Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Apis Bull]

8 minutes ago, MMW said:

I think that is because there are many metrics that need to be satisfied and we have some covered but not all.  Some of these programs were grandfathered in and that is a metric as well.

After nearly 2000 pages we all know them:

• Attendance
• Market Size
• Geographic location (proximity to rivals or other league members)
• Academics
• Student body size/Alumni base
• Tradition
• Facilitates (including OCS)

Notice I didn't add on the field performance which would be why Boise was never asked and Rutgers was.  Boise had the performance but few, if any, of the others.  So I guess we agree.

We are also hindered by the directional school stigma.  It could possibly be a deal breaker for some leagues.

To those who say that we have better attendance that a few grandfathered bottom feeders, I would say that is meaningless.

 

While that may be true, it's also apparent that they are not weighted equally:

Attendance - I agree, this is a huge problem, but with our recent OOC additions this should get better.  We still out draw Duke, Kansas, Vandy, and Wake and are within 10% or Oregon St, Cuse, and Wazzou.

Market Size - We're the 16th largest market

Geography - Well, the only conferences that we are already in the geographic footprint are the SEC and the ACC.  The Big 12 would have to want to get into Florida.

Academics - I think were pretty good there as compared to the P5 schools

Student body size/Alumni base- We're one of the largest schools in the country.

Tradition - Yep, we don't have any to speak of.

Facilities - We're probably middle of the road on overall facilities.  I know we don't have an OCS, but neither dose Pitt or Miami.

So, the only things that we can change are Attendance and Facilities, and even then, we still would have to be wanted by another conference.

 

[MMW]

2 minutes ago, Apis Bull said:

While that may be true, it's also apparent that they are not weighted equally:

Attendance - I agree, this is a huge problem, but with our recent OOC additions this should get better.  We still out draw Duke, Kansas, Vandy, and Wake and are within 10% or Oregon St, Cuse, and Wazzou.

Market Size - We're the 16th largest market

Geography - Well, the only conferences that we are already in the geographic footprint are the SEC and the ACC.  The Big 12 would have to want to get into Florida.

Academics - I think were pretty good there as compared to the P5 schools

Student body size/Alumni base- We're one of the largest schools in the country.

Tradition - Yep, we don't have any to speak of.

Facilities - We're probably middle of the road on overall facilities.  I know we don't have an OCS, but neither dose Pitt or Miami.

So, the only things that we can change are Attendance and Facilities, and even then, we still would have to be wanted by another conference.

 

 

I agree, they are a not all equal.  

As you said, even if we exceeded Wake Forrest or Vandy in every category it would not guarantee an invite.  

Being a directional school is one issue as well as being in the same state as FSU, Miami and UF.  They would not want to share leagues.

 

 

 

[charsibb]

2 hours ago, MMW said:

...

For what it is worth they might be a sucky history but only one team can say they won the  first college football game ever played about 150 years ago.

That was a soccer game. The first intercollegiate gridiron football game was Harvard v. McGill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1874_Harvard_vs._McGill_football_game

 

[CousinRicky]

21 minutes ago, charsibb said:

That was a soccer game. The first intercollegiate gridiron football game was Harvard v. McGill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1874_Harvard_vs._McGill_football_game

 

I guess you can find what you want on wiki.  This says, and being from the area I always thought, that Rutgers v Princeton was the first.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1869_college_football_season

[MMW]

7 minutes ago, Bourbon Bull said:

I guess you can find what you want on wiki.  This says, and being from the area I always thought, that Rutgers v Princeton was the first.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1869_college_football_season

Exactly, neither game resemble football today.  

 

Rutgers has a better claim to National Champion then UCF.

The first ever college football national championship was awarded retroactively to the two teams. Princeton was named the champion by the Billingsley Report and the National Championship Foundation, while college football research historian Parke H. Davis named Rutgers and Princeton co-champions. Various other ratings and retrospectives have rated the teams differently.

 

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, MMW said:

I think that is because there are many metrics that need to be satisfied and we have some covered but not all.  Some of these programs were grandfathered in and that is a metric as well.

After nearly 2000 pages we all know them:

• Attendance
• Market Size
• Geographic location (proximity to rivals or other league members)
• Academics
• Student body size/Alumni base
• Tradition
• Facilitates (including OCS)

Notice I didn't add on the field performance which would be why Boise was never asked and Rutgers was.  Boise had the performance but few, if any, of the others.  So I guess we agree.

We are also hindered by the directional school stigma.  It could possibly be a deal breaker for some leagues.

To those who say that we have better attendance that a few grandfathered bottom feeders, I would say that is meaningless.

We don't know any of them, do we? Have any conferences that have expanded, or talked about expanding, ever come out with any sort of metrics list. I think that's a list cobbled together by message boards and speculating media/bloggers.

[BDYZR]

How do we stop Google ads in the middle of a thread?

[MMW]

6 minutes ago, Triple B said:

We don't know any of them, do we? Have any conferences that have expanded, or talked about expanding, ever come out with any sort of metrics list. I think that's a list cobbled together by message boards and speculating media/bloggers.

What kind of fool would come on a message board if he didn't already know everything there is to know?  

I certainly do know.  This all got me thinking this afternoon so I compiled a list of all the criteria and metrics that determine a school's P5 worthiness.  I fed them into the mainframe at work.  It wasn't easy getting time on that thing.  The hardest part was tweaking the metrics just so to give what I think is a pretty precise formula.

I ran the algorithm several times and posted the results.   

 

[charsibb]

2 hours ago, Triple B said:

We don't know any of them, do we? Have any conferences that have expanded, or talked about expanding, ever come out with any sort of metrics list. I think that's a list cobbled together by message boards and speculating media/bloggers.

The only metric that matters is a winning majority of voters on the decision-making board of said conference.

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, Triple B said:

We don't know any of them, do we? Have any conferences that have expanded, or talked about expanding, ever come out with any sort of metrics list. I think that's a list cobbled together by message boards and speculating media/bloggers.

 

2 hours ago, MMW said:

What kind of fool would come on a message board if he didn't already know everything there is to know?  

I certainly do know.  This all got me thinking this afternoon so I compiled a list of all the criteria and metrics that determine a school's P5 worthiness.  I fed them into the mainframe at work.  It wasn't easy getting time on that thing.  The hardest part was tweaking the metrics just so to give what I think is a pretty precise formula.

I ran the algorithm several times and posted the results.   

 

My bad. I keep underestimating the Interwebz ...