Monday, September 26, 2011

Week 4 - 2011 College Football Rankings

Four weeks in. We now have enough data to begin posting preliminary rankings for the 120 FBS schools based on their performance so far. The rankings do not really start to settle in until the fifth week, so there may be some big changes in the rankings in the next couple of weeks. But at least you can see how your team has performed so far this year in comparison with all of the other FBS schools.

It is interesting to notice that in the AP rankings, LSU moved to #1 on the strength of its road victory over West Virginia. While this is impressive, and we do have LSU highly ranked, our analysis does show that another team has actually proved more in the early-going this season. Alabama is our current #1, based on the strength of its large margin of victory, especially over Penn State and Arkansas who are both having successful seasons thus far, except for their losses to Alabama of course. Alabama is currently ranked #3 in both the AP and US Today polls. Our analysis puts LSU #3, behind both Alabama and Michigan.

Here are our complete rankings for this week:

1. Alabama Crimson Tide (4-0) - 1.2
2. Michigan Wolverines (4-0) - 2.8
3. LSU Tigers (4-0) - 3.1
4. Oklahoma State Cowboys (4-0) - 4.4
5. Wisconsin Badgers (4-0) - 4.5
6. Florida Gators (4-0) - 6.2
7. South Florida Bulls (4-0) - 7.1
8. Boise State Broncos (3-0) - 8.5
9. Stanford Cardinal (3-0) - 8.8
10. Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets (4-0) - 9.7
11. Nebraska Cornhuskers (4-0) - 10.2
12. Virginia Tech Hokies (4-0) - 13.2
13. South Carolina Gamecocks (4-0) - 14.2
14. Texas A&M Aggies (2-1) - 15.2
15. Oklahoma Sooners (3-0) - 16.8
16. Illinois Fighting Illini (4-0) - 17.3
17. Texas Longhorns (3-0) - 18.0
18. Tennessee Volunteers (2-1) - 18.2
19. Baylor Bears (3-0) - 19.1
20. TCU Horned Frogs (3-1) - 20.0
21. Clemson Tigers (4-0) - 21.2
22. Arizona State Sun Devils (3-1) - 21.4
(tie) Oregon Ducks (3-1) - 21.4
24. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (2-2) - 22.1
25. Temple Owls (3-1) - 22.9
26. Penn State Nittany Lions (3-1) - 26.0
27. Houston Cougars (4-0) - 26.6
28. Ohio Bobcats (3-1) - 27.8
29. Iowa Hawkeyes (3-1) - 31.5
30. FIU Golden Panthers (3-1) - 32.1
31. North Carolina Tar Heels (3-1) - 32.6
32. Rutgers Scarlet Knights (2-1) - 34.3
33. Navy Midshipmen (2-1) - 34.4
(tie) Texas Tech Red Raiders (3-0) - 34.4
35. San Diego State Aztecs (3-1) - 34.8
36. Utah Utes (2-1) - 35.9
37. Kansas State Wildcats (3-0) - 37.2
38. Cincinnati Bearcats (3-1) - 38.0
39. Bowling Green Falcons (3-1) - 39.5
40. West Virginia Mountaineers (3-1) - 40.4
41. Vanderbilt Commodores (3-1) - 41.0
42. Michigan State Spartans (3-1) - 42.9
43. USC Trojans (3-1) - 44.1
44. Georgia Bulldogs (2-2) - 44.4
45. UCF Knights (2-2) - 45.4
46. Auburn Tigers (3-1) - 47.2
47. Missouri Tigers (2-2) - 47.6
48. Iowa State Cyclones (3-0) - 47.9
49. Western Michigan Broncos (2-2) - 49.1
50. Ohio State Buckeyes (3-1) - 50.2
51. Arkansas Razorbacks (3-1) - 50.3
52. Florida State Seminoles (2-2) - 50.7
53. Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns (3-1) - 54.3
54. Connecticut Huskies (2-2) - 54.5
55. Miami Hurricanes (1-2) - 54.6
56. California Golden Bears (3-1) - 54.8
57. Washington Huskies (3-1) - 56.7
58. Louisville Cardinals (2-1) - 56.8
59. SMU Mustangs (3-1) - 59.0
60. Washington State Cougars (2-1) - 59.1
61. Arkansas State Red Wolves (2-2) - 59.9
62. Ball State Cardinals (3-1) - 60.1
63. Pittsburgh Panthers (2-2) - 61.4
64. Mississippi State Bulldogs (2-2) - 62.5
65. Wake Forest Demon Deacons (2-1) - 64.3
66. Wyoming Cowboys (3-1) - 64.5
67. Northern Illinois Huskies (2-2) - 65.1
68. Southern Miss Golden Eagles (3-1) - 70.1
69. Kansas Jayhawks (2-1) - 70.8
70. Northwestern Wildcats (2-1) - 71.4
71. Utah State Aggies (1-2) - 72.2
72. BYU Cougars (2-2) - 72.8
73. Purdue Boilermakers (2-1) - 73.1
74. Virginia Cavaliers (2-2) - 75.3
75. Fresno State Bulldogs (2-2) - 75.9
76. Hawaii Warriors (2-2) - 76.2
77. UCLA Bruins (2-2) - 76.7
78. Air Force Falcons (2-1) - 77.5
79. Maryland Terrapins (1-2) - 78.0
80. Nevada Wolf Pack (1-2) - 78.3
81. ECU Pirates (1-2) - 81.2
82. Louisiana Tech Bulldogs (1-3) - 82.5
83. Toledo Rockets (1-3) - 83.0
84. Kentucky Wildcats (2-2) - 83.6
85. Colorado State Rams (3-1) - 83.9
86. Tulsa Golden Hurricane (1-3) - 84.4
87. NC State Wolfpack (2-2) - 88.7
88. UTEP Miners (2-2) - 89.5
89. Syracuse Orange (3-1) - 89.7
90. Rice Owls (1-2) - 90.1
91. Colorado Buffaloes (1-3) - 90.2
92. San Jose State Spartans (1-3) - 92.0
93. Troy Trojans (1-2) - 92.3
94. Indiana Hoosiers (1-3) - 92.4
95. Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders (0-3) - 94.7
96. Duke Blue Devils (2-2) - 97.5
97. Army Black Knights (1-3) - 97.7
(tie) Marshall Thundering Herd (1-3) - 97.7
99. Arizona Wildcats (1-3) - 98.9
(tie) Eastern Michigan Eagles (2-2) - 98.9
101. Buffalo Bulls (1-3) - 99.5
102. North Texas Mean Green (1-3) - 102.0
103. New Mexico State Aggies (1-3) - 102.3
104. Miami University RedHawks (0-3) - 103.6
105. Boston College Eagles (1-3) - 103.8
106. UNLV Rebels (1-3) - 104.9
107. Ole Miss Rebels (1-3) - 107.2
108. Tulane Green Wave (2-2) - 108.0
109. Akron Zips (1-3) - 108.3
110. Florida Atlantic Owls (0-3) - 108.5
111. Idaho Vandals (1-3) - 110.2
112. Minnesota Golden Gophers (1-3) - 111.4
113. Kent State Golden Flashes (1-3) - 112.3
114. Central Michigan Chippewas (1-3) - 113.0
115. Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks (1-3) - 113.4
116. Memphis Tigers (1-3) - 114.1
117. UAB Blazers (0-3) - 116.3
118. New Mexico Lobos (0-4) - 118.0
119. Oregon State Beavers (0-3) - 119.7
120. Western Kentucky Hilltoppers (0-3) - 120.4

