre Dame
6) Georgia
7) Oklahoma
8) Auburn
9) LSU
10) Tennessee

(08-05-2021 11:03 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 11:00 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 09:50 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I would remove social media following entirely. Only 2% of the country is active on twitter.

The social media element is false data. Nate Silver used it before finding out the methodology was to allow college kids to vote on a website and vote early and often.

That's how Rutgers became the most popular football program in NYC and how ECU became more popular than NC State and UNC in eastern NC.

Yep, that stuff is so easily manipulated I would never include it in anything.

You would. Marketers won't (and know how to get proper data). NIL money will flow to Engagement.

Interesting stat I heard today on a monthly call the AD is doing with UCAT members: UC has the largest number of ESPN+ subscribers in the AAC. Our two games on ESPN+ last season were the most viewed in the conference. That might be a good thing.

My general impression in terms of actual conference realignment value (which is correlated but not the same as on-the-field value) would account for the following:

(1) Discount the importance of home attendance figure more - it's relevant in the sense that selling 100,000 seats per game shows power at the top end and terrible home attendance is a red flag at the bottom end, but its value in determining everyone in between isn't very good.

(2) Understand the "true market" for each school - The value in Ohio State isn't that it delivers Columbus, but rather that it delivers the entire state of Ohio plus having a huge national brand. Same thing with UT, Alabama, Michigan, Florida, etc. On the flip side, it's not accurate to claim that TCU or Baylor can deliver the state of Texas in the way that UT does (or UCF delivers the state of Florida in the way that UF does). This might be the most important factor in conference realignment, yet it's also much harder to determine than just simply viewing widely available data. This is where all of those high priced media consultant fees come in.

(3) Private schools tend to get underrated and non-flagship public schools tend to get overrated - In any pure size calculation, private schools always seem to get underrated in these rankings. Look at USC coming in at #23 in this ranking when the reality is that they are a very clear top 10 (and probably top 5) school when it comes to the entire conference realignment package of national brand, historical football power, huge TV market, elite academics and top recruiting area. On the flip side, non-flagship public schools often get a boost on metrics where sheer school size is helpful (e.g. attendance) but the reality is that they often get discounted in the eyes of the people making conference realignment decisions.

(08-05-2021 11:09 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I've bolded those schools that face a professional football franchise in their home market. None of the top 20 face that issue. I would also note that USC, Miami, Washington, UCLA, GT, Arizona State, Cal, Minnesota, Colorado, and Vandy picked up their professional rivals over 50 years after playing in their home markets without professional football.

(08-05-2021 06:42 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  His methodology ranks home attendance, market size/share, valuation & social media following. He includes all 65 P5 schools, plus 8 possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach...e840f42189

1) Ohio State
2) Michigan
3) Alabama
4) Texas
5) Penn State
6) Notre Dame
7) LSU
8) Georgia
9) Auburn
10) Texas A&M
11) Florida
12) Oklahoma
13) Tennessee
14) Clemson
15) Wisconsin
16) Nebraska
17) South Carolina
18) Iowa
19) Michigan State
20) Arkansas
21) Florida State
22) Virginia Tech
23) Southern Cal
24) Miami
25) Washington
26) Oregon
27) UCLA
28) Mississippi
29) Kentucky
30) Mississippi State
31) Oklahoma State
32) Texas Tech
33) Missouri
34) Georgia Tech
35) Arizona State
36) Minnesota
37) West Virginia
38) North Carolina
39) BYU
40) Iowa State
41) Utah
42) NC State
43) Kansas State
44) California
45) Louisville
46) Illinois
47) TCU
48) Stanford
49) Pittsburgh
50) Arizona
51) Rutgers
52) Indiana
53) Colorado
54) Purdue
55) Kansas
56) UCF
57) Virginia
58) Maryland
59) Baylor
60) Syracuse
61) Northwestern
62) Boise State
63) Oregon State
64) Boston College
65) USF
66) Washington State
67) Duke
68) Vanderbilt
69) Memphis
70) Houston
71) Cincinnati
72) Wake Forest
73) SMU

It's somewhat relevant, but I think it's overstated. Michigan at #2 is clearly in the Detroit market, so that would be an NFL market. Notre Dame isn't directly in the Chicago market (a pro market if there ever was one), but close enough that it's effectively a Chicago school. Putting that aside, a lot of the value of the top schools are that they deliver their respective *states* (not just direct markets), and in that vein, most of the top schools have intra-state pro competition. Practically speaking, I think a lot of people are just like me: I watch my college team on Saturday and my NFL team on Sunday and it's not as if though one takes away from the other.

