menu

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
Originally published on SECRant.com

Comments

19 Comments
And what happens when some teams decline or improve over the years? Realign the conferences again?
Reply34 months
Miles has lost control of the Wall Street Journal.
Reply34 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?
Reply34 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.
Reply34 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.
Reply34 months
Lame.
Reply34 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.
Reply34 months
Michigan and ND do not belong in cluster 1.
Reply34 months
I find it interesting that only 3 conferences are represented in Cluster 1. Sorry ACC and Pac 12.
Reply34 months
Stupid concept but........

Top 10 includes Auburn.

As usual, the current SEC Champions are representin!
Reply34 months
Cluster 1 stacked cluster 2,3,4, fricked!!!!!!!
Reply34 months
Blood bath for division 1
Reply34 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?
Reply34 months
I'm having a hard time understanding Okie St and Mizzou in cluster 4
Reply34 months
Pavo - I think the implication is that those would be 4 seperate divisions each playing for their own championship.
Reply34 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.
Reply34 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.
Reply34 months
Fire Miles.
Reply34 months
And what does this accomplish? I'm confused?
Reply34 months
Popular Stories
comments18

Dave Aranda Is 'Hopeful' About Arden Key's Return To The Team

Key recently took some time off from the team.
comments16

Michael Irvin Has Some Advice For Odell Beckham Jr.

Odell missed Giants OTA's this week.
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram