Decent ranking system, though a tad flawed. Relying on arbitrary academic rankings and sketchy attendance figures do not paint the whole picture about an athletic program and a school as a whole, and the revenue numbers are deeply flawed as well (i.e. Miami's revenues were tops in the MAC this year due to big fundraising efforts for our IPF, BG on the other hand was last). Basketball (and top hockey and baseball programs) has to be somewhat accounted for as well. Other than that, good work.

(01-17-2014 11:11 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Decent ranking system, though a tad flawed. Relying on arbitrary academic rankings and sketchy attendance figures do not paint the whole picture about an athletic program and a school as a whole,

How exactly are the academic rankings arbitrary? They're certainly subjective and imperfect, but calling them arbitrary is an exaggeration. I see lots of posters want to remove academics from ascertaining the value of a school in realignment. But that's just willfully ignoring a very large criteria that conferences are using for realignment.

(01-17-2014 10:56 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I can't do it today, but it sounds like people have a real interest in seeing combined data for the following categories. Please add or modify and keep it to data that is easily accessible:

Vested Interest Support - Undergraduate population (combine with living alumni if that data is available)

Academics - USNWR and ARWU combined

Finances - Overall athletic gross revenue combined with endowment. Receipts from conference membership stay; conference money comes from the schools associated with it, not the organization itself. If a member becomes such a drag that it substantially hurts the membership, they will get kicked out. It has happened before, and will happen again. No judgement calls by us for this purpose.



Following - Football/Basketball attendance (80/20 split) and merchandise ranking. I really don't want to try with TV ratings because it is so dependent on scheduling and platform, and market share is nearly impossible to truly estimate. UT haters love bringing up the LHN numbers for their games last year, but we all know that would not be the case if UT was playing on a national network instead.


That is 4 categories, which will put schools on a 4.0 scale instead of 5.0, which may be easier to follow. I will use sliding scale this next time. I have a feeling that the results will be similar to my first run at it, but we'll see.

BigBlue-You are thinking very soundly about this. Keep it up.

did you take into account teams that have fans that arent alumni? football crazed states such as alabama have plenty of fans that never attended college

(01-19-2014 09:07 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  did you take into account teams that have fans that arent alumni? football crazed states such as alabama have plenty of fans that never attended college

Merchandise sales is a good gauge for that... it doesn't matter how many people pull for you; it matters how many of them are financially committed in some form or fashion.

(01-16-2014 11:53 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  From the relatively clean start BBB set up it'd be easy to start getting caught in the weeds of adding too many factors, but on further reflection I thought there were a couple of tweaks that may be reasonable.

First, while football is primary, basketball does count for something, particularly in terms of possible inventory for conference TV networks (for those which have one). Perhaps attendance could be a combined metric, with football weighted heavier than basketball (say 80/20) to make some accounting for hoops.

The other possible metric that could be included is endowment - while not strictly an athletics measure, neither is undergraduate attendance, but it does show a measure of the school that's not reflected just in the revenue figure.

I think in BIG & ACC is closer to a 70/30 football to basketball revenue split. Big 12, PAC & SEC more 80/20.

Non-Added Value P-5 schools

Schools that don’t bring anything to the conference other than warm body but they take out more from the pie than they bring.

Good academic reputation is still valuable after all conference is still a collection of schools but it shouldn't rank too high of a criteria.

School that generated large revenue tell you that school has fans that buy tickets and donated a lot to their school but do they bring revenue in for the conference.

Attendances at major sports and the size of students’ body on campus are good indicators of current and future support.

Another list of criteria to consider

The glass ceiling is the limit of that school regardless of the effort and resource put in by that school to elevate the value of its self to the conference. Which would you recruit or have … a 6’ 5” 265lbs OL or 5’11” 305lbs OL.

which would have a larger pool of fans support

Public or Private school

City university or State university

Texas or Baylor

Florida or FSU

Wins and lost are not constant they come and go just like a successful coach move on to better thing but a market size don’t move up or down from year to year. This is a long term relationship will last longer than 3-5 years and making long term decision basing on the success or failure the past of 3-5 is foolish.

The glass ceiling is important when you consider conference network and TV network in general. The content or products values are based on history and tradition of success. People will always want to see winner.

(01-19-2014 11:52 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  Non-Added Value P-5 schools

Schools that don’t bring anything to the conference other than warm body but they take out more from the pie than they bring.

Good academic reputation is still valuable after all conference is still a collection of schools but it shouldn't rank too high of a criteria.

School that generated large revenue tell you that school has fans that buy tickets and donated a lot to their school but do they bring revenue in for the conference.