Yeah it was posted before.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-926207.html

Using 10-year old data was not a good decision IMO.

(08-05-2021 01:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (2) Understand the "true market" for each school - The value in Ohio State isn't that it delivers Columbus, but rather that it delivers the entire state of Ohio plus having a huge national brand. Same thing with UT, Alabama, Michigan, Florida, etc. On the flip side, it's not accurate to claim that TCU or Baylor can deliver the state of Texas in the way that UT does (or UCF delivers the state of Florida in the way that UF does). This might be the most important factor in conference realignment, yet it's also much harder to determine than just simply viewing widely available data. This is where all of those high priced media consultant fees come in.

UCF is the exception - it brings a rabid following with no immediate NFL fanchise (and fans likely split between the 3 in FL) - EVERYONE in Orlando roots for UCF, it may as well be their NFL team - just like Kansas is a sub for an NBA franchise in KC area.

UCF is a sleeping giant - give them P5 access to the playoffs and exposure and they will take off.

(08-05-2021 02:26 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 01:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (2) Understand the "true market" for each school - The value in Ohio State isn't that it delivers Columbus, but rather that it delivers the entire state of Ohio plus having a huge national brand. Same thing with UT, Alabama, Michigan, Florida, etc. On the flip side, it's not accurate to claim that TCU or Baylor can deliver the state of Texas in the way that UT does (or UCF delivers the state of Florida in the way that UF does). This might be the most important factor in conference realignment, yet it's also much harder to determine than just simply viewing widely available data. This is where all of those high priced media consultant fees come in.

UCF is the exception - it brings a rabid following with no immediate NFL fanchise (and fans likely split between the 3 in FL) - EVERYONE in Orlando roots for UCF, it may as well be their NFL team - just like Kansas is a sub for an NBA franchise in KC area.

UCF is a sleeping giant - give them P5 access to the playoffs and exposure and they will take off.

Just like Syracuse is the default FBS and big time BB team for most of Upstate NY (and a #2 or 3 in NY). When Buffalo was kneecapped by SUNY in the 60's and 70's, it eliminated a potential threat to SU. When the Bills didn't leave in the early 70's, it just lowered UB's potential further.

Many of the rankings are bloated by the conference they play in (e.g., OK State, Texas Tech, several SEC schools), others hurt (e.g., UNC). Basketball, although smaller, would shuffle some rankings. There are also institutions like Duke, Stanford and Northwestern, that don't bring much on the football field but raise the perception of the quality of schools, and thus the importance of the conference.

Also the rankings are discreet, so you don't see the actual valuations. There are probably clusters of a dozen or so schools where the difference is effectively nothing (e.g., 22 to 34 may be so close anyone of them could rank first or last within that group on any given year), and others where a single place ranking difference represents a 10% drop off in value.

As for Big 12 expansion (back fill), it is yet another measure which says BYU is the only school that materially helps. And if anything BYU's value is way understated because it's a Football Independent playing in an obscure Basketball conference (besides Gonzaga it's a bunch of no name small private schools playing in glorified gyms before hundreds of fans and broadcast on community access TV channels).

(I am increasingly of the opinion the Big 12 should add BYU and for a 10th add a Basketball only school, first going to Gonzaga with Dayton or Loyola Chicago as the fall back candidates.)

One giant list is pointless because what a conference has, dictates what they need; and each program is going to bring a different value to each conference.

For example, Houston brought no value to the Big 12 up until last month. NOW they'd bring a lot of value.

SMU would bring far more value to the Big Ten, ACC, or Pac-12 than the SEC or Big 12, because the latter two have Texas schools, the former do not.

(08-05-2021 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-05-2021 11:09 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I've bolded those schools that face a professional football franchise in their home market. None of the top 20 face that issue. I would also note that USC, Miami, Washington, UCLA, GT, Arizona State, Cal, Minnesota, Colorado, and Vandy picked up their professional rivals over 50 years after playing in their home markets without professional football.