Monday, September 19, 2011

College Football Conference Realignment - A final outside-the-box suggestion

One of the strangest things about the latest rounds of conference realignment has been that geography, or rather the distance that a team would have to travel to play its games, has not seemed to matter in the decision making process. So much TV money seems to be assumed to be available for expanding the footprint of a conference, that teams like Oklahoma are considering playing in the PAC 10, I mean 12, I mean ?? even though that could very well mean several trips to the Mountain and Pacific time zones. So if geography matters so little, why not throw the whole thing out and start all over, forming a single conference of all of the best football teams, regardless of where they are located?

That kind of thinking, though it probably could never really happen, is behind our final proposal. This proposal guarantees games every week between the most powerful schools in the country, while giving the possibility for other schools to improve themselves and work their way up into the elite ranks simply by consistently winning.

Here is what we propose: Since the top division of football seems so determined to divide itself into even smaller divisions, and since tiers of conferences already seem to exist, we suggest going all the way and recognizing the different tiers. Take the top 16 programs in the country and form the Tier 1 conference. Take the next 16 and form Tier 2, etc. Re-rank the programs each year - our annual program ranking system seems ideal for such a task since it balances recent success with history and tradition - and reconfigure the conferences based on the new rankings. If one school cannot win consistently at a particular tier, they will eventually drop out of that tier into a lower tiered conference. If a school wins consistently for several years, they will move up to a higher tier.

