(06-08-2016 04:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the record, UNC is almost entirely made up on in-state students. I believe there is a law that requires 85% of the students to come from N.C.. I wish that Alabama would do the same but that would mean the school would have 10-12k students, at best, and given Alabama's status as a poor state the student demographic would not be nearly as attractive. It would actually probably resemble UAB if that were to happen.

You're probably right about that although I think the number would be higher.

My thought is that as long as the state's students are being taken care of, I don't have a problem with recruiting heavily out of state. It extends our brand and donor base. I think we benefit from having a number of vested alumni all over the country and especially in the region.

I actually think if ECU had an offer from the SEC then the NC BoG would be under a lot of pressure to approve it. It would provide quite a financial boon to the state and to deny a state school an opportunity to be in a Power conference when it otherwise would not be, it would be dereliction of duty.

UNC might not particularly like it, but the real problem for them would be losing NC State. Not only would UNC's influence in the ACC be weakened, but their in-state rival would have an edge on exposure in a league like the SEC. ECU's inclusion in the SEC wouldn't threaten what's most important to them.

Also, I think ECU(or Carolina U) in the SEC is not a bad idea. We're not ready for that yet, but should the winds of realignment blow in a way that would make taking on projects beneficial then you couldn't do much better than ECU and UCF.

(06-08-2016 04:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 12:29 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 10:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think we will see ECU in the SEC in the next 50 years.

It isn't rankings that are ECU's problem, as preciously posted, it's student demographics.

What is wrong with our student demographics???

Our student base mostly consist of students from Eastern NC, Raleigh/Triangle, Triad, and Charlotte areas with a lot of out of state students from Virginia to Maryland (I-95 Corridor). Which is great for fans and tv viewers across the state since we draw from Charlotte, Raleigh, and Eastern NC plus Richmond, VA, Tidewater, and DC Metro area.

We are a urban/residential campus with all freshman having to live on campus their first year of school unless they are from Greenville or less than miles 30 from campus then you can get a special provision to live at home if you would like. We are not a commuter school all of our students live and around campus.

Is it our academic demographics? UNC Chapel Hill is a small school compared to other "flagship" public schools in other Southern States or Midwest States like Big Ten schools. East Carolina will have over 30,000 students soon we will be the public school for the state since the "flagship" wants to pretend it some ivy league liberal art private school instead of a public institution that is suppose to educate the mass population of the state like UGA, Bama, UT-K, UF, SC, etc. do We also have the East Carolina Honor Program that is allowing us to get some of the best students in the state to come to East Carolina.

So what is wrong with the demographics? If you have ever been to our campus it looks just like any other large public school in the South like UGA, Auburn, Bama, Ole Miss, LSU, same type of people.

Are you saying we have an unsuccessful alumni base? Which is also wrong with have several successful alumni in the CEO of BB&T, Founder of Golden Corral, Founder of WWE, Founder and former owner of Wilco-Hess (just got bought out by Speedway, and many more.

So not sure what that you meant by student demographics?

You can see the figures that have been posted previously.

It certainly is not meant to be a put-down, but it is factually impossible to argue that ECU looks much like any SEC school--at least from an academic standpoint, especially when you look at the type of kid that is attending.

ECU does not attract elite students, the kind that get a 30-36 or equivalent on an ACT. ECU has about 2% of its student population fall into that category. The weakest SEC school have about 8x that amount--Ole Miss and Miss St.. The stronger schools have 30-50% of their newly admitted students in that category.

Unfortunately for ECU, from that standpoint alone ECU looks a lot more like Georgia Southern/State, UL Monroe., and Troy than it does South Carolina, Tennessee, or LSU. Interestingly, it has nearly an identical demographic to UNA.

There is certainly time and room for improvement and seeing as that ECU has improved so dramatically elsewhere I see no reason why it would not improve there as well.

What it is probably most indicative of is the type of student that it tends to serve at this point, which tends to change over time.

I think that is probably the largest hurdle left in front of ECU, everything else you have mentioned is fantastic, from the stadium to fan support and on-field success.

The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition.



For the record, UNC is almost entirely made up on in-state students. I believe there is a law that requires 85% of the students to come from N.C.. I wish that Alabama would do the same but that would mean the school would have 10-12k students, at best, and given Alabama's status as a poor state the student demographic would not be nearly as attractive. It would actually probably resemble UAB if that were to happen.

That law was modified several years ago so that it would be uniform for all 17 schools in the University system. The law now requires that 83% of students be residents of the State of North Carolina.

Maybe the SEC should fake everyone out of their jocks, add Cincy, and establish a foothold in a populous new state.

"The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition."

This. As has been discussed, Miss St is currently the lowest US News ranking school in the conference at 161. It, Alabama, and Auburn are also the only "Higher research" Carnegie classifications in the league. West Virginia does have a "highest research" classification but sits at 175 in the US News rankings.

This could be an issue in the SEC getting OK too. OK is 108 and "highest," but if we have to OK State which is 149 and "higher" it might be an issue.

Duke 8 highest
Virginia 26 highest
UNC 30 highest
Miami 51 highest
Texas 52 highest
Clemson 61 highest
Virginia Tech 70 highest
TCU 82 higher
NC State 89 highest
Florida State 96 highest
OK 108 Highest
Kansas 115 highest

(other schools: Wake Forest 27 Highest, Tulane 41 Highest, SMU 61 "higher", Tulsa 86 higher, Pitt 66 Highest, GT 36 Highest, Iowa State 108 Highest, Baylor 72 higher)

I see a huge gap between the above and:
Cincy 140 Highest
Kansas State 146 Highest
OK State 149 Higher
USF 156 Highest
Louisville 168 Highest
Texas Tech 168 Highest
UCF 168 Highest
WVU 175 Highest
ECU 194 Higher

I don't know that the conference is going to take schools that academically "hurt" their perception. Even OK at 108 is lower than our average of 99.5. Kansas is even lower but is also AAU, so I'm not sure why they have such a low ranking in USN.

Schools like FSU and NC State don't hurt us but don't help us much either.

