(07-19-2019 03:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.

When you look by comparison at the resources actually available for football, you can begin to understand the struggles USC is having getting their program back on solid footing -- it's less moneyed than you might expect. TCU has a much more solid and better funded athletic department and football program.

The shocking ones to me were the high overhead costs of BYU, which placed much less moneyed Colorado State and Central Florida as the clear G5 schools best positioned to have successful programs moving up to the B12. Houston is still down the list, but they have been investing, so they may well climb. I honestly think those four schools are the most likely B12 replacement choices, Cincinnati a bit distant 5th.

Back to TCU. I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).

I see why you use "little 8." Its a term that was used for decades to describe the Big 10 other than Ohio St. and Michigan. When Penn St. joined they didn't fit in the little 8. But with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big 10 now really has a "little 10."