[81alum]

I am not sure this has been linked and discussed, given that it came out yesterday:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...e-numbers/

He rates prospective school for sports success, their institutional fit, and their markets, and derives a composite score.  Here is how potential schools rank for expansion:

1. Notre Dame
2. North Carolina
3. Oregon
4. Florida State
5. Washington
6. Clemson
7. Utah
8. Miami
9. Stanford
10. Cal

Have fun digging into his numbers and disputing them!  Clearly it is weighted towards revenue sports and toward large public universities.  That is, however, what the Big 10 has been.

I thought his idea of an expansion to 24 teams with 4 geographically based divisions made some sense--given that the Big 10 no longer has any geographic soul.

[81alum]

I am not sure this has been linked and discussed, given that it came out yesterday:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...e-numbers/

He rates prospective school for sports success, their institutional fit, and their markets, and derives a composite score.  Here is how potential schools rank for expansion:

1. Notre Dame
2. North Carolina
3. Oregon
4. Florida State
5. Washington
6. Clemson
7. Utah
8. Miami
9. Stanford
10. Cal

Have fun digging into his numbers and disputing them!  Clearly it is weighted towards revenue sports and toward large public universities.  That is, however, what the Big 10 has been.

I thought his idea of an expansion to 24 teams with 4 geographically based divisions made some sense--given that the Big 10 no longer has any geographic soul.

[CTcard]

I am not sure this has been linked and discussed, given that it came out yesterday:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...e-numbers/

He rates prospective school for sports success, their institutional fit, and their markets, and derives a composite score.  Here is how potential schools rank for expansion:

1. Notre Dame
2. North Carolina
3. Oregon
4. Florida State
5. Washington
6. Clemson
7. Utah
8. Miami
9. Stanford
10. Cal

Have fun digging into his numbers and disputing them!  Clearly it is weighted towards revenue sports and toward large public universities.  That is, however, what the Big 10 has been.

I thought his idea of an expansion to 24 teams with 4 geographically based divisions made some sense--given that the Big 10 no longer has any geographic soul.

I had the impression that Nate Silver does some interesting and careful numerical analysis. This one is rather disappointing. 

I'll stick to just a couple of issues. 
1. He throws in a bunch of categories, with a bunch of different weightings, but no discussion at all as to why that number at that weight is relevant. Most (but not all) of the issues he raises likely have some level of relevance, but he doesn't even attempt to claim that the way he adds everything up follows anything other than a vague, intuitive feel. 
2. He doesn't appear to care a lot about whether the numbers he uses are actually correct. I am not going to check out everything, but there is lots of questionable stuff at the site he lists for all sports revenues. 

The numbers here seem to be just a bunch of spaghetti thrown up against the wall. I don't see they add anything. This is as valid as any other intuitive musing about what the Big Ten might do, but no more. 


However, the article does hint at one issue I have been wondering if we might see among the next iterations. The Big Ten seems only interested in programs that would add enough so that each team's revenues would increase. And as many have noted, there aren't many such teams left. However, one way to increase per team revenue is to cut the dead weight. I am sure that OSU, Michigan et al have dreamed about that, but trying to pull that trigger is another matter. 
One could foresee Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and maybe Iowa, Minnesota  abandoned. 
I don't think Maryland and Rutgers are turning out like the Big Ten hoped, but it could be that they still think the sheen of the Big Ten could make those programs hits in the NYC and Washington areas - and even if not it could be too big a blow to their pride to admit a mistake. 

Similarly, the SEC could probably do better financially if they add Miami, Clemson, FSU and maybe UNC/NCSU while ditching Vandy, South Carolina, Mizzou, and maybe the Mississippis. 

Of course that could get very ugly.

[CTcard]

I am not sure this has been linked and discussed, given that it came out yesterday:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe...e-numbers/

He rates prospective school for sports success, their institutional fit, and their markets, and derives a composite score.  Here is how potential schools rank for expansion:

1. Notre Dame
2. North Carolina
3. Oregon
4. Florida State
5. Washington
6. Clemson
7. Utah
8. Miami
9. Stanford
10. Cal

Have fun digging into his numbers and disputing them!  Clearly it is weighted towards revenue sports and toward large public universities.  That is, however, what the Big 10 has been.