(Incidentally, this could also be applied with the system we proposed in our last blog - only teams move in and out of the "Top 64" and conferences would be reconfigured to maintain a balance between the four conferences, keeping in mind issues of geography as well - see our previous post.)

If this process were followed this year, for example, this is how the conferences would look. (We have used geography to determine proposed divisions within each conference, helping to keep some of the travel costs down where possible.)

Tier 1 Conference

South
Alabama Crimson Tide
Auburn Tigers
Florida Gators
Florida State Seminoles
Georgia Bulldogs
LSU Tigers
Miami Hurricanes
Tennessee Volunteers

North
Michigan Wolverines
Nebraska Cornhuskers
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Ohio State Buckeyes
Oklahoma Sooners
Penn State Nittany Lions
Texas Longhorns
USC Trojans

Tier 2 Conference

West
Arizona State Sun Devils
Boise State Broncos
BYU Cougars
Oregon Ducks
Texas A&M Aggies
Texas Tech Red Raiders
UCLA Bruins
Washington Huskies

East
Arkansas Razorbacks
Boston College Eagles
Clemson Tigers
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
Michigan State Spartans
Virginia Tech Hokies
West Virginia Mountaineers
Wisconsin Badgers

Tier 3 Conference

West
Arizona Wildcats
California Golden Bears
Colorado Buffaloes
Iowa Hawkeyes
Missouri Tigers
Oklahoma State Cowboys
Stanford Cardinal
Utah Utes

East
North Carolina Tar Heels
Ole Miss Rebels
Pittsburgh Panthers
Purdue Boilermakers
South Carolina Gamecocks
South Florida Bulls
Southern Miss Golden Eagles
Syracuse Orange

Tier 4 Conference

West
Air Force Falcons
Fresno State Bulldogs
Hawaii Warriors
Houston Cougars
Minnesota Golden Gophers
Oregon State Beavers
San Diego State Aztecs
TCU Horned Frogs

East
Illinois Fighting Illini
Kentucky Wildcats
Louisville Cardinals
Maryland Terrapins
Miami University RedHawks
Mississippi State Bulldogs
NC State Wolfpack
Virginia Cavaliers

Tier 5 Conference

West
Baylor Bears
Kansas Jayhawks
Kansas State Wildcats
Nevada Wolf Pack
Troy Trojans
Tulsa Golden Hurricane
Washington State Cougars
Wyoming Cowboys

East
Bowling Green Falcons
Cincinnati Bearcats
Connecticut Huskies
ECU Pirates
Navy Midshipmen
Rutgers Scarlet Knights
Toledo Rockets
UCF Knights

Tier 6 Conference

West
Colorado State Rams
Indiana Hoosiers
Iowa State Cyclones
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs
New Mexico Lobos
Northern Illinois Huskies
Northwestern Wildcats
SMU Mustangs

East
Army Black Knights
Central Michigan Chippewas
Duke Blue Devils
Marshall Thundering Herd
Memphis Tigers
Vanderbilt Commodores
Wake Forest Demon Deacons
Western Michigan Broncos

Tier 7 Conference

West
Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns
North Texas Mean Green
Rice Owls
San Jose State Spartans
Tulane Green Wave
UNLV Rebels
Utah State Aggies
UTEP Miners

East
Akron Zips
Arkansas State Red Wolves
Ball State Cardinals
Florida Atlantic Owls
Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
Ohio Bobcats
Temple Owls
UAB Blazers

Tier 8 Conference (8 members only)

Buffalo Bulls
Eastern Michigan Eagles
FIU Golden Panthers
Idaho Vandals
Kent State Golden Flashes
Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks
New Mexico State Aggies
Western Kentucky Hilltoppers

Another way to arrange this is to divide the 120 FBS teams into two 60-team East and West regions, then form 8-team divisions based on the rankings so that each conference is represented by an equal number of truly East and West teams (which will naturally reduce travel, since you would either stay East or West when competing within your division).

