College Realignment Attractability Index
- Thread starter bigmatt718
- Start date
I would need to see their actual data in the Market Potential criteria to see if they are scoring Rutgers correctly.
Do their Local Market numbers include the NYC TV market that RU is in? If so, does that mean RU gets no credit for South Jersey as “local” to them?
The Football Success numbers likely make RU look bad (and RU has no one to blame but RU for that) because several of the criteria would have RU obliterated by the Ash years and the early Schiano 2.0 years having such a big negative impact.
All in all, these rankings aren’t horrendous when I look at where other schools fall, except that I think RU’s “natural” number would be somewhat higher without the Ash nightmare having a big impact because of its recency.
Do their Local Market numbers include the NYC TV market that RU is in? If so, does that mean RU gets no credit for South Jersey as “local” to them?
The Football Success numbers likely make RU look bad (and RU has no one to blame but RU for that) because several of the criteria would have RU obliterated by the Ash years and the early Schiano 2.0 years having such a big negative impact.
All in all, these rankings aren’t horrendous when I look at where other schools fall, except that I think RU’s “natural” number would be somewhat higher without the Ash nightmare having a big impact because of its recency.
Last edited:
Did I count right?
We are ranked #45 across all schools?
Last in Big Ten but middle of SEC, Big 12 and ACC.
Ahead of all PAC-2 and G5 teams.
We are ranked #45 across all schools?
Last in Big Ten but middle of SEC, Big 12 and ACC.
Ahead of all PAC-2 and G5 teams.
There’s no way NW, Purdue & Illinois are ahead of us
Minnesota ahead of Oregon? Stop
Stanford ahead of FSU, and Clemson ahead of UNC?
Apparently common sense gets thrown out the window and metrics in the world have taken over
Minnesota ahead of Oregon? Stop
Stanford ahead of FSU, and Clemson ahead of UNC?
Apparently common sense gets thrown out the window and metrics in the world have taken over
The metrics are pretty weird.
For example, it appears USC is above Texas, for example. I am trying to understand how. Since their run with Carroll, they have been OK in football over the last 10-15 years. Their basketball has been OK. Yes they are in the LA market but they don't have a strong national following like an OSU or UM or even Texas.
I mentioned in my post, a few of the criteria have recency to them so Rutgers number is likely hurt bad by the Ash years.
Yeah the only school that might be above Texas is Notre Dame
SC is a strong brand and a blueblood but expansion wise, they're below the Horns
Our numbers are skewed due to how atrocious we were under the Ash era. I expect our numbers to continue to trend upward as Schiano continues to build up the program.
This is re-alignment "attractiveness"? Well, then it doesn't matter how we score because we're not interested in leaving the B1G to go anywhere else, right? So, who cares? This is a big nothing-burger.
Also, who is this guy? How is he calculating these metrics? Where's the data he's basing all of this on?
Also, who is this guy? How is he calculating these metrics? Where's the data he's basing all of this on?
I don’t think it is a horrible effort for this kind of thing, but I think the rankings have one omission that skews things a lot.
They only have negative deductions for things like scandals and school leadership issues.
There needs to be deductions for things that completely remove a school from consideration for addition by one or more conferences (thereby lowering their “attractiveness”).
For example, the B1G won’t take Pittsburgh because of geography regardless of them fitting their model. They also won’t take a Deep South school like Mississippi or a school considered “lesser” in their state like NC St or Kansas St.
Since there are only a few conferences left that can be looking to add teams, being eliminated from consideration by certain conferences by things other than their listed criteria should have an impact.
They only have negative deductions for things like scandals and school leadership issues.
There needs to be deductions for things that completely remove a school from consideration for addition by one or more conferences (thereby lowering their “attractiveness”).
For example, the B1G won’t take Pittsburgh because of geography regardless of them fitting their model. They also won’t take a Deep South school like Mississippi or a school considered “lesser” in their state like NC St or Kansas St.
Since there are only a few conferences left that can be looking to add teams, being eliminated from consideration by certain conferences by things other than their listed criteria should have an impact.
of course not
RU added more to any conference than in history; BIG all but confirmed this verbally
I'd venture to say that RU is probably top 4 most valuable program in the BIG and thus attractive
Last edited:
Anymore tweets about some guy's waste of time hobby? I was thinking ship in a bottle.
Reminds me of a story of a family friend. Kid was good senior HS soccer player. Ivy school needed to fill a spot on its class in the spring and the coach came recruiting. Coach said to the HS player “you may be the dumbest guy in the whole freshman class”. Player replied “someone’s gotta be”. We’re that kid!
BTW, he’s in medical school now.
BTW, he’s in medical school now.
Last edited:
Tony Altimore is a USC alum, and he always pumps up the Big Ten and USC, to the point we I think that wants to prove that USC is worthy to be in the conference. He runs all kinds of metrics on his Twitter account comparing colleges all the time. As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
“Attractiveness” is a funny thing to try to quantify, and it means different things to different people and entities, depending on what you value, so it’s kind of a silly measurement.
Scarlet Jerry
“Attractiveness” is a funny thing to try to quantify, and it means different things to different people and entities, depending on what you value, so it’s kind of a silly measurement.
Scarlet Jerry
Interesting findings showing how all schools compare with each other.
Looking at the SEC schools and Pitt I noted how Pitt would compare to several of their universities.
Attractiveness Scores:
Pitt: 181.9
Arkansas: 1805
Auburn: 179.5
Kentucky: 172.7
State Populations:
Pennsylvania: 13 million
Arkansas: 3 million
Alabama: 5 million
Kentucky: 4.5 million
Never considered the fact that the SEC may some day want to break out of the South and expand North.
