I have prepared a new evaluation of expansion candidates with various criteria and potential schools added. I've provided detailed info on the criteria, scores for each school as compared to the others based on the criteria, and a final ranking of all schools based on the criteria. Note--as the military academies are run by the government and their endowments aren't listed, I gave them the top score for endowment. Here are some charts I've uploaded below:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Ummm... wow.

Is it me... or are people spending WAYYY too much time, and getting too serious on something that may or may not happen that we have ABSOLUTELY no control/say over?

Well, I would bet even odds that Buckaineer is doing a lot more work on this than the conference brass

(05-31-2010 02:16 PM)dogma Wrote:  Ummm... wow.

Is it me... or are people spending WAYYY too much time, and getting too serious on something that may or may not happen that we have ABSOLUTELY no control/say over?

Jerry Springer must not be on today.

(05-31-2010 03:15 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Well, I would bet even odds that Buckaineer is doing a lot more work on this than the conference brass

Of course I can also correct him and let him know that UCF's endowment is now a little under $92 million

Correct me if I'm wrong but - the way I'm reading the "wins v. BCS" rankings... shouldn't ECU @ 30% be right behind Navy at just over 30%? So 4th instead of 17th... Also, that percentage is misleading when you consider that some teams play relatively few BCS teams in comparison to some of the others.

(05-31-2010 03:31 PM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong but - the way I'm reading the "wins v. BCS" rankings... shouldn't ECU @ 30% be right behind Navy at just over 30%? So 4th instead of 17th... Also, that percentage is misleading when you consider that some teams play relatively few BCS teams in comparison to some of the others.

That's why, with as much effort put into it... these things are meaningless

Example:
There might be a school that played 10 strong BCS games, winning 7 (70%),
Another school that played and won one or two bottom BCS teams (100%)
Does this take that into account

Also, some of these categories are up to the "researcher" on how important they are and can be easily skewed, removed, or added to give the "researcher's" school of choice a high standing:
He lists ECU as 3... however there are some arguments that ECU would be good for the BE since it gives a foothold to the Carolinas, which is currently monopolized in the ACC.

Would recruiting be taken into consideration? Since everyone knows that no matter how low, it will go up when a team gets the "AQ" label

Etc.

And this is why its meaningless to even spend time doing so.
(Not to sound like an ass.)

How about the number of wins over top 25 ranked teams?

Looks fine, but get rid of that Forbes academic ranking bull****. Anything that has USM over Miami OH, Temple, Tulsa, TCU, and Buffalo is worthless.

(05-31-2010 03:31 PM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong but - the way I'm reading the "wins v. BCS" rankings... shouldn't ECU @ 30% be right behind Navy at just over 30%? So 4th instead of 17th... Also, that percentage is misleading when you consider that some teams play relatively few BCS teams in comparison to some of the others.

Buckaineer will slant any statistics he can to downgrade ECU. Please don't try to reason with him

If one team in a 5 year period played 1 bottom dwelling BCS team and won, they would be ranked over us.

I am totally not understanding those football recruiting rankings...

The BCS wins has been corrected, an incorrect document was uploaded and originally posted. If anyone notices discrepencies such as this or has questions please feel free to inquire.

(05-31-2010 03:23 PM)dogma Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 03:15 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Well, I would bet even odds that Buckaineer is doing a lot more work on this than the conference brass

Of course I can also correct him and let him know that UCF's endowment is now a little under $92 million

The figures I quoted were those from UCF's alumni site

(05-31-2010 04:15 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  How about the number of wins over top 25 ranked teams?

I included wins and wins over BCS programs as criteria for football success. If you would like to create your own post with top 25 wins feel free.

(05-31-2010 05:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am totally not understanding those football recruiting rankings...

Please explain what you are not understanding and I will try and clear that up for you

TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

(05-31-2010 05:34 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 03:31 PM)PirateHeist Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong but - the way I'm reading the "wins v. BCS" rankings... shouldn't ECU @ 30% be right behind Navy at just over 30%? So 4th instead of 17th... Also, that percentage is misleading when you consider that some teams play relatively few BCS teams in comparison to some of the others.

Buckaineer will slant any statistics he can to downgrade ECU. Please don't try to reason with him

If one team in a 5 year period played 1 bottom dwelling BCS team and won, they would be ranked over us.

This is not true. The error mentioned above has been corrected. In none of my posts have I intentionally slanted any statistics--just reposting from other sources.

(05-31-2010 04:47 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Looks fine, but get rid of that Forbes academic ranking bull****. Anything that has USM over Miami OH, Temple, Tulsa, TCU, and Buffalo is worthless.

Some have problems with U.S. News as well. I included both to be fair.

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

You are dealing with air travel. At that point, TCU is probably no more than an hour further, if that, than USF or UCF is from any other team. TCU is actually close to Louisville and Cincinnati than Dallas is.,

(05-31-2010 06:36 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 05:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am totally not understanding those football recruiting rankings...

Please explain what you are not understanding and I will try and clear that up for you

Some of the recruitng rankings have numbers in the 300's and 400's. Doesn't make sense.

(05-31-2010 06:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

I would ask -too far away for what? I live in Ohio and can fly to Dallas directly on a reasonably short flight under a couple of hours. As the Big Ten commissioner stated his conference is looking down the road at future demographics which are heading south, the Big East might be wise to do this as well. TCU is a team that could be added now and would strengthen the conference in several ways including with the BCS. If current large market teams leave, they should especially become important.

Wow... I don't know where to start with your methodology, basically this is a worthless compilation of data.....Entertaining anyway!!!