Note that because tradition and a history of winning is also considered in the program rankings, the conferences would be relatively stable in that there would not be huge changes from year to year. Most teams move less than five spots, meaning that even if a team has a meteoric rise, it would take three or four consistent years of winning to move up a couple of tiers. Teams are not penalized for years they did not participate at all in the top division of football competition, so new schools would have an opportunity to move up quickly by having some early success. (Boise State is an example of this.)

Our favorite setup is still the balanced conference model, because it lends itself well to a playoff at the end of the year and gives 64 teams a chance to win the national championship on the field (which is much more than the number that realistically have a chance under today's system). However, we'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on each of these proposed alignments.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Four Superconferences in Football - Some Suggestions, Part 2

Last year, we suggested a total revamping of the conference structure to create four equally strong superconferences based on historical success of FBS teams. At the time, that proposal was based on our analysis of the previous forty years of college football games. We have now completed the entire 99 years of the modern football era, and with this additional information, we are ready to post an updated version of our four superconference proposal based on our program rankings using all 99 years of data.

We are not under the mistaken impression that this could ever be implemented. It's too radical a change to be accepted widely enough among the nation's college presidents to cause this to happen. But, in a "perfect world," we feel the alignment we are proposing is based on a good balance between considerations of geography, recent success and football tradition, and that this conference alignment would be the best compromise for creating a conference system that could easily and successfully lead into a four or eight team playoff for a national championship that was decided on the field.

Here is our proposed conference structure (the conference names are arbitrary and somewhat geography based, but we use them simply as a way of giving labels to differentiate between the conferences and their divisions):

Western Conference - North Division

Air Force Falcons
Boise State Broncos
California Golden Bears
Michigan Wolverines
Nebraska Cornhuskers
San Diego State Aztecs
Utah Utes
Washington Huskies

Western Conference - South Division
 
Arizona Wildcats
Fresno State Bulldogs
Hawaii Warriors
LSU Tigers
Oregon Ducks
Stanford Cardinal
UCLA Bruins
USC Trojans

Midwestern Conference - North Division
 
Arkansas Razorbacks
BYU Cougars
Colorado Buffaloes
Minnesota Golden Gophers
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Oklahoma Sooners
Oklahoma State Cowboys
Oregon State Beavers

Midwestern Conference - South Division
 
Arizona State Sun Devils
Auburn Tigers
Houston Cougars
Missouri Tigers
Southern Miss Golden Eagles
TCU Horned Frogs
Texas Longhorns
Texas A&M Aggies

Mideastern Conference - North Division
 
Illinois Fighting Illini
Iowa Hawkeyes
Kentucky Wildcats
Michigan State Spartans
Ohio State Buckeyes
Penn State Nittany Lions
Purdue Boilermakers
Wisconsin Badgers

Mideastern Conference - South Division
 
Alabama Crimson Tide
Louisville Cardinals
Mississippi State Bulldogs
Ole Miss Rebels
South Carolina Gamecocks
Tennessee Volunteers
Texas Tech Red Raiders
West Virginia Mountaineers

Eastern Conference - North Division
 
Boston College Eagles
Florida State Seminoles
Georgia Bulldogs
Maryland Terrapins
Miami University RedHawks
Pittsburgh Panthers
Syracuse Orange
Virginia Tech Hokies

Eastern Conference - South Division
 
Clemson Tigers
Florida Gators
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
Miami Hurricanes
NC State Wolfpack
North Carolina Tar Heels
South Florida Bulls
Virginia Cavaliers

This proposal, of course, is not perfect. It is merely a starting point, which values a balance between the divisions and conferences formed. In its current form, the "easiest" conference (but not by much) is the Eastern Conference. The easiest division is the North Division within that conference. The "hardest" conference is Mideastern Conference, although the hardest division is actually the North Division of the Western Conference.
 
Several teams do end up having to travel quite a bit under this proposal. LSU, particularly, seems to be assigned to a conference outside its own region, and there are a couple of alternatives that might be used to reduce the amount of travel the Tigers face each year. The first would be to swap LSU and Arizona State. This sacrifices some of the relative equality between conferences - instantly making the Midwestern Conference and South Division in that conference the toughest conference and division, while the Western Conference would become the easiest (as would the South Division in that conference). Other candidates for swapping with LSU that maintain the balance between conferences a little better but don't solve all of the resulting travelling concerns include Boise State or Texas A&M. Another option is swapping San Diego State and Hawaii within the Western Conference. This has the virtue of basically maintaining the balance between conferences, but it does not solve all of LSU's travel problems. It does mean the Tigers would not need to travel all the way to Hawaii every other year (but Michigan and Nebraska would) spreading out the travel challenges a little bit.
 
