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

I still wouldn't conflate the two.  I know of some high reputation colleges out there that are small and are only undergraduate in focus.  

I would agree that the high research universities also tend to be good academically, especially in STEM fields.  I don't know of an exception.  It's like the AAU thing, it mostly relates to grad schools.

As I often note, we humans like rankings, I guess it saves us from having to do our "own research" (which often is silly as well).  I think a lot of it matters when one lists a school on one's resume, it either gets your foot in the door, or closes the door, or cracks the door open a bit.

Can a person get a good education at say Northwestern State?  Of course.  Or a bad one at Stanford?  Of course.  But the latter will open a lot of doors for you because more Stanford grads will be elite than grads from NWSU.

Does it matter if Stanford happened to have a fairly low research expenditure?  Not that much, in my opinion.  Some of the most renowned professors are poor teachers and vice versa.

I think Beamer has done a solid job with what he has.  I had been high on Stoops, but maybe not so much now.  All this just reflects winning, not coaching, I think, except where they overlap.

The problem with all rankings, I find, is who do you move up?

It's easier to move folks down.

I missed that.  Maybe Franklin is THAT good?

It's amusing to me that Day, who was on the verge of being canned, if #4.  I'm not saying he doesn't merit whatever, it's just amusing.