Attendances at major sports and the size of students’ body on campus are good indicators of current and future support.

Another list of criteria to consider

The glass ceiling is the limit of that school regardless of the effort and resource put in by that school to elevate the value of its self to the conference. Which would you recruit or have … a 6’ 5” 265lbs OL or 5’11” 305lbs OL.

which would have a larger pool of fans support

Public or Private school

City university or State university

Texas or Baylor

Florida or FSU In 3 out of these 4 "or" examples you've listed, there's a significantly better choice than the alternative. Except this last one. What are you getting at with this last one?

Wins and lost are not constant they come and go just like a successful coach move on to better thing but a market size don’t move up or down from year to year. This is a long term relationship will last longer than 3-5 years and making long term decision basing on the success or failure the past of 3-5 is foolish.

The glass ceiling is important when you consider conference network and TV network in general. The content or products values are based on history and tradition of success. People will always want to see winner.

(01-15-2014 01:02 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 12:25 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Only a UK fan could figure out some kind of formula that would rank everyone in The AAC ahead of Louisville. I would be interested in selling how you screwed the numbers to list Louisville next to Buffalo. Typical LPT bull sh it.
CJ

Jim, Louisville has 12,058 undergraduates, a 161 USNWR ranking, is not ranked in ARWU, has an average football attendance of 52,914, and has an outstanding revenue stream of $96+ million. Adding in a new column for merchandise will help because you are looking to be top 30. Academic prowess pulled you down a bit; your peers are Ole Miss, WVU, and Northern Illinois. If anything, these rankings should show how much the ACC believes in the direction that Louisville is headed. Despite the reputation of the lowest common denominator of UK's fanbase, I don't spend all day trying to figure out another way to screw over Louisville. Using these same numbers on the SEC board, we discussed where Louisville would fit in the SEC in these crazy scenarios.

So 40% of realignment value is driven by academics. Now it all makes sense. Not only that, but the ignorant arse US News ranking is weighted equally with athletic budgets. Jim has this right. It's a UK troll's wet dream. The dude is maxed out on trolling Louisville boards, so he has to chase people over to a conference board to get his troll fix on. Truly amazing.

(01-17-2014 01:40 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 11:11 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Decent ranking system, though a tad flawed. Relying on arbitrary academic rankings and sketchy attendance figures do not paint the whole picture about an athletic program and a school as a whole,

How exactly are the academic rankings arbitrary? They're certainly subjective and imperfect, but calling them arbitrary is an exaggeration. I see lots of posters want to remove academics from ascertaining the value of a school in realignment. But that's just willfully ignoring a very large criteria that conferences are using for realignment.

Just keep in mind that US news rankings are a joke.

They are very easy to game. In fact schools have been caught gaming the system - particularly Emory. You can game US news by ginning up lots of applications and that's easy to do with follow-up call banks and with application fee discounts, or just fake applications. Second, you establish a program of having your accepted incoming students take another SAT or ACT in the spring of their Senior year or over the Summer. Third, you bribe your states high school academic advisors with free trips and conferences. A great deal of US news rankings are on nothing more than "reputation" among counselors. Fourth, if you maintain low out of state tuition rates, relative to other states, you entice applications using cost differential advantages.

(01-20-2014 11:34 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Just keep in mind that US news rankings are a joke.

They are very easy to game. In fact schools have been caught gaming the system - particularly Emory. You can game US news by ginning up lots of applications and that's easy to do with follow-up call banks and with application fee discounts, or just fake applications. Second, you establish a program of having your accepted incoming students take another SAT or ACT in the spring of their Senior year or over the Summer. Third, you bribe your states high school academic advisors with free trips and conferences. A great deal of US news rankings are on nothing more than "reputation" among counselors. Fourth, if you maintain low out of state tuition rates, relative to other states, you entice applications using cost differential advantages.

If you have suggestions for other academic rankings you'd prefer to use, I'm sure the OP would be accommodating.

The OP is using both US News and ARWU. Which other rankings do you suggest he use instead?

(01-20-2014 12:06 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:34 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Just keep in mind that US news rankings are a joke.

They are very easy to game. In fact schools have been caught gaming the system - particularly Emory. You can game US news by ginning up lots of applications and that's easy to do with follow-up call banks and with application fee discounts, or just fake applications. Second, you establish a program of having your accepted incoming students take another SAT or ACT in the spring of their Senior year or over the Summer. Third, you bribe your states high school academic advisors with free trips and conferences. A great deal of US news rankings are on nothing more than "reputation" among counselors. Fourth, if you maintain low out of state tuition rates, relative to other states, you entice applications using cost differential advantages.

