Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I agree that you can't just look at how a program did last year.
But how far back do you go to get that "average"?  Does how a program did in 1920 have just as much weight as how it did in 2020?

For me, it's coaching changes.  
No, do not go back 100 years.  There isn't one "right" number of years, it's until you get a trend line.  
Iowa State's....let's say last 5 HCs:
Seasons - Name - win%
6 - Campbell - .556
7 - Rhodes - .368
2 - Chizik - .208
12 - McCarney - .397
8 - Walden - .335
Okay, that's five HCs covering 35 years.  That's plenty of data.  What do we end up with?  An average win% of .390.  
That's what Iowa State football is.  .390.  That's what you'd be adding.  

Agreed.  I mentioned this upthread in regard to Clemson.  My big fear in adding them would be that if they go back to pre-Dabo Clemson, are they worth it?No, but Clemson and ISU (two example that @OrangeAfroMan used) have been talked about.  This is a balancing act because you are trying to project the future based on the past.  Clearly Minnesota's great years and NC's back before WWII are basically irrelevant.  OTOH, I'm not completely sure that Michigan's great years under Bo ~50 years ago are irrelevant.  Somewhere in there is your projection. 

Win 9. Lose 2. Lose Rose Bowl.


GREAT!!

Warren got schooled on this one.

Kudos to the SEC. SEC/B1G were duking it out for ratings/money supremacy. They just lapped the B1G with these additions. By A LOT.

From all indications the SEC isn't done adding teams.  The SEC/ESPN contract allows them to add teams from an "A-list" prorata
The SEC/ESPN contract allows them to add teams from an "A-list" prorata. Should any conference feel secure that they won't get Big 12'd?  The ACC should feel very vulnerable, maybe the PAC.  If that happened the B1G could not catch up. 

For me, it's coaching changes. 
No, do not go back 100 years.  There isn't one "right" number of years, it's until you get a trend line. 
Iowa State's....let's say last 5 HCs:
Seasons - Name - win%
6 - Campbell - .556
7 - Rhodes - .368
2 - Chizik - .208
12 - McCarney - .397
8 - Walden - .335
Okay, that's five HCs covering 35 years.  That's plenty of data.  What do we end up with?  An average win% of .390. 
That's what Iowa State football is.  .390.  That's what you'd be adding. 

I agree that this is generally the correct way to conduct this analysis.  The major potential complication is a situation like FSU or VaTech where you had one guy who did REALLY well and coached for a REALLY long time:

Florida State:

• 1 Norvell .333
• 2 Taggart .429
• 2/3 Haggins .667
• 8 Fisher .783
• 34 Bowden .756
• 2 Murda .182
• 3 Jones .441
• 11 Peterson .587

The problem here is that Murda was almost 50 years ago so basically everyone pre-Bowden is too long ago to be significantly relevant.  When Bowden left he had coached the Seminoles for 34 years while their other nine coaches had coached them for 32.  Even now Bowden coached the Seminoles for 34 of their last 45 years so you really don't have much data outside of Bowden.  Bowden is an all-time great and maybe nobody else will ever get FSU anywhere close to that level or maybe FSU as a program is strong enough that future coaches will get to or at least approach Bowden-level success.  It is hard to tell.  

VaTech:

• 5 Fuente .704
• 29 Beamer .655
• 9 Dooley .632
• 4 Sharpe .489
• 3 Coffey .379
• 10 Claiborne .608

Similarly, Dooley was about 40 years ago, Sharpe was close to 50 years ago, and the rest were even further back so basically everyone pre-Beamer is probably not relevant.  That only leaves you with Beamer and Fuente which isn't much data to go on.  Basically the entirety of VaTech's relevant history is with Frank Beamer at the helm so who knows how that should be evaluated.  Beamer, like Bowden is an all-time great.  Fuente's win% is actually better than Beamer's so far but the Hokies haven't been as relevant under Fuente as we were accustomed to them being under Beamer so . . .  

The Big Ten already can't catch up.

USC and Notre Dame is the best scenario outside of the absolutely absurd, and it isn't going to be USC and Notre Dame.

Even if it is USC, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Notre Dame (plus one to get to 20) I don't think that actually catches the new SEC, it just stays reasonably close.  

I agree that this is generally the correct way to conduct this analysis.  The major potential complication is a situation like FSU or VaTech where you had one guy who did REALLY well and coached for a REALLY long time:

Florida State:

• 1 Norvell .333
• 2 Taggart .429
• 2/3 Haggins .667
• 8 Fisher .783
• 34 Bowden .756
• 2 Murda .182
• 3 Jones .441
• 11 Peterson .587

The problem here is that Murda was almost 50 years ago so basically everyone pre-Bowden is too long ago to be significantly relevant.  When Bowden left he had coached the Seminoles for 34 years while their other nine coaches had coached them for 32.  Even now Bowden coached the Seminoles for 34 of their last 45 years so you really don't have much data outside of Bowden.  Bowden is an all-time great and maybe nobody else will ever get FSU anywhere close to that level or maybe FSU as a program is strong enough that future coaches will get to or at least approach Bowden-level success.  It is hard to tell. 

VaTech:

• 5 Fuente .704
• 29 Beamer .655
• 9 Dooley .632
• 4 Sharpe .489
• 3 Coffey .379
• 10 Claiborne .608

Similarly, Dooley was about 40 years ago, Sharpe was close to 50 years ago, and the rest were even further back so basically everyone pre-Beamer is probably not relevant.  That only leaves you with Beamer and Fuente which isn't much data to go on.  Basically the entirety of VaTech's relevant history is with Frank Beamer at the helm so who knows how that should be evaluated.  Beamer, like Bowden is an all-time great.  Fuente's win% is actually better than Beamer's so far but the Hokies haven't been as relevant under Fuente as we were accustomed to them being under Beamer so . . . 

The flaw in this line of thinking is that the state of the university, state, region, and fan base is static.  It's not the case.  So for example if you look at FSU they were an all women's college until the 50's and generally did not really resemble what they are today until the 70's and 80's, which is coincidentally when Bowden became coach.  As discussed previously the state of Florida did not exceed the population of the state of Ohio until 1990 but now is much more populous and in fact about double that of Ohio.  For Ohio, I'm inclined to believe that their university, state, region, and fan base is much more static.  In other words, the population of the state probably will not dramatically grow, the attendance of the  univeristy probably will not increase, and thus the fan base will not grow or increase either.  Now, we all know OSU has a strong fanbase and support throughout the state, their helmet status is safely intact.  

On the other hand look at Nebraska.  Population has increased some, but still small by state standards (less than 2 million).  What is the odds they can climb back up the ladder to elite status, espeically now that the Big 10 has so much more competition than the old Big 8/Big 12.  Will they be able to get the type of recruits there to put the program back on the map?  And how much longer will you regard Nebraska a helmet team but now Florida/FSU and Clemson?