I thought his idea of an expansion to 24 teams with 4 geographically based divisions made some sense--given that the Big 10 no longer has any geographic soul.

I had the impression that Nate Silver does some interesting and careful numerical analysis. This one is rather disappointing. 

I'll stick to just a couple of issues. 
1. He throws in a bunch of categories, with a bunch of different weightings, but no discussion at all as to why that number at that weight is relevant. Most (but not all) of the issues he raises likely have some level of relevance, but he doesn't even attempt to claim that the way he adds everything up follows anything other than a vague, intuitive feel. 
2. He doesn't appear to care a lot about whether the numbers he uses are actually correct. I am not going to check out everything, but there is lots of questionable stuff at the site he lists for all sports revenues. 

The numbers here seem to be just a bunch of spaghetti thrown up against the wall. I don't see they add anything. This is as valid as any other intuitive musing about what the Big Ten might do, but no more. 


However, the article does hint at one issue I have been wondering if we might see among the next iterations. The Big Ten seems only interested in programs that would add enough so that each team's revenues would increase. And as many have noted, there aren't many such teams left. However, one way to increase per team revenue is to cut the dead weight. I am sure that OSU, Michigan et al have dreamed about that, but trying to pull that trigger is another matter. 
One could foresee Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and maybe Iowa, Minnesota  abandoned. 
I don't think Maryland and Rutgers are turning out like the Big Ten hoped, but it could be that they still think the sheen of the Big Ten could make those programs hits in the NYC and Washington areas - and even if not it could be too big a blow to their pride to admit a mistake. 

Similarly, the SEC could probably do better financially if they add Miami, Clemson, FSU and maybe UNC/NCSU while ditching Vandy, South Carolina, Mizzou, and maybe the Mississippis. 

Of course that could get very ugly.

[TrumpCard]

I’ve been down on Nate Silver since he started being anti-COVID NPIs and producing analyses to support his position that seemed biased.

[TrumpCard]

I’ve been down on Nate Silver since he started being anti-COVID NPIs and producing analyses to support his position that seemed biased.

[JJJ]

Thanks for sharing. That was an interesting exercise. Color me surprised that our "Market Fit" is better than Cal's though!

[JJJ]

Thanks for sharing. That was an interesting exercise. Color me surprised that our "Market Fit" is better than Cal's though!

[Goose]

One could foresee Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and maybe Iowa, Minnesota  abandoned.

Yes, but how do you do it? I guess you could pass a "rule" that required things these schools couldn't do, but everyone else could? I don't think conference's agreements have a provision for expulsion without cause.

Of course that could get very ugly.

Very much so. I can't see any way to do it other than found a "new" conference and transfer the "desired" teams into it. Still very ugly, but at least theoretically doable.

[Goose]

One could foresee Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and maybe Iowa, Minnesota  abandoned.

Yes, but how do you do it? I guess you could pass a "rule" that required things these schools couldn't do, but everyone else could? I don't think conference's agreements have a provision for expulsion without cause.

Of course that could get very ugly.

Very much so. I can't see any way to do it other than found a "new" conference and transfer the "desired" teams into it. Still very ugly, but at least theoretically doable.

[chrisk]

One could foresee Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and maybe Iowa, Minnesota  abandoned.

Yes, but how do you do it? I guess you could pass a "rule" that required things these schools couldn't do, but everyone else could? I don't think conference's agreements have a provision for expulsion without cause.

Of course that could get very ugly.

Very much so. I can't see any way to do it other than found a "new" conference and transfer the "desired" teams into it. Still very ugly, but at least theoretically doable.

Isn't that basically the story of the MWC carving itself out of the WAC. taking the top 8 schools into a new conference?

[chrisk]

One could foresee Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and maybe Iowa, Minnesota  abandoned.

Yes, but how do you do it? I guess you could pass a "rule" that required things these schools couldn't do, but everyone else could? I don't think conference's agreements have a provision for expulsion without cause.

Of course that could get very ugly.

Very much so. I can't see any way to do it other than found a "new" conference and transfer the "desired" teams into it. Still very ugly, but at least theoretically doable.

