View in: Desktop

Privacy • Advertising • Contact • Terms

Quick Links:

•ATL Sports

•More Sports

•Politics

•SEC OT

•SEC Tickets

•Outdoors

•Travel

•Food/Drink

...

CFB Realignment Based On Program Strength?

by TD Staff Reporter

July 25, 201419 Comments

The Wall Street Journal published an article on Wednesday titled "A Radical Realignment Plan for College Football”, in which they hypothetically realigned the "Big Five" power conferences based on football program strength...

quote:
To do that, Jonathan Jensen and Brian Turner chose to ignore geography and tradition, the typical forces in conference realignment. Instead, they focused solely on football and its financial implications, coming up with a formula that factored in every team’s football revenue, winning percentage, computer ranking and attendance between 2003 and 2013. Then they sorted teams into clusters to figure out which schools were most alike—and should be playing each other.

Here is what they came up with:

Thoughts?

Filed Under: SEC Football

Arch Manning Announces Commitment To Texas, Over Georgia & Alabama

Comments

19 Comments

Recent Oldest Top

You must be logged in to comment. |

tigerjjs

And what happens when some teams decline or improve over the years? Realign the conferences again?

Reply•95 months

Mulerider

Miles has lost control of the Wall Street Journal.

Reply•95 months

JumpingTheShark

"I ain't a meechigan fan but they do have the most wins all time I think, so they would probably belong in cluster 1. I am an LSU fan though and LSU, Awburn and Jawja probably should be in cluster 2. But I don't understand what they are using as guidelines. Is it all time wins? Is it the most titles? Or current wins, the last 20 years or so. Whatever it is, its a turrible idear."

Why the frick are you talking like that?

Reply•95 months

vodkacop

I ain't a meechigan fan but they do have the most wins all time I think, so they would probably belong in cluster 1. I am an LSU fan though and LSU, Awburn and Jawja probably should be in cluster 2. But I don't understand what they are using as guidelines. Is it all time wins? Is it the most titles? Or current wins, the last 20 years or so. Whatever it is, its a turrible idear.

Reply•95 months

VaRebel1

There's no way Stanford is in cluster 3, no way Tennessee is in cluster 2, no way TCU, Oklahoma State, and Mizzou are in cluster 4.

Reply•95 months

BrocraticMethod

Lame.

Reply•95 months

wadewilson

Just go full on tard and model it after the Premier League's system. A team sucks for awhile, they get dropped to a weaker league.

Reply•95 months

PurpleKnight88

Michigan and ND do not belong in cluster 1.

Reply•95 months

bamaclownbaby

I find it interesting that only 3 conferences are represented in Cluster 1. Sorry ACC and Pac 12.

Reply•95 months

SECdragonmaster

Stupid concept but........

Top 10 includes Auburn.

As usual, the current SEC Champions are representin!

Reply•95 months

LSU_Saints_Hornets

Cluster 1 stacked cluster 2,3,4, fricked!!!!!!!

Reply•95 months

ctiger69

Blood bath for division 1

Reply•95 months

Indfanfromcol

All teams have been to or won a National Championship in that time frame in group 1 except Michigan.
So why are they in group 1 instead of Oregon, FSU, or USC?

Reply•95 months

roadhouse

I'm having a hard time understanding Okie St and Mizzou in cluster 4

Reply•95 months

bamaclownbaby

Pavo - I think the implication is that those would be 4 seperate divisions each playing for their own championship.

Reply•95 months

Pavoloco83

Why the hell would all the best teams be in the same division? Some pussy team like Mississippi State would win their division while stronger teams would be killing themselves off.

Reply•95 months

notsince98

It must have been heavily weighted on $$ because I don't see how Mizzou isn't in the 1st or second group based on success over that time frame.

Reply•95 months

UnAnon

Fire Miles.

Reply•95 months

AggnHou

And what does this accomplish? I'm confused?

Reply•95 months