(08-05-2021 06:42 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  His methodology ranks home attendance, market size/share, valuation & social media following. He includes all 65 P5 schools, plus 8 possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach...e840f42189

1) Ohio State
2) Michigan
3) Alabama
4) Texas
5) Penn State
6) Notre Dame
7) LSU
8) Georgia
9) Auburn
10) Texas A&M
11) Florida
12) Oklahoma
13) Tennessee
14) Clemson
15) Wisconsin
16) Nebraska
17) South Carolina
18) Iowa
19) Michigan State
20) Arkansas
21) Florida State
22) Virginia Tech
23) Southern Cal
24) Miami
25) Washington
26) Oregon
27) UCLA
28) Mississippi
29) Kentucky
30) Mississippi State
31) Oklahoma State
32) Texas Tech
33) Missouri
34) Georgia Tech
35) Arizona State
36) Minnesota
37) West Virginia
38) North Carolina
39) BYU
40) Iowa State
41) Utah
42) NC State
43) Kansas State
44) California
45) Louisville
46) Illinois
47) TCU
48) Stanford
49) Pittsburgh
50) Arizona
51) Rutgers
52) Indiana
53) Colorado
54) Purdue
55) Kansas
56) UCF
57) Virginia
58) Maryland
59) Baylor
60) Syracuse
61) Northwestern
62) Boise State
63) Oregon State
64) Boston College
65) USF
66) Washington State
67) Duke
68) Vanderbilt
69) Memphis
70) Houston
71) Cincinnati
72) Wake Forest
73) SMU

It's somewhat relevant, but I think it's overstated. Michigan at #2 is clearly in the Detroit market, so that would be an NFL market. Notre Dame isn't directly in the Chicago market (a pro market if there ever was one), but close enough that it's effectively a Chicago school. Putting that aside, a lot of the value of the top schools are that they deliver their respective *states* (not just direct markets), and in that vein, most of the top schools have intra-state pro competition. Practically speaking, I think a lot of people are just like me: I watch my college team on Saturday and my NFL team on Sunday and it's not as if though one takes away from the other.

It's 45 miles from Ann Arbor to Ford Field. That's 10 miles further than the Ravens are to MD. In almost all other cases other than Stanford and Cal, the competition is sited just a few miles away. But I agree that you are technically correct.

Real value is who you would start with to build a 16 team conference.

1. Notre Dame
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State

I don't think anyone is his or her right mind can argue these three and in this order.

Who then comes next, 4,5,6,7,8? Texas, LSU, Georgia, USC, Penn State

9,10, 11, 12 - Michigan, Florida, Oklahoma, Washington

13, 14, 15, 16 - FSU, Clemson, Wisconsin, Oregon, TAMU, Bolded = First Little Brothers so to speak but they are in the states of Texas and Florida.

If you were going to 24:

8 of Auburn, UCLA, Miami, Nebraska, Michigan State, Iowa, Stanford, VT, Tennessee, (First little brothers in California and Michigan, third little brother in Florida)

If you were going to 32:

8 of, 2 of the above, and Ole Miss, Arkansas, Purdue, Arizona State, South Carolina, Louisville or KY, NC State or UNC, State of SC first little brother, and the States of KY and NC produce a little brother but it's difficult to tease out for football purposes.

Any ranking system has to take into account:

1. National appeal or strength
2. Revenue generation on it's own ticket sales
3. Relative strength in its home market
4. Long term as well are recent performance
5. Degree of direct competition

10-11 of the top 32 are SEC schools. 7 of the top 32 are B10 schools. 5-6 of the top 32 would be ACC schools (including ND) 5 of the top 32 are P12 schools.

SEC Alabama/Texas/LSU/OU/Florida/TAMU/Ole Miss/Auburn/TN/SC/perhaps UK

B10 Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan/Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa/Purdue

ACC ND/FSU/Clemson/Miami/VT/one of UNC or NC State/perhaps Louisville

P12 USC/Washington/Oregon/UCLA/Stanford/Arizona State


I think this does away with the conference rising all tides issue and shows a pecking order within conferences

33-40 is almost impossible to tease out.

8 of Whoever is left from the four of NC State/UNC, Louisville/UK and then Mizzou, GT, Minn, Arkansas, Colorado, NW, TCU, UVa, Pitt, and Utah.