Not sure how the league would look at TCU. At 82 it is somewhat better than our average, in a decent market, but also just "higher research" classification and a smaller school.

That leaves: Duke, UVA, UNC, Miami, Texas, Clemson and VTech all above 70 in US News, all "highest research," and all in P5 conferences already. It's nothing new to say that these should be our targets, at the very least academically speaking.

Clemson and Miami wouldn't bring new markets, but might be worth taking anyway.

VTech would certainly fit well with the SEC and does get us into new markets. I have also heard that the Big 10 may be interested in them as well, but I don't know how serious that is versus getting Virginia if the opportunity arose.

Texas is always a wild card, but I doubt we could take them until 2026, even if the GOR was broken. We won't let Texas keep the LHN, so we would have to wait for either the contract to end or for it to be affordable to buy out.

Duke, UVA, and UNC probably all prefer the Big 10 but if we get any of these, its a win. All three improve our academic standing and basketball standings, and Duke is improving in football and UVA has a decent baseball team too.

I'm not saying that these academic rankings won't change, but based on current/near future thoughts, academically speaking, we are really limited if we want quality teams. And yes, we do have a bit of "academic insecurity," that plays into this.

(06-09-2016 04:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  "The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition."

This. As has been discussed, Miss St is currently the lowest US News ranking school in the conference at 161. It, Alabama, and Auburn are also the only "Higher research" Carnegie classifications in the league. West Virginia does have a "highest research" classification but sits at 175 in the US News rankings.

This could be an issue in the SEC getting OK too. OK is 108 and "highest," but if we have to OK State which is 149 and "higher" it might be an issue.

Duke 8 highest
Virginia 26 highest
UNC 30 highest
Miami 51 highest
Texas 52 highest
Clemson 61 highest
Virginia Tech 70 highest
TCU 82 higher
NC State 89 highest
Florida State 96 highest
OK 108 Highest
Kansas 115 highest

(other schools: Wake Forest 27 Highest, Tulane 41 Highest, SMU 61 "higher", Tulsa 86 higher, Pitt 66 Highest, GT 36 Highest, Iowa State 108 Highest, Baylor 72 higher)

I see a huge gap between the above and:
Cincy 140 Highest
Kansas State 146 Highest
OK State 149 Higher
USF 156 Highest
Louisville 168 Highest
Texas Tech 168 Highest
UCF 168 Highest
WVU 175 Highest
ECU 194 Higher

I don't know that the conference is going to take schools that academically "hurt" their perception. Even OK at 108 is lower than our average of 99.5. Kansas is even lower but is also AAU, so I'm not sure why they have such a low ranking in USN.

Schools like FSU and NC State don't hurt us but don't help us much either.

Not sure how the league would look at TCU. At 82 it is somewhat better than our average, in a decent market, but also just "higher research" classification and a smaller school.

That leaves: Duke, UVA, UNC, Miami, Texas, Clemson and VTech all above 70 in US News, all "highest research," and all in P5 conferences already. It's nothing new to say that these should be our targets, at the very least academically speaking.

Clemson and Miami wouldn't bring new markets, but might be worth taking anyway.

VTech would certainly fit well with the SEC and does get us into new markets. I have also heard that the Big 10 may be interested in them as well, but I don't know how serious that is versus getting Virginia if the opportunity arose.

Texas is always a wild card, but I doubt we could take them until 2026, even if the GOR was broken. We won't let Texas keep the LHN, so we would have to wait for either the contract to end or for it to be affordable to buy out.

Duke, UVA, and UNC probably all prefer the Big 10 but if we get any of these, its a win. All three improve our academic standing and basketball standings, and Duke is improving in football and UVA has a decent baseball team too.

I'm not saying that these academic rankings won't change, but based on current/near future thoughts, academically speaking, we are really limited if we want quality teams. And yes, we do have a bit of "academic insecurity," that plays into this.

ARWU rankings are probably better determinations of academic standing. USN&WR is based more on popularity with undergrads and is filtered by what is the best buy for your educational dollars.

To get a more precise list of candidates you need to look at the following:
1. Total Gross Revenue of the Athletic Department
2. Stadium capacity and average home game attendance numbers.
3. Academic standing and affiliations.
4. Television draw.

(06-09-2016 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  "The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition."

This. As has been discussed, Miss St is currently the lowest US News ranking school in the conference at 161. It, Alabama, and Auburn are also the only "Higher research" Carnegie classifications in the league. West Virginia does have a "highest research" classification but sits at 175 in the US News rankings.

This could be an issue in the SEC getting OK too. OK is 108 and "highest," but if we have to OK State which is 149 and "higher" it might be an issue.

Duke 8 highest
Virginia 26 highest
UNC 30 highest
Miami 51 highest
Texas 52 highest
Clemson 61 highest
Virginia Tech 70 highest
TCU 82 higher
NC State 89 highest
Florida State 96 highest
OK 108 Highest
Kansas 115 highest

(other schools: Wake Forest 27 Highest, Tulane 41 Highest, SMU 61 "higher", Tulsa 86 higher, Pitt 66 Highest, GT 36 Highest, Iowa State 108 Highest, Baylor 72 higher)

I see a huge gap between the above and:
Cincy 140 Highest
Kansas State 146 Highest
OK State 149 Higher
USF 156 Highest
Louisville 168 Highest
Texas Tech 168 Highest
UCF 168 Highest
WVU 175 Highest
ECU 194 Higher

I don't know that the conference is going to take schools that academically "hurt" their perception. Even OK at 108 is lower than our average of 99.5. Kansas is even lower but is also AAU, so I'm not sure why they have such a low ranking in USN.

Schools like FSU and NC State don't hurt us but don't help us much either.

Not sure how the league would look at TCU. At 82 it is somewhat better than our average, in a decent market, but also just "higher research" classification and a smaller school.

That leaves: Duke, UVA, UNC, Miami, Texas, Clemson and VTech all above 70 in US News, all "highest research," and all in P5 conferences already. It's nothing new to say that these should be our targets, at the very least academically speaking.

Clemson and Miami wouldn't bring new markets, but might be worth taking anyway.