Under this proposal, several teams, including teams currently in BCS automatic qualifying conferences, are left out of the field of 64. These teams would, under our proposal, be allowed to play their way into the conference system as the conference structures would be adjusted each year based on the updated program rankings as calculated at the end of each year. Since the program rankings are based on historical performance, with greater weight given to recent success, there would not be major changes in the structure from year to year. Most teams move less than 5 spots in the program rankings each year. However, it would allow programs to build a tradition of success and supplant teams who over a series of years are consistently bad. We will discuss this in more detail in a later posting, when we discuss yet another proposal for how to realign conferences in a way that allows schools to play their way into the national spotlight.
 
The last five teams included in the field of 64 in this year's calculations are: the Illinois Fighting Illini, the Oregon State Beavers, the San Diego State Aztecs, the Miami University RedHawks and the Hawaii Warriors. Two of these teams, San Diego State and Hawaii, would have just barely played their way into the field of 64 after last year's successful seasons. All five would be under some pressure to have successful seasons to maintain their spots in the field of 64.
 
The first five teams not included in our field of 64 are: the Kansas State Wildcats, the Washington State Cougars, the Kansas Jayhawks, the ECU Pirates and the Navy Midshipmen. Among these teams, both Washington State and Kansas would have been in the field of 64 last year, but would have fallen out after not having successful enough seasons in 2010 to remain in the field. All five are in a position to possibly be added to the field in 2012 with successful 2011 campaigns.
 
Teams not currently in a conference with a BCS automatic qualifying bid that are included in our 2011 field of 64 include: Notre Dame (although they actually do have an automatic qualifying bid as an independent), Boise State, BYU, Southern Miss, Air Force, TCU (which will be joining the Big East next season), Fresno State, Houston, San Diego State, Miami University (Ohio) and Hawaii.
 
Teams currently in a BCS auto bid conference that are not included in our 2011 field of 64 include: Kansas State, Washington State, Kansas, Cincinnati, Baylor, Connecticut, Rutgers, Northwestern, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Duke, Indiana, and Vanderbilt.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Four Superconferences in College Football - Some Suggestions, Part 1

Even though the games have started for the 2011 College Football season, there is a lot of talk about continued conference realignment going on, especially around the Big 12 (which is already down to ten teams). Our own take on the matter is that because so much of this is being played out in the press, whether or not Texas A&M is finally able to join the SEC, we think the bulk of the Big 12 will remain intact. We see a lot of the public discussion as merely posturing within the conference for teams like Oklahoma to try and gain more power and a bigger piece of the financial pie in what has already shown to be an historically unbalanced league. If the proposed PAC 16 were really such a great idea, it would already have happened, in our opinion. Nevertheless, it is because of the unbalanced sharing of power and revenue in the Big 12 that the league has a reputation of being unstable. Any team invited to join that conference would be wise to be wary and to use any leverage that they have to get as good a position within the conference as possible - even as a new entry.

We especially like BYU's position in that regard, since independence gives them both the freedom to make a move whenever they want and the leverage to be able to hold out for a better position within the conference - at least for being able to keep the best parts of the advantages they gained through the move to indepence - the ESPN contract and BYUtv programming. BYU seems to be in a position where the Big 12 might need BYU as much or even more than BYU needs the Big 12, since the addition of BYU can help to stabilize the league and lessen the impact of the departure of Texas A&M.

Right now, there are too many scenarios being talked about to provide a good analysis of how all this shifting might impact our conference power rankings. Instead, we intend to spend the next few posts focusing on another topic of discussion that keeps getting bounced around - the inevitability of the formation of four 16-team superconferences (whether the PAC 16 becomes the first of these or not). We don't share the sentiment that such conferences are inevitable. Having observed the formation and downfall of various large conferences over the years (remember the 16-team WAC?), it does seem that there are a number of drawbacks to this scenario which might keep such actions from happening. And, in fact, this is one reason why we don't believe the PAC 12 will actually take on four new teams in the very near future.

The fact is that in every conference, there are a few teams that are the money makers for the conference and the rest of the teams in the conference rely on those power teams, essentially hitching a ride. This fact has become apparent in the Big 12, where Texas and Oklahoma have taken advantage of their position as money teams in the conference to gain a bigger share of the pie, and in the Mountain West Conference, where BYU got fed up with being the primary money team without being allowed to even rebroadcast (on tape delay!) its games on its own television network and left for independence.

