[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.