VTech would certainly fit well with the SEC and does get us into new markets. I have also heard that the Big 10 may be interested in them as well, but I don't know how serious that is versus getting Virginia if the opportunity arose.

Texas is always a wild card, but I doubt we could take them until 2026, even if the GOR was broken. We won't let Texas keep the LHN, so we would have to wait for either the contract to end or for it to be affordable to buy out.

Duke, UVA, and UNC probably all prefer the Big 10 but if we get any of these, its a win. All three improve our academic standing and basketball standings, and Duke is improving in football and UVA has a decent baseball team too.

I'm not saying that these academic rankings won't change, but based on current/near future thoughts, academically speaking, we are really limited if we want quality teams. And yes, we do have a bit of "academic insecurity," that plays into this.

ARWU rankings are probably better determinations of academic standing. USN&WR is based more on popularity with undergrads and is filtered by what is the best buy for your educational dollars.

To get a more precise list of candidates you need to look at the following:
1. Total Gross Revenue of the Athletic Department
2. Stadium capacity and average home game attendance numbers.
3. Academic standing and affiliations.
4. Television draw.

I looked at the ARWU rankings and found them interesting. One issue though is that even in the national rankings, schools were grouped in bunches. There is a big difference between Notre Dame and Kentucky but they are in the same grouping. It still works to show overall value, though.

According to those standings, Clemson, OK and Ok State are all in the 126-146 range, which makes Clemson and OK seem worse than the USN rankings.

(06-10-2016 10:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  "The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition."

This. As has been discussed, Miss St is currently the lowest US News ranking school in the conference at 161. It, Alabama, and Auburn are also the only "Higher research" Carnegie classifications in the league. West Virginia does have a "highest research" classification but sits at 175 in the US News rankings.

This could be an issue in the SEC getting OK too. OK is 108 and "highest," but if we have to OK State which is 149 and "higher" it might be an issue.

Duke 8 highest
Virginia 26 highest
UNC 30 highest
Miami 51 highest
Texas 52 highest
Clemson 61 highest
Virginia Tech 70 highest
TCU 82 higher
NC State 89 highest
Florida State 96 highest
OK 108 Highest
Kansas 115 highest

(other schools: Wake Forest 27 Highest, Tulane 41 Highest, SMU 61 "higher", Tulsa 86 higher, Pitt 66 Highest, GT 36 Highest, Iowa State 108 Highest, Baylor 72 higher)

I see a huge gap between the above and:
Cincy 140 Highest
Kansas State 146 Highest
OK State 149 Higher
USF 156 Highest
Louisville 168 Highest
Texas Tech 168 Highest
UCF 168 Highest
WVU 175 Highest
ECU 194 Higher

I don't know that the conference is going to take schools that academically "hurt" their perception. Even OK at 108 is lower than our average of 99.5. Kansas is even lower but is also AAU, so I'm not sure why they have such a low ranking in USN.

Schools like FSU and NC State don't hurt us but don't help us much either.

Not sure how the league would look at TCU. At 82 it is somewhat better than our average, in a decent market, but also just "higher research" classification and a smaller school.

That leaves: Duke, UVA, UNC, Miami, Texas, Clemson and VTech all above 70 in US News, all "highest research," and all in P5 conferences already. It's nothing new to say that these should be our targets, at the very least academically speaking.

Clemson and Miami wouldn't bring new markets, but might be worth taking anyway.

VTech would certainly fit well with the SEC and does get us into new markets. I have also heard that the Big 10 may be interested in them as well, but I don't know how serious that is versus getting Virginia if the opportunity arose.

Texas is always a wild card, but I doubt we could take them until 2026, even if the GOR was broken. We won't let Texas keep the LHN, so we would have to wait for either the contract to end or for it to be affordable to buy out.

Duke, UVA, and UNC probably all prefer the Big 10 but if we get any of these, its a win. All three improve our academic standing and basketball standings, and Duke is improving in football and UVA has a decent baseball team too.

I'm not saying that these academic rankings won't change, but based on current/near future thoughts, academically speaking, we are really limited if we want quality teams. And yes, we do have a bit of "academic insecurity," that plays into this.

ARWU rankings are probably better determinations of academic standing. USN&WR is based more on popularity with undergrads and is filtered by what is the best buy for your educational dollars.

To get a more precise list of candidates you need to look at the following:
1. Total Gross Revenue of the Athletic Department
2. Stadium capacity and average home game attendance numbers.
3. Academic standing and affiliations.
4. Television draw.

I looked at the ARWU rankings and found them interesting. One issue though is that even in the national rankings, schools were grouped in bunches. There is a big difference between Notre Dame and Kentucky but they are in the same grouping. It still works to show overall value, though.

According to those standings, Clemson, OK and Ok State are all in the 126-146 range, which makes Clemson and OK seem worse than the USN rankings.

Which is why I don't buy the Big 10 stuff with regards to OU. If you would please list the SEC schools by ARWU and insert our candidates in the place they would occupy if asked. I think that visual would be interesting.

(06-10-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Which is why I don't buy the Big 10 stuff with regards to OU. If you would please list the SEC schools by ARWU and insert our candidates in the place they would occupy if asked. I think that visual would be interesting.

I buy it if getting OU reels in Texas. I just don't see the B1G taken the Sooners by themselves though. That move doesn't help the northern conference that much and actively hurts Oklahoma over the long run IMO.
The Sooner playing Nebraska would be overshadowed by the RRR becoming and OOC game and having the likes of Iowa, Wisky and NW show up in Norman. That lineup is more unpalatable to the fanbase than the current B12 schedule. The only move that might be available is to the SEC and even that is impinged somewhat by OKST. Maybe all of the OU sound and fury just signifies how empty Boren's hand really is.

(06-10-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 10:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  "The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition."

This. As has been discussed, Miss St is currently the lowest US News ranking school in the conference at 161. It, Alabama, and Auburn are also the only "Higher research" Carnegie classifications in the league. West Virginia does have a "highest research" classification but sits at 175 in the US News rankings.

This could be an issue in the SEC getting OK too. OK is 108 and "highest," but if we have to OK State which is 149 and "higher" it might be an issue.