If you have suggestions for other academic rankings you'd prefer to use, I'm sure the OP would be accommodating.

The OP is using both US News and ARWU. Which other rankings do you suggest he use instead?

I suggest that he use no academic rankings. By using both US News and the ARWU rankings, that skews the rankings by allotting 40% value to academics. Now, if you believe that academics is truly 40% of the equation, fine. But I don't. Using his formula, Harvard and Yale should be on the Big 10 and ACC's short list for an invite.

IMHO, if you want to get a clear picture of where these schools stand in realignment, use only the undergrad population, athletic revenues and athletic attendance. Then you could look at the figures from a particular conference that weighs academics differently than other conferences. Using things like a school's endowments further skews the figures. Leave them out or start considering that the schools like Harvard with their $30 billion endowments should be included.

Note: Obviously I don't think any of the Ivies should be considered in the list, having chosen to de-emphasize athletics long ago. I just feel that conferences view academics differently in realignment and shouldn't take up a 40% share in the equation.

(01-20-2014 12:54 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I suggest that he use no academic rankings. By using both US News and the ARWU rankings, that skews the rankings by allotting 40% value to academics. Now, if you believe that academics is truly 40% of the equation, fine. But I don't. Using his formula, Harvard and Yale should be on the Big 10 and ACC's short list for an invite.

IMHO, if you want to get a clear picture of where these schools stand in realignment, use only the undergrad population, athletic revenues and athletic attendance. Then you could look at the figures from a particular conference that weighs academics differently than other conferences. Using things like a school's endowments further skews the figures. Leave them out or start considering that the schools like Harvard with their $30 billion endowments should be included.

Note: Obviously I don't think any of the Ivies should be considered in the list, having chosen to de-emphasize athletics long ago. I just feel that conferences view academics differently in realignment and shouldn't take up a 40% share in the equation.

Using his formula, Stanford isn't even in the top 30 so I don't know what makes you think Harvard and Yale would be near the top. Seems to me his formula does a pretty good job of balancing academics with other criteria.

I can understand why fans of schools with poor academics want to pretend that academics don't matter in realignment. But they do matter quite a bit, especially for 2 out of the 3 big dog conferences.

(01-20-2014 01:36 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:54 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I suggest that he use no academic rankings. By using both US News and the ARWU rankings, that skews the rankings by allotting 40% value to academics. Now, if you believe that academics is truly 40% of the equation, fine. But I don't. Using his formula, Harvard and Yale should be on the Big 10 and ACC's short list for an invite.

IMHO, if you want to get a clear picture of where these schools stand in realignment, use only the undergrad population, athletic revenues and athletic attendance. Then you could look at the figures from a particular conference that weighs academics differently than other conferences. Using things like a school's endowments further skews the figures. Leave them out or start considering that the schools like Harvard with their $30 billion endowments should be included.

Note: Obviously I don't think any of the Ivies should be considered in the list, having chosen to de-emphasize athletics long ago. I just feel that conferences view academics differently in realignment and shouldn't take up a 40% share in the equation.

Using his formula, Stanford isn't even in the top 30 so I don't know what makes you think Harvard and Yale would be near the top. Seems to me his formula does a pretty good job of balancing academics with other criteria.

I can understand why fans of schools with poor academics want to pretend that academics don't matter in realignment. But they do matter quite a bit, especially for 2 out of the 3 big dog conferences.

1. = 1 pt
2. = 5 pts
3. = 5 pts
4. = 1 pt
5. = 1 pt

Total of 13 pts divided by 5 makes either one 2.6. However, I never said that they would be "near the top" of NCAA Division 1, but suggested (facetiously) that they should be on the short list of two conferences that make or used to make academics a prime consideration for membership, given these parameters.

My point is entirely that the ranking of schools -- academically or for the purposes of realignment -- only have value if everything is constant. In the case of conference realignment, all conferences do not place the same values on academics than others do and, as we have seen, even those that do are willing to adjust those priorities if it suits them. The ACC, for example, has touted academics as a primary factor in their choices of members, yet they have made additions that aren't in keeping with that priority. Louisville had other factors going for it that caused academics, as defined by these ranking organization, to be less important.

My desire would be to have figures that do not include the academic element. That way, we could see where these schools fall absent the academic bias. Then, if we want to determine how any of these schools might fall in the plans of a conference like the Big 10, for example, which also touts an academic factor in determining new members, then that can be considered.

(01-20-2014 03:51 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  My point is entirely that the ranking of schools -- academically or for the purposes of realignment -- only have value if everything is constant. In the case of conference realignment, all conferences do not place the same values on academics than others do and, as we have seen, even those that do are willing to adjust those priorities if it suits them. The ACC, for example, has touted academics as a primary factor in their choices of members, yet they have made additions that aren't in keeping with that priority. Louisville had other factors going for it that caused academics, as defined by these ranking organization, to be less important.

