The CardBoard
WSJ Grid of Shame - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSJ Grid of Shame (/thread-14170.html)

Pages: 1 2

WSJ Grid of Shame - Hurlburt88 - 09-01-2017

https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-footballs-2017-grid-of-shame-1504194945?mod=djem10point

WE are not as high on the "admirable" axis as I expected us to be . . . kind of middling;  pretty highly ranked on the "powerhouse" axis.  Northwestern ranked "most admirable".  Ole Miss, Baylor, and North Carolina take a beating on the "admirable" axis. 

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - TreesAndBirds - 09-01-2017

Apparently the "admirable" ranking is affected by attendance. Not sure why and even so that wouldnt seem to fully explain our middling ranking. We're ranked approx 24 out of the 64 schools in admirableness. Ohio State, Clemson, Washington and Wisconsin are  both more powerful and more admirable.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - FarmBoy - 09-01-2017

I was informed by a Michigan fan on Wednesday that if you stop the average college football fan on the street and asked him to list the top 20 programs Stanford wouldn't make the cut.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - Spiny_Norman - 09-01-2017

The article and graph are behind a paywall so I cannot see it.

Here is the 2016 picture - http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2016/september/2/2016-wsj-college-football-grid-shame

Stanford was among the most admired programs as recently as a year ago. I wonder what changed since then.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - TreesAndBirds - 09-01-2017

I wonder if CMac sitting out the Sun Bowl factored into the intangibles of admirableness?

We seem to be #13 for "powerfulness" so no complaint there, but odd ( and wrong)  that we are significantly more powerful than admirable.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - CTcard - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 07:47 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:The article and graph are behind a paywall so I cannot see it.

Here is the 2016 picture - http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2016/september/2/2016-wsj-college-football-grid-shame

Stanford was among the most admired programs as recently as a year ago. I wonder what changed since then.

Same for me on both counts. I don't have a WSJ subscription (maybe I should) and I am curious as to how they determine admirableness.
It appears to be some sort of numerical formula, so I would doubt that McCaffrey skipping the Sun Bowl would factor in.
If they look at federal graduation rates rather than Graduation Success Rates then the set of recent Junior departures for the NFL will eventually give us a hit, but that takes several years to show up.

If admirableness involves attendance, then 1) I disagree about what is admirable, and 2) hard to see how Northwestern would pop out ahead of us.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - fullmetal - 09-01-2017

They've gotta keep the formula secret so that word doesn't leak that they "redefined" admirable such that Stanford wouldn't come out on top every year.

Low number of NCAA violations, low number of law enforcement encounters, low number of academic retirements, low number of transfers out of the program, high matriculation, competitive acceptance, GPA?...those could all be factors.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - terry - 09-01-2017

Maybe we were downgraded for our first-ever NCAA violation.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - ChicagoCard - 09-01-2017

You probably have access via your public library databases...

Bicycles!! Damn! Oh, the humanity!! - Redrum - 09-01-2017

All that matters:  Play well, win the P12 North, beat USC, beat kal, beat Notre Dame on the field.  I can handle being voted a little less "admirable"  as determined by some group of yahoos.  Besides, it is more fun to look at the opposite side.  Ole Miss coach lining up hookers while traveling with the team.  Who could make this stuff up?  Yet, riveting.  Been that way ever since the Dante-esque observation that hell was more interesting than heaven.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - Bruce Wang - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 07:47 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I was informed by a Michigan fan on Wednesday that if you stop the average college football fan on the street and asked him to list the top 20 programs Stanford wouldn't make the cut.

The Skunkbears don't make that cut anymore.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - CompSci87 - 09-01-2017

Whatever the formula is, it's doing it's job by getting us to talk about the piece and the WSJ.  ::)

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - Farm93 - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 07:47 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I was informed by a Michigan fan on Wednesday that if you stop the average college football fan on the street and asked him to list the top 20 programs Stanford wouldn't make the cut.
That's likely true.  It would be 10 SEC teams, 4 ACC teams, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc. etc.  Not quite sure Michigan makes that "average" fan top 20 over the last 10 years.  Doesn't matter either way.