Duke 8 highest
Virginia 26 highest
UNC 30 highest
Miami 51 highest
Texas 52 highest
Clemson 61 highest
Virginia Tech 70 highest
TCU 82 higher
NC State 89 highest
Florida State 96 highest
OK 108 Highest
Kansas 115 highest

(other schools: Wake Forest 27 Highest, Tulane 41 Highest, SMU 61 "higher", Tulsa 86 higher, Pitt 66 Highest, GT 36 Highest, Iowa State 108 Highest, Baylor 72 higher)

I see a huge gap between the above and:
Cincy 140 Highest
Kansas State 146 Highest
OK State 149 Higher
USF 156 Highest
Louisville 168 Highest
Texas Tech 168 Highest
UCF 168 Highest
WVU 175 Highest
ECU 194 Higher

I don't know that the conference is going to take schools that academically "hurt" their perception. Even OK at 108 is lower than our average of 99.5. Kansas is even lower but is also AAU, so I'm not sure why they have such a low ranking in USN.

Schools like FSU and NC State don't hurt us but don't help us much either.

Not sure how the league would look at TCU. At 82 it is somewhat better than our average, in a decent market, but also just "higher research" classification and a smaller school.

That leaves: Duke, UVA, UNC, Miami, Texas, Clemson and VTech all above 70 in US News, all "highest research," and all in P5 conferences already. It's nothing new to say that these should be our targets, at the very least academically speaking.

Clemson and Miami wouldn't bring new markets, but might be worth taking anyway.

VTech would certainly fit well with the SEC and does get us into new markets. I have also heard that the Big 10 may be interested in them as well, but I don't know how serious that is versus getting Virginia if the opportunity arose.

Texas is always a wild card, but I doubt we could take them until 2026, even if the GOR was broken. We won't let Texas keep the LHN, so we would have to wait for either the contract to end or for it to be affordable to buy out.

Duke, UVA, and UNC probably all prefer the Big 10 but if we get any of these, its a win. All three improve our academic standing and basketball standings, and Duke is improving in football and UVA has a decent baseball team too.

I'm not saying that these academic rankings won't change, but based on current/near future thoughts, academically speaking, we are really limited if we want quality teams. And yes, we do have a bit of "academic insecurity," that plays into this.

ARWU rankings are probably better determinations of academic standing. USN&WR is based more on popularity with undergrads and is filtered by what is the best buy for your educational dollars.

To get a more precise list of candidates you need to look at the following:
1. Total Gross Revenue of the Athletic Department
2. Stadium capacity and average home game attendance numbers.
3. Academic standing and affiliations.
4. Television draw.

I looked at the ARWU rankings and found them interesting. One issue though is that even in the national rankings, schools were grouped in bunches. There is a big difference between Notre Dame and Kentucky but they are in the same grouping. It still works to show overall value, though.

According to those standings, Clemson, OK and Ok State are all in the 126-146 range, which makes Clemson and OK seem worse than the USN rankings.

Which is why I don't buy the Big 10 stuff with regards to OU. If you would please list the SEC schools by ARWU and insert our candidates in the place they would occupy if asked. I think that visual would be interesting.

The number listed is the precise number if the school is a top 100 world university (reflecting national ranking only). If it is below that the number listed is the highest in that schools bracket.

Duke 23
Texas 27
Unc 29
Vandy 34
Pitt 41
Florida 44
Texas A&M 51
UVa 52
G Tech 52
Miami 66
Iowa state 66
NC State 66
Georgia 66
Tennessee 66
Cincy 79
USF 79
Houston 79
FSU 79
Virginia Tech 79
Kansas 79
Kentucky 79
South Carolina 79
LSU 79
Missouri 103
UCF 103
Tulane 103
Arkansas 126
Auburn 126
Clemson 126
Kansas st 126
Ok 126
Ok state 126
Texas tech 126

Alabama, ole miss, miss state all unrankeds
Other candidates unranked. I may have missed one. Ecu/Louisville unranked

(06-10-2016 11:47 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 10:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:21 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  "The SEC has a bit of an academic insecurity, real or imagined, that probably impacts the analysis in a very particular way. It is one reason why many say WVU may be passed over, in spite of the fact they would be a great football addition."

This. As has been discussed, Miss St is currently the lowest US News ranking school in the conference at 161. It, Alabama, and Auburn are also the only "Higher research" Carnegie classifications in the league. West Virginia does have a "highest research" classification but sits at 175 in the US News rankings.

This could be an issue in the SEC getting OK too. OK is 108 and "highest," but if we have to OK State which is 149 and "higher" it might be an issue.

Duke 8 highest
Virginia 26 highest
UNC 30 highest
Miami 51 highest
Texas 52 highest
Clemson 61 highest
Virginia Tech 70 highest
TCU 82 higher
NC State 89 highest
Florida State 96 highest
OK 108 Highest
Kansas 115 highest

(other schools: Wake Forest 27 Highest, Tulane 41 Highest, SMU 61 "higher", Tulsa 86 higher, Pitt 66 Highest, GT 36 Highest, Iowa State 108 Highest, Baylor 72 higher)

I see a huge gap between the above and:
Cincy 140 Highest
Kansas State 146 Highest
OK State 149 Higher
USF 156 Highest
Louisville 168 Highest
Texas Tech 168 Highest
UCF 168 Highest
WVU 175 Highest
ECU 194 Higher

I don't know that the conference is going to take schools that academically "hurt" their perception. Even OK at 108 is lower than our average of 99.5. Kansas is even lower but is also AAU, so I'm not sure why they have such a low ranking in USN.

Schools like FSU and NC State don't hurt us but don't help us much either.

Not sure how the league would look at TCU. At 82 it is somewhat better than our average, in a decent market, but also just "higher research" classification and a smaller school.

That leaves: Duke, UVA, UNC, Miami, Texas, Clemson and VTech all above 70 in US News, all "highest research," and all in P5 conferences already. It's nothing new to say that these should be our targets, at the very least academically speaking.

Clemson and Miami wouldn't bring new markets, but might be worth taking anyway.

