Any explanation on the criteria or did they, in typical ESPN fashion, just made up numbers?

(07-13-2020 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Any explanation on the criteria or did they, in typical ESPN fashion, just made up numbers?

Not sure, but the numbers look pretty reasonable, eh?

(07-13-2020 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Any explanation on the criteria or did they, in typical ESPN fashion, just made up numbers?

For college football teams prior to the beginning of the season, the ESPN FPI is based on performance over the past 4 seasons (with an emphasis on the previous season), the number of returning starters on the offense and defense (with the QB counting as more), a "binary input" on the returning coach, and the strength of the team’s recruiting class (with an input for transfers).

However we know that football performance at the college level can change drastically from one season to the next. The number of returning starters is less meaningful than in the past due to liberalization of the transfer rules. Whether changing the coach improves or hinders team performance is a crapshoot. And recruiting class ratings are subjective and can vary significantly depending on the source.

In short, they just made up the numbers.

You got to thrown the average ratings and average attendance figures out the window in a climate where its conference games only and 10% max attendance.

Especially disregard historic levels between non-P5 conferences. If the G5 is not going to be playing a non-conference schedule how can you compare them to one another.

Fans on here keep thinking about the old days and what mattered when things have turned upside down.

Gee, the conference they don't have rights to is the one that gets ranked lowest.

I'm not saying that CUSA should be markedly higher but that's a little suspicious.

Okay, these rankings are not the end all, be all. But let's put to rest ridiculous sentiments like this one from the La. Tech AD:

Quote:“I think if I were in Lafayette’s position, I’d be trying to figure out a way to move up to a level, like Conference USA. And so, you know, congratulations on that conversation,” McClelland added. “But I think for us, you know, you’ve got understand… if we all of a sudden decided there was going to be a membership expansion in Conference USA, I think there would be numerous individuals from that league that would be interested in joining and paying a premium that we all pay to be in this league. And so I think there will be individuals that would be interested in that."

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/lsu-fo...e-program/

The Sun Belt has outgained C-USA in CFP revenue because it has outperformed C-USA three of the past four years. It has had a ranked team more recently.

Maybe the SB doesn't tower over C-USA. But C-USA is most certainly not "up a level" by virtually any measure. And I know that the SB's premier FB program is not "interested in joining and paying a premium that we all pay to be in this league." Maybe realigning into an east coast based league, but joining the more spread out C-USA? Absolutely not.

(07-13-2020 06:25 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Okay, these rankings are not the end all, be all. But let's put to rest ridiculous sentiments like this one from the La. Tech AD:

Awww come on man, that has almost zero to do with CUSA vs SB and everything to do with G5 football in Louisiana. It's straight LA-Tech vs ULL smack. If LT was in the SB and ULL was in CUSA, he'd be saying the exact same thing in reverse.

You gotta love that LSU table-scraps smack!

(07-13-2020 04:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-13-2020 04:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Any explanation on the criteria or did they, in typical ESPN fashion, just made up numbers?

Not sure, but the numbers look pretty reasonable, eh?

That’s what I’m getting at.Did they actually have a objective formula and parameters or did they make a list of conferences in order of their own perceptions and then put numbers next to them?

What are the ACC's numbers with ND playing conference games?

(07-13-2020 06:25 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Okay, these rankings are not the end all, be all. But let's put to rest ridiculous sentiments like this one from the La. Tech AD:

Quote:“I think if I were in Lafayette’s position, I’d be trying to figure out a way to move up to a level, like Conference USA. And so, you know, congratulations on that conversation,” McClelland added. “But I think for us, you know, you’ve got understand… if we all of a sudden decided there was going to be a membership expansion in Conference USA, I think there would be numerous individuals from that league that would be interested in joining and paying a premium that we all pay to be in this league. And so I think there will be individuals that would be interested in that."

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/lsu-fo...e-program/

The Sun Belt has outgained C-USA in CFP revenue because it has outperformed C-USA three of the past four years. It has had a ranked team more recently.

Maybe the SB doesn't tower over C-USA. But C-USA is most certainly not "up a level" by virtually any measure. And I know that the SB's premier FB program is not "interested in joining and paying a premium that we all pay to be in this league." Maybe realigning into an east coast based league, but joining the more spread out C-USA? Absolutely not.

In terms of institutional prestige, CUSA does indeed outrank the Sun Belt. And since college presidents care significantly about prestige, if there is any movement between the conferences, it is more likely to be from the Sun Belt to CUSA than the other way around.

(07-13-2020 07:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-13-2020 06:25 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Okay, these rankings are not the end all, be all. But let's put to rest ridiculous sentiments like this one from the La. Tech AD:

Quote:“I think if I were in Lafayette’s position, I’d be trying to figure out a way to move up to a level, like Conference USA. And so, you know, congratulations on that conversation,” McClelland added. “But I think for us, you know, you’ve got understand… if we all of a sudden decided there was going to be a membership expansion in Conference USA, I think there would be numerous individuals from that league that would be interested in joining and paying a premium that we all pay to be in this league. And so I think there will be individuals that would be interested in that."

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/lsu-fo...e-program/

The Sun Belt has outgained C-USA in CFP revenue because it has outperformed C-USA three of the past four years. It has had a ranked team more recently.

Maybe the SB doesn't tower over C-USA. But C-USA is most certainly not "up a level" by virtually any measure. And I know that the SB's premier FB program is not "interested in joining and paying a premium that we all pay to be in this league." Maybe realigning into an east coast based league, but joining the more spread out C-USA? Absolutely not.

In terms of institutional prestige, CUSA does indeed outrank the Sun Belt. And since college presidents care significantly about prestige, if there is any movement between the conferences, it is more likely to be from the Sun Belt to CUSA than the other way around.

Rice carries more than it's fair share in that equation, but I'm reasonable. I'll acknowledge that even without Rice, your point is valid. It's not a world of difference, but it's a difference.

My argument still remains the same, though. I don't think schools not named Texas State would join C-USA straight up, with no other reshuffling, and they want to do it just so they can be with other Texas schools. For everyone else, a university president can't justify to his board of trustees moving from one low-revenue conference to one whose revenue is the same or worse, especially with all the exit and entry fees.

And let's not overblow what academics mean with athletic conferences. I don't want to name names, but I can think of at least three FBS conferences who chose new members this past decade that cannot be found ranking highly on virtually any rankings list. They had other options whose academic reputations were superior, and they went with the lesser one.