Clemson football: SI’s “Desirability Ratings” leave a lot to be desired

In general, I love numbers and analyzing Clemson football and sports through numbers because it gives you a standard on which to base your judgement, whatever it is you’re attempting to judge, and there’s less opportunity for favoritism or bias.

Sometimes though, people who write using numbers show a failure to understand what it is they should be measuring and what’s actually important in a calculation.

Such is the case with Pat Forde who, kudos to him, endeavored to ranked every Power 5 team “desirability” index.

At first blush, I didn’t disagree too much with the rankings, I mean I’m a Clemson fan, but I get it, right?

The problem is the formula weighted football and viewership the same as every other category, including of “All Sports”.

Call me crazy, but I thought this realignment thing was about football (and basketball, to a lesser degree).

You might point out that this story isn’t really about just football.

"If you were to blow up every league and hold a draft to redistribute the balance of power, what does your draft board look like?"

Point made, but Forde also starts off pointing out what happened on June 30th and included a link and references football throughout.

Trust me, realignment is about football.

I can even understand factoring “All Sports” in, but to give it equal weight seems a bit lazy and disingenuous in my mind, because you’re weighting non-revenue generating Olympic sports the same as football.

We all know that isn’t how this should be done.

Believe me, Texas and Oklahoma weren’t courted by the SEC because of volleyball.

Forde even admits it when discussing the rankings of Washington and Clemson.

"Outside of Notre Dame, Washington is slightly ahead of Clemson for the highest-rated school from outside the Big Ten and SEC. The Huskies have slid recently in football but are respectable across the board. Clemson obviously has had a superior football program but lags in all-sports ranking. (Which, ultimately, is the most disposable of the metrics here.)"

He even tells you one fifth of his calculation is bunk and you can throw it out.

Yet he includes it.

This isn’t about Washington or even Clemson.  I happen to think Clemson is probably fairly placed, give or take a spot or two.

However, when I see something as obviously flawed as this “calculation” is, it makes me question the motive, not to mention the veracity of the entire article.

Excluding the “All Sports” category Clemson finishes in the top 10 in “desirability”

So, since the author indicated it’s OK to dispose of “All Sports” category, that’s just what I did and magically Clemson moves up to number 9, which makes perfect sense since the Tigers are 4 in football and 7 in viewership, two things that seem important in realignment.

Funny how that works, when you measure the things that are actually important when discussing “desirability” and realignment the rankings change.

I do wonder though, how much Washington’s second place finish in the PAC-12 Rowing Championship moved the needle.

Anyway, Mr. Forde hoped that I would be “infuriated”, which I’m not.  He also hoped that I would be educated, which I was.

I learned a few things about some of the schools, but more than that I learned a lot about Mr. Forde.