VTech would certainly fit well with the SEC and does get us into new markets. I have also heard that the Big 10 may be interested in them as well, but I don't know how serious that is versus getting Virginia if the opportunity arose.

Texas is always a wild card, but I doubt we could take them until 2026, even if the GOR was broken. We won't let Texas keep the LHN, so we would have to wait for either the contract to end or for it to be affordable to buy out.

Duke, UVA, and UNC probably all prefer the Big 10 but if we get any of these, its a win. All three improve our academic standing and basketball standings, and Duke is improving in football and UVA has a decent baseball team too.

I'm not saying that these academic rankings won't change, but based on current/near future thoughts, academically speaking, we are really limited if we want quality teams. And yes, we do have a bit of "academic insecurity," that plays into this.

ARWU rankings are probably better determinations of academic standing. USN&WR is based more on popularity with undergrads and is filtered by what is the best buy for your educational dollars.

To get a more precise list of candidates you need to look at the following:
1. Total Gross Revenue of the Athletic Department
2. Stadium capacity and average home game attendance numbers.
3. Academic standing and affiliations.
4. Television draw.

I looked at the ARWU rankings and found them interesting. One issue though is that even in the national rankings, schools were grouped in bunches. There is a big difference between Notre Dame and Kentucky but they are in the same grouping. It still works to show overall value, though.

According to those standings, Clemson, OK and Ok State are all in the 126-146 range, which makes Clemson and OK seem worse than the USN rankings.

Which is why I don't buy the Big 10 stuff with regards to OU. If you would please list the SEC schools by ARWU and insert our candidates in the place they would occupy if asked. I think that visual would be interesting.

The number listed is the precise number if the school is a top 100 world university (reflecting national ranking only). If it is below that the number listed is the highest in that schools bracket.

Duke 23
Texas 27
Unc 29
Vandy 34
Pitt 41
Florida 44
Texas A&M 51
UVa 52
G Tech 52
Miami 66
Iowa state 66
NC State 66
Georgia 66
Tennessee 66
Cincy 79
USF 79
Houston 79
FSU 79
Virginia Tech 79
Kansas 79
Kentucky 79
South Carolina 79
LSU 79
Missouri 103
UCF 103
Tulane 103
Arkansas 126
Auburn 126
Clemson 126
Kansas st 126
Ok 126
Ok state 126
Texas tech 126

Alabama, ole miss, miss state all unrankeds
Other candidates unranked. I may have missed one. Ecu/Louisville unranked

Alabama lowered admission standards to boost numbers of attendees. They were normally in the group just ahead of Auburn.

I think it should be clear here as to why the Big 10 is not going to go after Oklahoma and Kansas would not be their first choice.

BTW I missed Notre Dame.

If the Big 10 moves toward 20 with an Eastward Focus you are looking at their candidates: Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, and possibly Miami if they want to get into Florida. The Canes make much more sense for them than the Seminoles. They have a large % of Big 10 Alums in Miami.

If the SEC struck for improvement but within their range our targets to 20 might be: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, and Kansas. And interesting possibility would be Iowa State.

You didn't see West Virginia up there either.

Now to further narrow the focus (as we might to go to 16) take the other factors I listed in an earlier post in this thread and prioritize each of the candidates by those numbers.

I would list Texas for us, but I think they will head West and take some friends of Texas with them.

If we want to lock down our boundaries then our selections to 16 would be Florida State and Oklahoma. If we want markets it's obviously Virginia Tech and N.C. State. If we want academic upgrades then we would be looking again at Virginia Tech and N.C. State, but could also look to Iowa State and Kansas (just not culturally appealing). Expansion to 18 or even 20 allows us to cover many more issues, but doesn't keep the Big 10 out of our region.

So all in all the best move for the SEC would be to split the states of North Carolina and Virginia with the Big 10 and add some of the football brands of the Big 12 to the ACC.

That's why in 2010 ESPN allegedly hoped to place Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame in the ACC and to build the markets of the SECN with N.C. State and Virginia Tech. It fell through. But now you understand the numbers. That move would have built an ACC of almost equal value to the SEC, would have solidified both for a total cost to ESPN of 32 schools and it would have locked FOX and the Big 10 out of the Southeast.

(06-10-2016 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alabama lowered admission standards to boost numbers of attendees. They were normally in the group just ahead of Auburn.

I think it should be clear here as to why the Big 10 is not going to go after Oklahoma and Kansas would not be their first choice.

BTW I missed Notre Dame.

If the Big 10 moves toward 20 with an Eastward Focus you are looking at their candidates: Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, and possibly Miami if they want to get into Florida. The Canes make much more sense for them than the Seminoles. They have a large % of Big 10 Alums in Miami.

If the SEC struck for improvement but within their range our targets to 20 might be: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, and Kansas. And interesting possibility would be Iowa State.

You didn't see West Virginia up there either.

Now to further narrow the focus (as we might to go to 16) take the other factors I listed in an earlier post in this thread and prioritize each of the candidates by those numbers.

I would list Texas for us, but I think they will head West and take some friends of Texas with them.

If we want to lock down our boundaries then our selections to 16 would be Florida State and Oklahoma. If we want markets it's obviously Virginia Tech and N.C. State. If we want academic upgrades then we would be looking again at Virginia Tech and N.C. State, but could also look to Iowa State and Kansas (just not culturally appealing). Expansion to 18 or even 20 allows us to cover many more issues, but doesn't keep the Big 10 out of our region.

So all in all the best move for the SEC would be to split the states of North Carolina and Virginia with the Big 10 and add some of the football brands of the Big 12 to the ACC.

That's why in 2010 ESPN allegedly hoped to place Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame in the ACC and to build the markets of the SECN with N.C. State and Virginia Tech. It fell through. But now you understand the numbers. That move would have built an ACC of almost equal value to the SEC, would have solidified both for a total cost to ESPN of 32 schools and it would have locked FOX and the Big 10 out of the Southeast.

I'm not a fan of any SEC team, but my best friend went to Texas A&M and my almost sister-in-law went to Alabama so I have my semi-loyalties. So this is from a non-SEC fan.