Speculation is always fun.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Looking at the SEC schools and Pitt I noted how Pitt would compare to several of their universities.
Attractiveness Scores:
Pitt: 181.9
Arkansas: 1805
Auburn: 179.5
Kentucky: 172.7
State Populations:
Pennsylvania: 13 million
Arkansas: 3 million
Alabama: 5 million
Kentucky: 4.5 million
Never considered the fact that the SEC may some day want to break out of the South and expand North.
Speculation is always fun.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
SEC expansion is very different than BIG expansion. BIG has BTN and SEC is solely reliant on ESPN and brand. Obviously the BIG has more variables due to the network.
Pitt offers nothing to the SEC and for a conference that continuously says 'regional focus', PA would be beyond a leap of disbelief. SEC will go West before North of the Mason Dixon
Stop reading when I saw us below Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana.
What a crock of shat.
I guess they don’t realize we are in the biggest Metropolitan marke in the US by far.
you're educated, rational, and have some good points at times. attack this differently and deduce how Pitt would be attractive to the SEC? First thing you need to answer is how does Pitt generate 60mm+ on it's own via it's brand so ESPN oks it. After that, you need to answer how does Pitt compare to other candidates like Miami, VT, AZ, etc etc
how does Pitt jump Clemson?
Not saying Pitt would jump any team or that they would go to the SEC (I believe the ACC will remain intact in some form). Most schools in the ACC have higher scores/state populations greater than schools in the Big 12 and the ACCN.
However, looking at the index/score shows that Pitt would "fit" in the SEC.
Remember it was ESPN that told the ACC to go North and take Pitt and Syracuse.
Major competition between SEC (ESPN) and B1G (Fox) now and in the future.
Actually, I think FSU and Clemson would be more valuable to the B1G than the SEC (which now would get 2 schools in South Carolina and Florida).
As these schools go into their new conferences they will just beat each other up and no longer be the Football Powers as they were in their old conference.
With FSU and Clemson gone the ACC Schools will be competing with each other to see who will replace them and compete for National Championships via CFP. I will be interested to see how many times FSU and Clemson play for National Championship games in the B1G or SEC going forward.
Just an exercise in what ifs.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
I'm at a loss as you just don't get any of what is going on
first you cite a flawed index that doesn't weigh the financial considerations then use ESPN telling ACC to go north 20yrs ago.
we're good, enjoy the B12 if they call you over Boston, Miami, and VT.
Pitt will never ever ever ever ever ever be in the SEC…period…end of story.
Whatever metrics he is using, they must weight the total $ in the market heavily. Guarantee the 13MM in PA have more $ per person than some of those states.
The dude is a USC alum?
LOL, that explains how USC gets above Texas and ND. LOL.
Seriously
Love how ucrap is 100. Not for Fb, lol. Pretty sure the entire Mountain West is way more relevant than those dipshits.
Ok sure - all of this is fine and good except when it mattered, the BIG chose to add Rutgers and not a dozen or so schools this ranking slots ahead of us. Lol
They'd be negative 100 if they didn't have an elite basketball team because their football team is a flaming bag of dogshit.
You’re telling me those 11 womens bball championships won’t overcome a football program on the brink of extinction?
That might be the dumbest chart I have ever seen. Just common sense tells you it makes no sense without looking at Rutgers.
Our potential is unlimited
It will take corporate based NIL, but being in the tri-state area, the sky is the limit
Without it, I see the ceiling at 8-4
With it, it's much greater than that
I like Altimore’s lists, but his ratings are totally subjective. It’s easy to throw a bunch of variables into a model, but the real work is weighting of each of the variables. By his measure, the Big Ten should have added Stanford. I don’t think we should get wrapped up in this. RU is on a good trajectory for all of our sports programs. The recency bias of us sucking is ebbing away. We are a program on the rise.
If you think Rutgers is one of the most four valuable programs in the big ten, you’re crazy.
There is no world where Rutgers can or will ever be competitive with OSU, Michigan, PSU or USC in terms of value.
I’ll buy it’s not last but it’s somewhere in the second half. If not, Rutgers would have been in a power league decades ago.
Technically the Big East was a power conference before ESPN systematically destroyed it via the ACC. Ironic now that decades later the ACC is about to reap what it sowed.
Last edited:
numbers don't lie and Delaney suggested as much.
1.Rutgers was looked at in the 90s as a partner to PSU
2.the BTN, in the genius of how it was created, owned, and operated is why expansion is the way it is. it's about mkts, penetration rates, subscriptions
How the Big Ten sparked a realignment avalanche: Jim Delany on adding Nebraska and more
Delany outlines the Big Ten’s 2009-10 expansion process and how it shook up multiple conferences and created more instability.
theathletic.com
Last edited:
Objectively, the B1G is very top heavynumbers don't lie and Delaney suggested as much.
1.Rutgers was looked at in the 90s as a partner to PSU
2.the BTN, in the genius of how it was created, owned, and operated is why expansion is the way it is. it's about mkts, penetration rates, subscriptions
thinking is fundamental
How the Big Ten sparked a realignment avalanche: Jim Delany on adding Nebraska and more
Delany outlines the Big Ten’s 2009-10 expansion process and how it shook up multiple conferences and created more instability.
Mich, Buckeye, Nitts and USC are the top 4
I'd put Rutgers in the 2nd group with UCLA, Nebraska and Sconnie
It's about brand and eyeballs; top 4 bring that, as do the Bruins
Sconnie is certainly reputable, and Nebby has an illustrious history, but a lot of this has to do w/potential
4 may be a stretch IMO, but top 6 is reasonable
Which, given our subpar history and lackluster results, is amazing
Throw in some future success and I can see us cracking the top 5
Similar threads