That would be a worry if Stanford Football needed in-state popularity to land recruits or big time local passion to sell tickets to get revenue.
Thankfully the school does the recruiting and the alums (and the endowment and other assets) provide the revenue.    So while Stanford might not make your "average" fan's top 20, Stanford is making your smart 4 or 5 star recruit's top 5.

Happy to make that trade BTW.  I would rather the school be the first choice of a 17 year old 240 lb, 6' 2" player that runs a 4.6 40, than be popular with a 47 year old 240 lb, 5' 10" man that watches 5 college football games on TV each Saturday.



Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - TreesAndBirds - 09-01-2017


[/quote]
It appears to be some sort of numerical formula, so I would doubt that McCaffrey skipping the Sun Bowl would factor in.
[/quote]

Understand you dont have access to the article but it says that they include a non quantifiable "ick" factor for things that fans should be ashamed of.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - CTcard - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 09:11 AM)terry link Wrote:Maybe we were downgraded for our first-ever NCAA violation.

Good reminder Terry.
I admit I had blocked that from my mind.

While it seems relatively mild on the scale of things out there, it clearly falls into the non-admirable category and should knock us down a peg on that scale.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - BostonCard - 09-01-2017

It used to be that you could bypass the paywall through google, but the WSJ has cracked down on it.  Now, however, you can bypass the paywall through twitter, since the Wall Street Journal wants you to follow its tweets, and it can't really not let you follow the link...

https://twitter.com/mwatkinstrib/status/903295618474536960

And I am sure Terry is right.  Having an NCAA violation likely hurt our admirability

BC

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - fullmetal - 09-01-2017

If most people don't think of Stanford as a top 20 team, I find it unlikely that most people would remember that Stanford racked up its first major (or even what it was for).  Sigh :p

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 11:02 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=17272.msg198638#msg198638 date=1504277226]
I was informed by a Michigan fan on Wednesday that if you stop the average college football fan on the street and asked him to list the top 20 programs Stanford wouldn't make the cut.
That's likely true.  It would be 10 SEC teams, 4 ACC teams, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc. etc.  Not quite sure Michigan makes that "average" fan top 20 over the last 10 years.  Doesn't matter either way.

That would be a worry if Stanford Football needed in-state popularity to land recruits or big time local passion to sell tickets to get revenue.
Thankfully the school does the recruiting and the alums (and the endowment and other assets) provide the revenue.    So while Stanford might not make your "average" fan's top 20, Stanford is making your smart 4 or 5 star recruit's top 5.

Happy to make that trade BTW.  I would rather the school be the first choice of a 17 year old 240 lb, 6' 2" player that runs a 4.6 40, than be popular with a 47 year old 240 lb, 5' 10" man that watches 5 college football games on TV each Saturday.
[/quote]

Of course, Top 20 program is seen through a certain time lens.  If you are looking all-time, no, Stanford wouldn't be Top 20.  If you were looking at the last five years, then Stanford absolutely would be in the Top 20.  In any case, David Shaw has more work to do, because one of his objectives is to have Stanford thought of as a Top 10 program, when someone ponders who the best college football programs are.

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - Mick - 09-01-2017

(09-01-2017, 09:11 AM)terry link Wrote:Maybe we were downgraded for our first-ever NCAA violation.

Uh-huh.  I thought the complete lack of compliance with rules is what is so admirable about SEC schools...

Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - Phogge - 09-01-2017

SF State was the "hippie" school that had riots. Lingered for many years. 99% of the students were not living on campus, were grinding on a degree and came via Muni and SamTrans. Plenty of teachers, coaches and business majors. Liberal, yes, rioters, no.

You know who you are, screw the report and screw the SEC.