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:

Loading Twitter Embed....

Thoughts?

Filed Under: SEC Football

New NCAA Transfer Rule Allows For Immediate Eligibility

NFL Announces List Of Players Attending The 2024 Draft

Originally published on SECRant.com

19 Comments

Recent Oldest Top

You must be logged in to comment. |

tigerjjs•117 months

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

Mulerider•117 months

Miles has lost control of the Wall Street Journal.

JumpingTheShark•117 months

"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?

vodkacop•117 months

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.

VaRebel1•117 months

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.

BrocraticMethod•117 months

Lame.

wadewilson•117 months

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.

PurpleKnight88•117 months

Michigan and ND do not belong in cluster 1.

bamaclownbaby•117 months

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

SECdragonmaster•117 months

Stupid concept but........

Top 10 includes Auburn.

As usual, the current SEC Champions are representin!

LSU_Saints_Hornets•117 months

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

ctiger69•117 months

Blood bath for division 1

Indfanfromcol•117 months

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?

roadhouse•117 months

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

bamaclownbaby•117 months

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

Pavoloco83•117 months

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.

notsince98•117 months

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.

UnAnon•117 months

Fire Miles.

AggnHou•117 months

And what does this accomplish? I'm confused?

Popular Stories