(03-09-2019 10:43 AM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Quo Vadis Wrote:That said, in a sense this clause was superseded by the Big 12 expansion process of 2016, when they winnowed the candidates down to the final 12, as that represented a more current objective determination of value.

For the hundredth time, this is false. Carry on with your foolish trolling. I frankly don't care if you believe it to be true but I hope no one else is as obtuse.

What part is the false part? I wasn't obsessively tracking the 2016 Big 12 "expansion" dog and pony show (1) but the Big 12 list seems as objective (2) as anything gets in realignment. Did Memphis get snubbed? I mean, it's not my circus or my monkeys, but I enjoy being right and dislike being wrong.

Yes, I'm not sure what Shere Khan thought was 'trolling' either. Clearly, the Big 12's list of finalists could be regarded as the current (as of 2016) A5 thinking on how valuable the various G5 schools were. I'm not sure why that is controversial?

Sure, in the end, since the Big 12 didn't expand with anyone, they decided that all of the G5 schools were the same in the sense that none was worth expanding with. But to make the final list clear means they regarded those 12 schools as being more valuable than those that did not make that cut. That's a logical inference.

While I agree that the 2016 BIG 12 expansion evaluation could be used as an inference of program value at the time, I think it's important not to frame it as dispositive value or even a presumption of total value (even at that specific juncture or snapshot in time).

One could make an argument that it was idiosyncratic criteria only relevant for the BIG 12. After all, Rice was more coveted in that process than about 1/2 the AAC. Clearly, Rice isn't that highly regarded by the AAC itself or they would have made the cut & they're likely not even on the radar as a hypothetical replacement candidate. Moreover, the SEC, ACC, etc. may have completely different criteria that would value each respective program differently due to their specific and nuanced needs & desires. Therefore, it's difficult to determine consensus A5 value. Furthermore, it could also be argued that the criteria used by the Big 12 was flawed. If I over pay for a car it doesn't make the car more valuable. Conversely, if I get a good deal it doesn't make the car less valuable, I just got a good deal. Finally, it also wasn't clear how ingenuous that process really was. Ultimately, nothing was accomplished and as far as the public knows, teams like Tulane and Rice were never under any real consideration but were ostensibly given consideration as a pretext for other reasons that remain undisclosed.

Bottom line, while that process certainly produced info that is relevant in determining A5 perspective, it's important to not paint with a broad stroke when examining a process being vetted by a select few that only represents one faction within the 'power' structure. Additionally, inaccuracies, bias, insufficient info, ulterior motives, and potential incompetence have to be considered when evaluating any multi-factored totality of the circumstances determination of this nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_o...cumstances

In other words, you didn’t like the results so you reject them. I think it is a pretty fair valuation except for the geographical considerations. UConn would never make a pac 12 list. CSU wouldn’t make a ACC list