Isn't that basically the story of the MWC carving itself out of the WAC. taking the top 8 schools into a new conference?

[81alum]

1. He throws in a bunch of categories, with a bunch of different weightings, but no discussion at all as to why that number at that weight is relevant. Most (but not all) of the issues he raises likely have some level of relevance, but he doesn't even attempt to claim that the way he adds everything up follows anything other than a vague, intuitive feel. 

2. He doesn't appear to care a lot about whether the numbers he uses are actually correct. I am not going to check out everything, but there is lots of questionable stuff at the site he lists for all sports revenues. 



The numbers here seem to be just a bunch of spaghetti thrown up against the wall. I don't see they add anything. This is as valid as any other intuitive musing about what the Big Ten might do, but no more. 

I generally agree.  This is what I think numbers-crunchers at their worst are often want to do when they are at their worst: an elaborate objectification of the inherently subjective.

However, throwing out his numbers and just focusing on the underlying subjective impression: Stanford ranks pretty darn low as a possible expansion candidate in his mind.  And something tells me he is probably right.  A smaller private school in a football-averse region is not going to be as attractive as larger public schools in football-obsessed regions.  That is all this says, I think.

[81alum]

1. He throws in a bunch of categories, with a bunch of different weightings, but no discussion at all as to why that number at that weight is relevant. Most (but not all) of the issues he raises likely have some level of relevance, but he doesn't even attempt to claim that the way he adds everything up follows anything other than a vague, intuitive feel. 

2. He doesn't appear to care a lot about whether the numbers he uses are actually correct. I am not going to check out everything, but there is lots of questionable stuff at the site he lists for all sports revenues. 



The numbers here seem to be just a bunch of spaghetti thrown up against the wall. I don't see they add anything. This is as valid as any other intuitive musing about what the Big Ten might do, but no more. 

I generally agree.  This is what I think numbers-crunchers at their worst are often want to do when they are at their worst: an elaborate objectification of the inherently subjective.

However, throwing out his numbers and just focusing on the underlying subjective impression: Stanford ranks pretty darn low as a possible expansion candidate in his mind.  And something tells me he is probably right.  A smaller private school in a football-averse region is not going to be as attractive as larger public schools in football-obsessed regions.  That is all this says, I think.

[BostonCard]

All of this is predicated in a desire to join a semi-pro football league.  One question the exercise didn’t ask was how good a fit the BigTen is for the university.

BC

[BostonCard]

All of this is predicated in a desire to join a semi-pro football league.  One question the exercise didn’t ask was how good a fit the BigTen is for the university.

BC

[Hulk01]

You cannot assess which universities the Big 10 Presidents will find most attractive without understanding exactly what the Big 10 is.

It is an alliance of universities which share research and bid collectively, for starters.  Only by studying how this alliance works can you make well-grounded predictions.  Silver hasn't even pretended to do that.

[Hulk01]

You cannot assess which universities the Big 10 Presidents will find most attractive without understanding exactly what the Big 10 is.

It is an alliance of universities which share research and bid collectively, for starters.  Only by studying how this alliance works can you make well-grounded predictions.  Silver hasn't even pretended to do that.

[BostonCard]

You cannot assess which universities the Big 10 Presidents will find most attractive without understanding exactly what the Big 10 is.

It is an alliance of universities which share research and bid collectively, for starters.  Only by studying how this alliance works can you make well-grounded predictions.  Silver hasn't even pretended to do that.

And how would you know? (Wink, wink)

I was going to note that the 538 assumption is that “fit” is based on the assumption that most Big Ten universities are large flagship public universities, but what they think of themselves is that they are mostly large research universities.

BC

[BostonCard]

You cannot assess which universities the Big 10 Presidents will find most attractive without understanding exactly what the Big 10 is.

It is an alliance of universities which share research and bid collectively, for starters.  Only by studying how this alliance works can you make well-grounded predictions.  Silver hasn't even pretended to do that.

And how would you know? (Wink, wink)

I was going to note that the 538 assumption is that “fit” is based on the assumption that most Big Ten universities are large flagship public universities, but what they think of themselves is that they are mostly large research universities.

BC