My desire would be to have figures that do not include the academic element. That way, we could see where these schools fall absent the academic bias. Then, if we want to determine how any of these schools might fall in the plans of a conference like the Big 10, for example, which also touts an academic factor in determining new members, then that can be considered.

Conferences don't value academics the same just like conferences don't value undergrad size or program income the same. The SEC cares way more about schools with a passionate fanbase who will sell out stadiums than the PAC does.

ASU is gigantic, but I've never heard any PAC fans brag about how large the school is when comparing against other conferences. In fact, huge schools come with a slight stigma of being low prestige commuter schools.

So why ditch academic rankings because it's too subjective, but keep other subjective rankings that might not be important to some conferences?

(01-17-2014 10:56 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I can't do it today, but it sounds like people have a real interest in seeing combined data for the following categories. Please add or modify and keep it to data that is easily accessible:

Academics - USNWR and ARWU combined

Just like you did the 80:20 with FB/Basketball attendance, probably a good idea to skew this one in favor of the ARWU. The people that care about academic prestige care much more about the society memberships, publications, and grant funding which will track with your ARWU better than the USNWR. 70/30 or so slanting would be appropriate.

(01-20-2014 04:21 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 03:51 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  My point is entirely that the ranking of schools -- academically or for the purposes of realignment -- only have value if everything is constant. In the case of conference realignment, all conferences do not place the same values on academics than others do and, as we have seen, even those that do are willing to adjust those priorities if it suits them. The ACC, for example, has touted academics as a primary factor in their choices of members, yet they have made additions that aren't in keeping with that priority. Louisville had other factors going for it that caused academics, as defined by these ranking organization, to be less important.

My desire would be to have figures that do not include the academic element. That way, we could see where these schools fall absent the academic bias. Then, if we want to determine how any of these schools might fall in the plans of a conference like the Big 10, for example, which also touts an academic factor in determining new members, then that can be considered.

Conferences don't value academics the same just like conferences don't value undergrad size or program income the same. The SEC cares way more about schools with a passionate fanbase who will sell out stadiums than the PAC does.

ASU is gigantic, but I've never heard any PAC fans brag about how large the school is when comparing against other conferences. In fact, huge schools come with a slight stigma of being low prestige commuter schools.

So why ditch academic rankings because it's too subjective, but keep other subjective rankings that might not be important to some conferences?

Because there is no disagreement on what a school's athletic budget is or what their revenue is or what their undergrad enrollment is, but there can be strong disagreement on how these academic rankings are based and their relevance. I would prefer to use numbers that we can agree are factual, then broaden the discussion based on the priorities of each conference.

(01-20-2014 11:34 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 01:40 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 11:11 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Decent ranking system, though a tad flawed. Relying on arbitrary academic rankings and sketchy attendance figures do not paint the whole picture about an athletic program and a school as a whole,

How exactly are the academic rankings arbitrary? They're certainly subjective and imperfect, but calling them arbitrary is an exaggeration. I see lots of posters want to remove academics from ascertaining the value of a school in realignment. But that's just willfully ignoring a very large criteria that conferences are using for realignment.

Just keep in mind that US news rankings are a joke.

The only joke is people claiming it's a joke. The vast majority of their ranking methodology is sound and objective.

(01-20-2014 04:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Because there is no disagreement on what a school's athletic budget is or what their revenue is or what their undergrad enrollment is, but there can be strong disagreement on how these academic rankings are based and their relevance. I would prefer to use numbers that we can agree are factual, then broaden the discussion based on the priorities of each conference.

You could always start a new thread to discuss this the way you want with the numbers you want. I happen to find the OPs numbers interesting and much closer to how I would order certain schools than I would have expected.

(01-15-2014 11:25 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Now that the 2012-13 revenue figures have been released by the NCAA, I slapped together some of the facts and figures that we toss around about a school's worth in realignment. I have taken all of the FBS schools and given them a 1 to 5 score in the following categories:

1. Undergraduate population (indicator of alumni quantity and current ability to support)

2. U.S. News World Report score - Has limitations, but good indicator of general health and prestige of undergraduate program and arts programs.

3. ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) - Good indicator of research focus and capacity.

4. 2013 football attendance - It doesn't matter how good a school is if no one shows up.

5. 2012-13 gross athletic revenue - Sure, the school accountants work the numbers, but it is a good indicator of a school's ability to fund athletics through the AD and contribute the overflow to university causes.