The SEC is very impressive on the gridiron and the diamond. In basketball, not so much. Kentucky is a tremendous program. Florida was up there for a bit. There are a few others that have great seasons. For the most part, the SEC is average. Academically, the SEC is okay. Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Florida, and Missouri are the only AAU schools - if that means anything to the SEC.

I would like to see the SEC focus on basketball, new states, and academics. The mid-Atlantic coast will be the new "battleground." If you could get North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia, that would sew up academics and basketball. You may have to be okay with Virginia Tech tagging along, but it's not like they are a slouch school.

Looking West, if the ACC schools are off limits, I would think Oklahoma is prime target #1. Kansas and Iowa St would add 2 AAU schools, new states, great basketball, and encroach B1G territory.

Realistically, I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see. I would not go after Texas. Same with Notre Dame. Both are terrific schools, but they bring too much baggage in the form of arrogance (a lot of it deserved but still too much for my liking.)

Unless y'all are hooked on Missouri, you may be able to let them go to pick up schools you actually want. They did pursue the B1G first after all.

Even though the SEC is not my favorite conference, this conference forum is by far the most intriguing to me.

If the B1G wants into NC and VA then sure. But I don't see going to the B1G as being beneficial for UNC, Duke, GT or UVA. You frequently opine about the loss of culture and shared history JR. I think should a more would erode those roots such that those schools would be no different than Purdue. Great educational institutions, but otherwise unremarkable.

I do think VT would probably fair OK in the B1G.

It's important to consider just what exactly you are looking at when you look at particular rankings.

They all focus on various things and are weighted to reflect different things, research dollars, citations of faculty, students, etc..

The end result is generally the more comprehensive a university is the better it will perform, especially with ARWU rankings.

If you look at the ARWU rankings you see that in a very particular way. Nobody in their right mind thinks Houston is a better school than Tulane. That's ludicrous. Asinine would probably be a better word for that.

The USNWR rankings reflect the kind of things a high-school senior is going to be interested in. USNWR also does a global ranking now.

A ranking is only as good as its methodology and there are too many different organizations, structures, and more to ever really rank them using a single metric, or even a weighted one. You also invariably end up asking yourself the question, which is actually better? Is the school with the 9th ranked Accounting program better than the school with the 9th ranked Finance program? Comparing most schools out there is comparing apples to oranges and grapefruits to pears.

The schools themselves are taking much more detailed looks at all of this than the ARWU or USNWR rankings could ever hope to present to the public for neat consumption.

The USNWR, ARWU, AAU, and the other alphabet soup groups are more for arguing on message boards than they are about anything else.

The AAU is an old school club, with some great school in it and other poor ones. Oregon is an AAU school and yet isn't particularly good at anything nor does it attract great students. The same is true for Iowa State, and Kansas for that matter. But, they were in it when it counted. The AAU also essentially forced other good schools out, Syracuse comes to mind. That was down to a change in position at Syracuse and a change in direction.

If you compare the SEC schools to the AAU they would fall in entirely when you look at different things but for many reasons they don't fit the mold due to the way many are organized or because their strengths lie in certain areas that have been emphasized over the years in those states.

There are also all kinds of rules that schools impose on themselves which essentially destroy any hope at receiving a strong ranking on some scale. Ole Miss' has a school of medicine but because of the way it is organized it does not get counted with the rest of the school in the same way others do. They also require admits to come from Mississippi only.

The rankings ultimately rank themselves, not schools.

The HOD rankings look something like this...

Ivy League - Obvious
Specialized Private - Johns Hopkins, MIT, Amherst
Big State Schools - U of __, ___ State
General Private Schools - Rhodes, Samford, Loyola
Regional State Schools - Houston, UCF
Small State Schools - Georgia Southern, ULM, Sam Houston

There are of course different ones that you can argue are as good and thats fine. But, thinking of things in tiers makes it much more representative of whats actually out there.

(06-10-2016 02:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's important to consider just what exactly you are looking at when you look at particular rankings.

They all focus on various things and are weighted to reflect different things, research dollars, citations of faculty, students, etc..

The end result is generally the more comprehensive a university is the better it will perform, especially with ARWU rankings.

If you look at the ARWU rankings you see that in a very particular way. Nobody in their right mind thinks Houston is a better school than Tulane. That's ludicrous. Asinine would probably be a better word for that.

The USNWR rankings reflect the kind of things a high-school senior is going to be interested in. USNWR also does a global ranking now.

A ranking is only as good as its methodology and there are too many different organizations, structures, and more to ever really rank them using a single metric, or even a weighted one. You also invariably end up asking yourself the question, which is actually better? Is the school with the 9th ranked Accounting program better than the school with the 9th ranked Finance program? Comparing most schools out there is comparing apples to oranges and grapefruits to pears.

The schools themselves are taking much more detailed looks at all of this than the ARWU or USNWR rankings could ever hope to present to the public for neat consumption.

The USNWR, ARWU, AAU, and the other alphabet soup groups are more for arguing on message boards than they are about anything else.

The AAU is an old school club, with some great school in it and other poor ones. Oregon is an AAU school and yet isn't particularly good at anything nor does it attract great students. The same is true for Iowa State, and Kansas for that matter. But, they were in it when it counted. The AAU also essentially forced other good schools out, Syracuse comes to mind. That was down to a change in position at Syracuse and a change in direction.

If you compare the SEC schools to the AAU they would fall in entirely when you look at different things but for many reasons they don't fit the mold due to the way many are organized or because their strengths lie in certain areas that have been emphasized over the years in those states.

There are also all kinds of rules that schools impose on themselves which essentially destroy any hope at receiving a strong ranking on some scale. Ole Miss' has a school of medicine but because of the way it is organized it does not get counted with the rest of the school in the same way others do. They also require admits to come from Mississippi only.

The rankings ultimately rank themselves, not schools.

The HOD rankings look something like this...

Ivy League - Obvious
Specialized Private - Johns Hopkins, MIT, Amherst
Big State Schools - U of __, ___ State
General Private Schools - Rhodes, Samford, Loyola
Regional State Schools - Houston, UCF
Small State Schools - Georgia Southern, ULM, Sam Houston

There are of course different ones that you can argue are as good and thats fine. But, thinking of things in tiers makes it much more representative of whats actually out there.

