There are a lot of ways to do this, but the easiest and most objective is to look at their overall athletic budgets, less the amount of that budget that is "allocated"-- which, near as I can tell, is shorthand for using student fees and other items to prop up your AD.

This is obviously heavily dependent on your conference, too, so you have to normalize how much of your budget is actually coming from your conference mates instead of you, which you can approximate, using an average budget throughout the members of the same conference.

The last caveat is that we only have normalized data from public institutions, so the analysis works best in conferences where there aren't many private institutions or the private schools are likely to have budgets close to average. It works well in the B12 (where Baylor and TCU are probably about the same distance, in opposite directions, from the average) but it doesn't work as well in the P12, where both USC and Stanford are probably near the top in terms of athletics budgets. USC I feel like I know pretty well however-- news sources peg it as a bit above UCLA. Stanford I don't.

In the end, the numbers show what you might expect: no P5 conference has the disparity that the current B12 has. In fact, the ONLY B12 schools that are above the average budget in the B12 ($122,153,056) are Texas and OU. Texas and OU are literally carrying the entire conference. The only program close to the average is Kansas, which is about $2m under the average.

How would the B12 schools fit into the P12 in a hypothetical scenario? Aside from Kansas and maybe Baylor, not great at all. They are ALL generating a higher adjusted budget number than the bottom 6 of the P12 right now-- but that's likely because of the conference they are in, not because of who they are. If their budgets were the same percentage of the P12's average that they are of the B12's average, they would all rank basically like Oregon State and Wazzu, except for West Virginia and Kansas.

The B10 has a lot of have-nots but it seems to be picking them based mostly on the number of TV sets they bring.

Essentially, I could see the B10 MAYBE taking KU. They are AAU and their B12 budget (even without the bump from B10 affiliation) was within the same range as a number of other B10 schools and not so far below the average that they would for sure be a net drain. They have a huge national brand in bball. However there just aren't enough TV sets in Kansas for me to think they would do it in the end. I could be wrong.

West Virginia would probably work well in the ACC. Geography is good, budget is comparable, small state but fans are famously rabid.

Everyone else is likely screwed in my non-professional opinion. Baylor and TCU I have no data for so I could be wrong on them. TTech, Iowa State, Ok State, and KState all look like MWC level programs without the subsidy. Again, I could be wrong, but that's my opinion based on the data. It was probably inevitable in today's $$$ driven CFB that OU and UT would eventually leave. They are so far above everyone else in that conference it was essentially a charitable exercise. And once there were likely to be enough playoff spots for them to be able to get one without winning the conference, the SEC had to look like a way better choice.