The way decisions are made in a conference can have a huge impact on the relationships within that conference. Most conferences lean toward an equitable sharing of income, often leading to dissatisfaction for the money teams in that conference. The Big 12's decision-making process seems to have allowed greater freedom for the money teams, leaving the middle-tier teams frustrated with the inequity and eager to jump into another conference with a more equitable sharing plan in place if the opportunity arises. The problem with 16-team conferences is that it is hard to imagine an arrangement where this doesn't mean a smaller ratio of money teams to other teams within a conference. There just aren't that many teams with a large enough national following to make a split between 16 teams better than a split between 12 teams. To get to 16 from 12, you might add one more money team to your conference. But you're also adding three also-rans (financially speaking).

The argument against this problem is that this is the reason there will only be four conferences. Fewer money teams are needed with four power conferences than with six. Another point is that this is about increasing the "footprint" of the conference - bringing in televisions. The reason increasing the footprint of a conference would increase the income of a conference (whether the team brought in was a money team or not) is that it apparently doesn't matter how many people are actually watching the games in that area to a conference network. Because of how cable and satellite television billing works, you might be paying for a conference network subscription, even if you don't want it. If it's offered and you purchase the tier that the subscription is found on (even to watch something else), the conference network will get its money. Advertising dollars (which are influenced by actual viewship ratings) have become secondary.

Financially, there is some merit to this model, but we still have to wonder if this is enough to overcome the problems that also result from such large conferences. Again, if 16-team conferences are so great, the idea has been around long enough, you would think it would have happened already.

That being said, and putting aside finances and the idea of money teams for the moment, we ask this question: Strictly in terms of football performance, which teams ought to be included or excluded in a four-conference 64-team system to get the best arrangement (again, in terms of football)? We've tackled this before. At the time, our suggestions were based on 40 years of analysis. Now that we've completed 99 years of analysis, we intend to update our suggestion based on the complete program rankings in the coming days.

First, however, we want to explore the idea that these four superconferences, if they happen, will probably evolve from the existing six power conferences in some way. Of course, this leaves out some worthy programs that do not belong to power conferences, and we would like to think that somehow, along the way, worthy teams that don't belong to one of the six power conferences will find their way into the mix. Of course, there are already more than 64 teams among the six conferences with an automatic BCS bid (67 to be exact, counting TCU which joins the Big East next year). So even if these other programs are not let in, some teams that are already in will be left out. Unfortunately, we think the left out teams will actually be the bottom feeders in the two conferences that will disappear, because they simply won't be invited into one of the other four conferences, leaving some even worse teams in simply because they happened to belong to the right league and not because of their football worthiness. But if the decision were actually based on football worthiness, which five teams currently not belonging to one of these conferences would be most worthy of an invitation to join? And which eight teams from the power conferences (remember, we have to get rid of three just to reach 64) should be kicked out, even though they already belong to the club?

Here's our list, based on the most recent program power ratings calculated from 99 years of historical data (and of course giving greater weight to recent success):

Top Five teams to add to the field of 64:

1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (of course - they won't be left out unless they are determined to remain independent)
2. Boise State Broncos
3. BYU Cougars
4. Southern Miss Golden Eagles
5. Air Force Falcons

Note that three of these teams (Notre Dame, BYU and Air Force) have the national profile for a "money team". It seems to us that, financially speaking, these three teams MUST be included among the list of 64 to maximize income that is to be spread out among 16 teams in a conference. (Now the question is if the university presidents who will make the decisions agree.)

Top Eight teams to drop from the field of 64:

1. Vanderbilt Commodores
2. Indiana Hoosiers
3. Duke Blue Devils
4. Iowa State Cyclones
5. Wake Forest Demon Deacons
6. Northwestern Wildcats
7. Rutgers Scarlet Knights
8. Connecticut Huskies



That Vanderbilt, Indiana and Northwestern would not be included in the final field of 64 seems unlikely, since it is almost a sure thing that the SEC and Big 10 will be among the conferences expanding to 16 teams, not among the conferences that disappear. Iowa State is the only team in this list from the Big 12, yet that seems to be the conference most likely to disband. (Baylor would have been #9 on this list.)