All very true. Some of the structural issues were introduced during reconstruction through new State Constitutions.

I would have added the Military Academies just below the Specialized Privates.

And all of this is why I place any academic ranking as only 1 of 4 criteria as listed above. After all in the end it is about athletics, and which schools earn us more, while throwing nice bones to the academics.

(06-10-2016 01:48 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Alabama lowered admission standards to boost numbers of attendees. They were normally in the group just ahead of Auburn.

I think it should be clear here as to why the Big 10 is not going to go after Oklahoma and Kansas would not be their first choice.

BTW I missed Notre Dame.

If the Big 10 moves toward 20 with an Eastward Focus you are looking at their candidates: Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, and possibly Miami if they want to get into Florida. The Canes make much more sense for them than the Seminoles. They have a large % of Big 10 Alums in Miami.

If the SEC struck for improvement but within their range our targets to 20 might be: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, and Kansas. And interesting possibility would be Iowa State.

You didn't see West Virginia up there either.

Now to further narrow the focus (as we might to go to 16) take the other factors I listed in an earlier post in this thread and prioritize each of the candidates by those numbers.

I would list Texas for us, but I think they will head West and take some friends of Texas with them.

If we want to lock down our boundaries then our selections to 16 would be Florida State and Oklahoma. If we want markets it's obviously Virginia Tech and N.C. State. If we want academic upgrades then we would be looking again at Virginia Tech and N.C. State, but could also look to Iowa State and Kansas (just not culturally appealing). Expansion to 18 or even 20 allows us to cover many more issues, but doesn't keep the Big 10 out of our region.

So all in all the best move for the SEC would be to split the states of North Carolina and Virginia with the Big 10 and add some of the football brands of the Big 12 to the ACC.

That's why in 2010 ESPN allegedly hoped to place Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame in the ACC and to build the markets of the SECN with N.C. State and Virginia Tech. It fell through. But now you understand the numbers. That move would have built an ACC of almost equal value to the SEC, would have solidified both for a total cost to ESPN of 32 schools and it would have locked FOX and the Big 10 out of the Southeast.

I'm not a fan of any SEC team, but my best friend went to Texas A&M and my almost sister-in-law went to Alabama so I have my semi-loyalties. So this is from a non-SEC fan.

The SEC is very impressive on the gridiron and the diamond. In basketball, not so much. Kentucky is a tremendous program. Florida was up there for a bit. There are a few others that have great seasons. For the most part, the SEC is average. Academically, the SEC is okay. Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Florida, and Missouri are the only AAU schools - if that means anything to the SEC.

I would like to see the SEC focus on basketball, new states, and academics. The mid-Atlantic coast will be the new "battleground." If you could get North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia, that would sew up academics and basketball. You may have to be okay with Virginia Tech tagging along, but it's not like they are a slouch school.

Looking West, if the ACC schools are off limits, I would think Oklahoma is prime target #1. Kansas and Iowa St would add 2 AAU schools, new states, great basketball, and encroach B1G territory.

Realistically, I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see. I would not go after Texas. Same with Notre Dame. Both are terrific schools, but they bring too much baggage in the form of arrogance (a lot of it deserved but still too much for my liking.)

Unless y'all are hooked on Missouri, you may be able to let them go to pick up schools you actually want. They did pursue the B1G first after all.

Even though the SEC is not my favorite conference, this conference forum is by far the most intriguing to me.

Thank you. Thoughtful outside opinions are welcomed. I hope you enjoy your time spent here. JR

JRSec,

In your "expansion by the numbers 2015" you posted revenue and attendance numbers for SEC and expansion candidates. You pointed to Texas, OK, FSU and ND as schools that help us improve.

Since these are two of the criteria you mentioned, what would you say would be SEC-like numbers or minimum needing for entry into SEC, especially if we need to go to 18 or 20 and need more than OK/FSU?

Is there a weight involved? Like is revenue more important since joining the SEC and football success can improve attendance? I'm looking at schools like Virginia and especially Duke whose revenue is below SEC average but still substantial, but have middling (UVA) and bad (Duke) attendance numbers.

Using your criteria, I'm not sure a home run candidate exists, who can mark all four boxes in terms of great TV get, huge revenue and attendance numbers, and an academic stud. Settling for a "threw star school" won't necessarily be a bad thing.

(06-10-2016 07:37 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  JRSec,

In your "expansion by the numbers 2015" you posted revenue and attendance numbers for SEC and expansion candidates. You pointed to Texas, OK, FSU and ND as schools that help us improve.

Since these are two of the criteria you mentioned, what would you say would be SEC-like numbers or minimum needing for entry into SEC, especially if we need to go to 18 or 20 and need more than OK/FSU?

Is there a weight involved? Like is revenue more important since joining the SEC and football success can improve attendance? I'm looking at schools like Virginia and especially Duke whose revenue is below SEC average but still substantial, but have middling (UVA) and bad (Duke) attendance numbers.

Using your criteria, I'm not sure a home run candidate exists, who can mark all four boxes in terms of great TV get, huge revenue and attendance numbers, and an academic stud. Settling for a "threw star school" won't necessarily be a bad thing.

You use the mean of each category. For instance if the mean on attendance last year was 78,000 you look for schools in that category that meet or exceed that mean.

If the mean athletic department revenue was 107 million (and it was close to that) then you look for schools that if they had had an SEC share of TV revenue last year instead of that of the conference they were in, would have met, or exceeded that mean. I think the mean at the time Missouri entered for stadium capacity was around 72,000. A&M's addition has bumped that up now. Also Vandy is the literally the boat anchor in that regard. I would think the fewest we could handle in a stadium capacity would be in the 60,000 range with promises of expansion. The fourth metric is harder to find. What is the % of a national market that the school you are considering received in their televised games? What is the % of a regional market that the school you are considering received for their televised games?

