****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****

[Saul Good]

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

CPA's ratings had them ranked 16th at the end of the season last year and Lindy's has them at 30 for this year.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by ArrowheadHawk

Whatever best supports your argument. I get it. Why 5 years? Why not 10? I love statistics, you can bend them to make anything look the way you want it to.

I'm sure one could make an argument for 10 years. However, ten years ago, Dennis Franchione was leaving Alabama for A&M, Mike Price was hired and then fired for his proclivity for strip clubs, and the Mike Shula era began. Are those data points significant in describing the current state of the Alabama program?

[RustShack]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Iowa State and Kansas are on the schedule.

You probably shouldn't put ISU on that list anymore.

[RustShack]

Originally Posted by ArrowheadHawk

Whatever best supports your argument. I get it. Why 5 years? Why not 10? I love statistics, you can bend them to make anything look the way you want it to.

Ten years ago isn't a very good indicator of how good a team is now.. most athletes are only on the team four or five years. How they did last year is the best thing to go off of, and who they lose/have brought int he previous few years.

So really you shouldn't go off of more than the last two or three years..

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by RustShack

You probably shouldn't put ISU on that list anymore.

Is this the year?

[RustShack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

Is this the year?

If Steele Jantz puts it all together. And like I've said, ISU has gotten better every year the last three years under CPR. The Schedule has also gotten harder all three years. But the team has a lot better starters now, and actually has depth that its never had. The team is still on the ups.

[Saul Good]

I think eight to ten years gives a pretty good picture of where a program is. That's two full cycles of players and shows both immediate past success as well as tends.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Yes, and he's consistently incorrect about Missouri. Picked them to have a losing record last season, as well as in 2009, and was WAY off in 2010, too.

He has FSU winning it all this year.

A bit odd I would say.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I'm sure one could make an argument for 10 years. However, ten years ago, Dennis Franchione was leaving Alabama for A&M, Mike Price was hired and then fired for his proclivity for strip clubs, and the Mike Shula era began. Are those data points significant in describing the current state of the Alabama program?

I think we should consider the modern era of college football to have begun in about 1990, when cable TV really started changing the landscape of money, bowl schedules, and recruiting in college football. I don't think much that happened before the last 20 years is very relevant to today.

Ten years is more of a judge of the state of a program, but prestige and conference alignment changes happen slowly.

Missouri for example did not have a winning season between 1983 and 1997, and today they are an SEC team. Much has changed in 15 years.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

He has FSU winning it all this year.

A bit odd I would say.

Places a TON of emphasis on these stats:

Returning starters
Returning stats

I'll use Missouri's receivers, for example. In Phil Steele's methodology, losing Wes Kemp and Jerrell Jackson is a huge negative factor, because they were returning starters who accounted for 20 percent of Missouri's receiving yards. Never mind that the two guys who replace them as "starters" (Marcus Lucas and LD Washington) actually accounted for 26 percent of Missouri's receiving yards.

Returning starters isn't necessarily a great thing. For another example, Tennessee returns 21/22 starters from a team that went 1-7 in SEC play. Is that really something that should be considered a team strength? Getting Bray back from injury is big for them, but their defense and offensive line were not good. Returning all the pieces there is not a positive in my opinion (but it is in Steele's).

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Places a TON of emphasis on these stats:

Returning starters
Returning stats

I'll use Missouri's receivers, for example. In Phil Steele's methodology, losing Wes Kemp and Jerrell Jackson is a huge negative factor, because they were returning starters who accounted for 20 percent of Missouri's receiving yards. Never mind that the two guys who replace them as "starters" (Marcus Lucas and LD Washington) actually accounted for 26 percent of Missouri's receiving yards.

Returning starters isn't necessarily a great thing. For another example, Tennessee returns 21/22 starters from a team that went 1-7 in SEC play. Is that really something that should be considered a team strength? Getting Bray back from injury is big for them, but their defense and offensive line were not good. Returning all the pieces there is not a positive in my opinion (but it is in Steele's).

"Returning Starters" is something that handicappers have used for years in telling you someone is going to be good. I kind of agree, if the guys sucked from last year won't it just be older sucky guys?

What do you think about DGB's contribution? Are we talking A.J. Green/Julio Jones here? Or more of an off-the-bench guy?

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

"Returning Starters" is something that handicappers have used for years in telling you someone is going to be good. I kind of agree, if the guys sucked from last year won't it just be older sucky guys?

What do you think about DGB's contribution? Are we talking A.J. Green/Julio Jones here? Or more of an off-the-bench guy?

I think he will most of the snaps at the "Y" position, which is what Egnew played when he was in the slot the past two years (And what Alexander played in 2009, Maclin/Coffman in 2008, Coffman/Rucker in 2007).

I think... 50 catches/700 yards/6 TDs.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

He has FSU winning it all this year.

A bit odd I would say.

I wonder if that was the guy on 810 not too long back. He had FSU over OU in the title game.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Yes, and he's consistently incorrect about Missouri. Picked them to have a losing record last season, as well as in 2009, and was WAY off in 2010, too.

Which is weird bc Steele is normally pretty good overall.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Missouri for example did not have a winning season between 1983 and 1997, and today they are an SEC team. Much has changed in 15 years.

Well, they are "in" the SEC, but let's not try and argue that your past 10 years has put you in the upper echelon of the SEC (like what you inferred). Missouri got picked because 13 was a bad number and they have two large TV markets in the state. Sure, they weren't horrible, and Pinkel has done well for you, even though I know many of you cursed him repreatedly throughout his tenure.

Overall, it wasn't Missouri's stellar play that earned them a spot to be in the SEC, it was outside factors centered around the conference network goals that got Missouri in. You're gonna have to prove it before people are going to start recognizing you as an "SEC team" in the light you tried to associate it as.