Where Pitt ranks in CFB World
- Thread starter Hailpitt
- Start date
I don’t want to put a damper on the party but…Because the networks are pulling the strings the only metric that really matters is the second one listed, “TV Draw”. Otherwise, the Big Ten presidents would’ve already voted for Stanford and Cal to join.
We discussed that when it first came out months ago, and the conclusion of anyone with even a semi-functioning brain is that that guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Its funny how your summary now matches your assessment then.
It does not summarize the overall discussion.
Realignment value
Pitt is a very viable option for future expansion. I just hope it is the SEC.
Would love to shove it to the perverts.
Would love to shove it to the perverts.
Anyone who didn't agree with my assessment then is merely showing that semi-functioning brain thing.
Like I said then, we just saw in the real world how attractive many of these schools are, and this guy's notion that, for example, Stanford and Cal are more valuable than Oregon was shown to be simply wrong.
And if that's not enough, the idea that Stanford is more attractive than both Florida State and Clemson is simply nuts. If those two schools were free they'd both find themselves in the Big Two. Stanford was actually just free, and not only are they not in one of the Big Two, they had to take a cut rate deal just to get in to number Three.
Those numbers simply do not line up with what we have actually seen in the real world. You have to be a fool to think that they are even close to correct.
I won't try to rehash a 5-page discussion with you. Let's just say not everyone agrees with your half-witted argument.
On my completely unbiased attractiveness score I rate ahead of Brad Pitt and slightly behind Glenn Powell. I can make up BS rankings too.
This graph:
Stanford - 225.7
Cal - 202.8
Oregon - 197.1
Real life:
Oregon invited to the BIG, while Stanford and Cal are playing in the 3rd best conference for significantly-reduced shares. Stanford and Cal were literally just free agents, and neither of the major two conferences wanted them.
That wouldn't be saying much for the ACC, given the fact that they have Stanford as its best football brand and Cal at #4. Luckily, these numbers are make believe and the real-life proof of that literally just happened.
And imagine thinking Pitt is a more attractive program than Auburn. That one is good for a laugh.
Answer this:
If Pitt and Auburn were both free agents tomorrow, do you think Pitt would land in a more favorable spot?
Yes. Depending on the conference. Auburn would not be taken by the Big 10, for example.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Depends on who is willing to sell out the fastest? I don't know. That seems to be working.
But what about academics and Olympic sports that I always hear are so important?
Quaint notions from a bygone era. The only metric that matters in the greed-driven realignment calculus is this one:
Some people's opinions are more important than the facts of what actually happened.
Apparently.
Facts selected to support his argument while ignoring all others. As I said, half-witted.
I haven't lost. Opinions don't lose. Maybe that's another concept that you don't understand.
The notion that opinions can't be wrong is in large part responsible for the dumbing down of this country.
Sadly, very true.
Many people do not understand this, but I would give it ten "likes" if I could.
Sorta like the concept "You can be anything(Occupation) you want to, if you put your mind to it." ..No you can't (most people)..No amount of studying would afford me the opportunity to be a Radiologist (Which I think would interesting)for example, you have to pass tests, many of them along the way, a lot of them are higher level science, but if I would just have tried....
I should have added opinions on subjective issues. I thought that was understood. I should never make assumptions about the reading level on this board, however.
Does that still fit into your dumbing down statement?
The inability and/or refusal of much of the population to distinguish empirical fact from unfounded opinion is right up there as well.
The chart heading is "Realignment attractiveness scale". As you pointed out, the Oregon/Stanford/Cal examples are irrefutable, real world evidence that the chart is bullshit. Established TV revenue for football, and to a much lesser extent basketball, is the only meaningful metric in the realignment "attractiveness" calculus. Not academic standing, endowment size, not quality of non-revenue sports.
A graph like this calls for an unbias analytic approach.... Where's the Dude when you need him?
Preach
Especially doubling down on stupid opinions in the response to evidence to the contrary .
Or at least a MS Paint to prove how an Oakland stadium would improve the ranking !
Actually, theB1G took the 2 highest ranked teams from California, then Washington - equal to Stanford - and Oregon as a package.
The SEC took the 2 highest ranked Big12 teams. So, the big 2 aligned up pretty well with the chart.
Congrats to him for not being insane enough to put TCU ahead of two of the biggest brands in college football, I guess. Chart is now completely validated!
You can't argue the chart is wrong by pointing to the decisions made when those decisions align with the chart. Even you can't be that dumb.
So we'll ignore that Oregon, SMU, etc. don't align with the chart, but because this guy had Oklahoma and Texas as the two biggest B12w brands the list is legit. That what you're saying?
Correct, opinions on subjective issues can't really be wrong. On this issue, however, we have actual facts to look at. Do we have all the facts? No, of course not. But we have some of the facts. And this guy's opinion, and yours as well, are in direct opposition to the actual facts that we know.
But for some reason it makes you feel better to ignore the facts, so here we are.
Similar threads