So,
1. Average attendance: Priority level medium / (Travel crowd size important).
Virginia Tech & N.C. State (66,000 & 60,000) Iowa State & Oklahoma (66,000 & 75,000) Oklahoma & Iowa State actually travel better.

2. Gross revenue: Priority level high. (lesser targets must meet the mean)
Oklahoma top 7 nationally, Oklahoma State could come close to the mean. N.C. State and Virginia Tech nowhere close.

3. % of market pulled: Priority level high (Brands a big plus)
Virginia Tech decent regionally. N.C. State not. Oklahoma a big plus. Iowa State not.

4. Academic credentials: Meet or exceed the mean for lower priority targets. Be near the mean for high priority targets (brands). Virginia Tech & N.C. State a plus. Oklahoma near the mean. Oklahoma State near the mean depending upon the rating service, but meets or exceeds the mean in none of them.


Those are some examples considering a pair.

Florida State and Clemson both either at or exceeding the mean in academics. Average attendance 80,000 for Clemson above 72,000 for F.S.U. (needs to expand).
Both could be near the mean with SEC revenue. Both travel very well. Florida State has solid national numbers and Clemson is beginning to have a national recognition and are very strong regionally.

Texas and N.D. meet or exceed all expectations except for collegiality.

BTW: Kansas football attendance & following: horrid
West Virginia attendance in the 60,000 range, does not meet the mean on revenue, is nowhere near the metrics on academics, has a decent following in parts of surrounding regions, but not nationally. Doesn't offer required requisite sports.

Ok. New "by the numbers" evaluation.

Criteria:
1) academics
2) revenue
3) football attendance
4) TV ratings
5) NCAA tournament appearances
6) new markets

Academics based on average of us news and ARWU rankings. 3 tiers: above, meets, below. Above defined as over 5 or more standings ahead of average. Below was 5 or more below average. Above worth 4 points, meets 2

Revenue: three tiers: more than 5 mill above average, average, and more than 5 mil below average. Above is 2 points, meets is 1 point. Rationale: revenue is valuable, but entry to sec can improve it to sec levels in close cases.

Attendance: above 5k more on average, meets, below 5k: above 4, meets 2

TV ratings: using texags 2014 data. Avg sec game was 15th. 11-20 was meets. Above 4, meets 2

NCAA appearances: over past ten years, sec averages 4.1 bids a seasons. 3-5 Bids in past ten years was meets, more was above. Above 4, meets 2

Markets: 0 for any state we were already in, 1 for a state in bottom half of population, 2 for states in top half

Schools evaluated: ACC minus Boston college and Syracuse, all big 12

Possible points:20

Results:
FSU 16
Texas 14
Ok 11
Pitt, unc, Duke, NC State 10
Virginia 8
Kansas, Iowa state 7
Clemson, Miami, vtech, Louisville, baylor, wake Forest 6
West Virginia, Kansas state 5
Georgia tech, ok state 4
Texas tech, TCU 0

Markets skewed Texas schools low. I assume a school like TCU would have some value. Also, FSU was only school above on TV, NC State met. Popular schools like vtech were low due to attendance and low basketball (which could change with a new coach, if you count Bristol this year, etc).

Pitt impressed because of location and academics and decent basketball. NC State under this evaluation provides similar value to Duke and UNC because it was also considered above in academics and met sec standards under the TV category.

Most of us would admit that Texas, FSU, and OK would be awesome grabs. This shows that we might want to stop at 16, but that of we go further, in addition to schools like NC State and v Tech, a school like Iowa state might offer value.

(06-11-2016 10:06 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Ok. New "by the numbers" evaluation.

Criteria:
1) academics
2) revenue
3) football attendance
4) TV ratings
5) NCAA tournament appearances
6) new markets

Academics based on average of us news and ARWU rankings. 3 tiers: above, meets, below. Above defined as over 5 or more standings ahead of average. Below was 5 or more below average. Above worth 4 points, meets 2

Revenue: three tiers: more than 5 mill above average, average, and more than 5 mil below average. Above is 2 points, meets is 1 point. Rationale: revenue is valuable, but entry to sec can improve it to sec levels in close cases.

Attendance: above 5k more on average, meets, below 5k: above 4, meets 2

TV ratings: using texags 2014 data. Avg sec game was 15th. 11-20 was meets. Above 4, meets 2

NCAA appearances: over past ten years, sec averages 4.1 bids a seasons. 3-5 Bids in past ten years was meets, more was above. Above 4, meets 2

Markets: 0 for any state we were already in, 1 for a state in bottom half of population, 2 for states in top half

Schools evaluated: ACC minus Boston college and Syracuse, all big 12

Possible points:20

Results:
FSU 16
Texas 14
Ok 11
Pitt, unc, Duke, NC State 10
Virginia 8
Kansas, Iowa state 7
Clemson, Miami, vtech, Louisville, baylor, wake Forest 6
West Virginia, Kansas state 5
Georgia tech, ok state 4
Texas tech, TCU 0

Markets skewed Texas schools low. I assume a school like TCU would have some value. Also, FSU was only school above on TV, NC State met. Popular schools like vtech were low due to attendance and low basketball (which could change with a new coach, if you count Bristol this year, etc).

Pitt impressed because of location and academics and decent basketball. NC State under this evaluation provides similar value to Duke and UNC because it was also considered above in academics and met sec standards under the TV category.

Most of us would admit that Texas, FSU, and OK would be awesome grabs. This shows that we might want to stop at 16, but that of we go further, in addition to schools like NC State and v Tech, a school like Iowa state might offer value.

That's a very nice method. I would have halved those basketball points because it is only 15% of the total revenue, but still a very fine methodology.

Now if you compare those targets to the those I found using the method in the just by the numbers thread you will find that the top targets are essentially the same but the order may have changed slightly. Still it supports Florida State and Oklahoma as two very nice lock downs to 16. But there are other strong pairs as well.

I do think that since Slive stated and Sankey upheld our desire to stay culturally cohesive that schools like Pitt would be excluded and quite possibly Kansas as well. But we'll wait and see about that.

Note: When I did the analysis for the just by the numbers thread I weighted new markets more heavily than content. I think that is reversed now.