The glaring item missing is TV markets, but I agree with JRSec that the future of major realignment will be value, not market potential. Also missing is the subjective "legacy" and "future potential". This is just an indicator of where things now stand.

So, without further ado, the breakdown of scores. I used some judgment here and found the most natural breaking points:

1. Undergraduate Students - (5) 25,000+, (4) 20,000+, (3) 15,000+, (2) 10,000+, (1) less than 10,000

2. USNWR - (5) 1-75, (4) 76-149 and service academies, (3) 150-200, (2) 201+ or high ranked regional, (1) average to low ranked regional

3. ARWU - (5) 1-75, (4) 76-199, (3) 200-299, (2) 300-499, (1) Not Ranked

4. Football Attendance - (5) 75,000+, (4) 55,000+ (3) 40,000+ (2) 20,000+ (1) less than 20,000

5. Revenue - (5) $87 mil +, (4) $65 mil +, (3) $40 mil +, (2) $25 mil +, (1) less than $25 mil

Tally up the totals for each school and divide by 5 to give a score on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being the most valuable schools/programs.

5 - Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Wisconsin
4.8 - none
4.6 - California, Florida State, Georgia, Minnesota, Texas A&M, UCLA, Washington
4.4 - Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue, Rutgers, Southern Cal
4.2 - Indiana, Iowa, Virginia Tech
4 - Arizona, Arizona State, LSU, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama (this low because they are not ranked in ARWU since the med school is UAB)

3.8 - Auburn, BYU, Clemson, Colorado, Iowa State, Maryland, NC State, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, Stanford
3.6 - Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Virginia
3.4 - Central Florida, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, Miami, Northwestern, Oregon State, Utah
3.2 - Connecticut, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Washington State
3 - Baylor, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Massachusetts, Mississippi State, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia

2.8 - Buffalo, Houston, Louisville, Mississippi, San Diego State
2.6 - Boston College, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rice, TCU, Wake Forest
2.4 - East Carolina, Ohio, SMU
2.2 - Appalachian State, Kent State, Miami-Oxford, North Texas, Tulane, Utah State
2 - Air Force, Army, Central Michigan, Florida International, Memphis, Navy, Nevada, UAB, UTSA, Western Michigan

1.8 - Akron, Ball State, Fresno State, Northern Illinois, Old Dominion, San Jose State, Texas State, Tulsa, UNC-Charlotte, UNLV, UTEP, Wyoming
1.6 - Boise State, Bowling Green, Florida Atlantic, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Idaho, LA-Lafayette, MTSU, New Mexico State, Southern Miss
1.4 - Louisiana Tech, Marshall, Toledo, Western Kentucky
1.2 - Arkansas State, Eastern Michigan, South Alabama
1 - LA-Monroe, Troy

Highlights: 1) The private schools get hit by undergraduate population, but many also have football attendance below 40,000 (BC, WF, Duke, Vandy, Cuse, NW). 2) The Mississippi schools are fortunate that they are squeezed between many powerhouses and that the SEC is loyal. 3) Boise State is doing a heck of a job, because their raw data suggests they are virtually identical to Fresno State. 4) An asterisk may be needed beside Army, Navy, Air Force, BYU, and Notre Dame because of their unique national followings by non-alumni. I was not sure how to objectively score "following" for them but leave out special cases like Nebraska, USC, etc. TV following is probably the best indicator if anyone has a good set of numbers we can use.

If anyone has legit TV market share data, I'd love to add it to this data and see what comes up. Yes, in a vacuum, UCF, USF, Temple, and UMass look good, but that is not the whole story.

I have posted this on the SEC board, and we had a good discussion about how we see the data. Please don't use this exercise to degrade another school (here's looking at you, rival/hated schools within Texas). Also, it would be fine to use a +/- .2 for these scores. Many schools have a borderline score in at least one category. This is just to give a general idea.

For those wondering, the average conference scores are below. This shows where teams will be as of next year (e.g. Louisville in ACC, Rutgers/Maryland in Big 10):

Big 10 - 4.4
PAC - 3.95
SEC - 3.87
ACC - 3.52
Big 12 - 3.42
AAC - 2.6
MWC - 2.16
MAC - 2.01
CUSA - 1.8
Sun Belt - 1.49

Interesting scale. It would be interesting to see how it looks if you drop the ARWU. That's more for graduate research. A very minimal number of the student athletes involved are graduate students, and most fans relate to their undergraduate school as alumni. As you note, this artificial measurement is weighting down some obviously valuable schools for CR like Alabama. Leave USN&WR in and remove ARWU to get a better measure. That will give you a better picture.