CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on July 20, 2018, 05:28:32 PM
-
Skipping over the Ivies and other schools, here's the rankings of P5 conference "football" schools by academic ranking (2018):
1. Stanford
2. Duke
3. Northwestern
4. Vanderbilt
5. Notre Dame
6. Cal
7. UCLA
8. USC
9. Virginia
10.Wake Forest
11.Michigan
12.North Carolina
13.Boston College
14.Georgia Tech
15.Florida
16.Miami
17.Wisconsin
18.Penn State
19.Illinois
20.Ohio State
21.Georgia
22.Purdue
23.Texas
24.Washington
25.BYU (I'll go ahead and include them)
Others receiving votes:
Syracuse, Maryland, Clemson, Pitt, Rutgers, Texas A&M, Minnesota, Virginia Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa
This popped into my head because I was wondering how far you'd have to go from Gainesville to find a better academic "football" school - I was thinking up to NC and TN, then west all the way to TX, but I forgot about Ga Tech. Anyway, if you map these out, there is absolutely nothing north of Austin and between Wis/Iowa/Vandy and the west coast besides BYU (if you even include them). Why is that?
-
surprising to me
Wisconsin below Miami and the turn over chain?
Texas and the Longhorn arrogance @ 23?
-
Imagine a world in which this top 25 got as much press as the football one did.
-
I could live there
I'm actually disappointed that the B1G doesn't put more emphasis on the academic achievements
-
surprising to me
Wisconsin below Miami and the turn over chain?
Texas and the Longhorn arrogance @ 23?
Obsession noted.
-
Why is that?
Population Density.
Imagine a world in which this top 25 got as much press as the football one did.
Well ... first off we are in the wrong location, this is a football forum. There are academic/research forums out there (the ones I have contributed to are not public.) Those of us who typically bring up the importance of academics typically get poked fun at or dismissed here.
2nd ... Is it the universities fault or the general media? I can guarantee you that OSU releases 10x plus publications about academic achievements than they do on Sporting ones.
3rd there are different rankings out there, the US News one comes across as lazy, kinda like the old Coaches Poll, where you have your previous rankings, and you see if they won or loss over the last year and bump them a couple of spots accordingly.
Is the University of Chicago still part of the Academic Big Ten? And has John Hopkins been added to academics with their Lacrosse addition? Website seems to say no. https://www.btaa.org/about
Of note; colored me shocked that Rutgers is in the "others receiving votes" column. (US News has them tied at 69) One of my several knocks against them was that their academics was so low. I'm pretty when they were in the discussion for addition it was them and Nebraska (124) were the only 2 B1G schools that ranked in the triple digits. I'm making up a number here, but I thought they were like 104, so to jump 30 spots in 5 years is remarkable.
-
It's not the school's fault at all. And I know there's no one true valuation of quality of overall education, it's just for fun - like the AP football poll now.
I just wonder why there aren't really any schools like these between the Mississippi River and the west coast, besides BYUish and Texas. Rice is high on the list, too, and there's Washington & Jefferson in St. Louis, but literally nothing else. Is it simply a case of being the last area to be highly populated by the invading anglo-whites? We populate the east coach first, then west to the Mississippi, then largely populate the west coast once it's discovered, then backfill the middle bits. It's probably as simple as that.
-
The list of public schools selected from that is also notable I think.
I would have had Purdue higher.
Two in Georgia is a solid showing I think. UGA was not a very good school when I attended, but their Honors program was solid. The ACC does well at the undergrad level, probably better than the B1G.
-
Is Texas A&M a pretty good school?
I think Alabama is higher than most would think.
-
I would have had Purdue higher.
Purdue and Indiana are both hampered by the deliberate strategy not to compete head to head academically.
So, for example, when they try to assess a pretty major post graduate program like a med school, Purdue doesn't have one.
Then, when trying to assess the engineering school, Indiana doesn't have one.
Purdue is also lower on the list because outside its premier disciplines, it's not insanely hard to get admitted. A lot of these rankings consider selectivity a bonus.
-
UGA and Tech are the same way.
-
ND is too high... Wisky is too low... Purdue and Texas should be above OSU...
-
I don't believe these are strictly academic rankings. They are a composite of factors, and much of it is fluff.
-
ND is too high... Wisky is too low... Purdue and Texas should be above OSU...
I was under the impression that What Purdue did well, it did better than OSU; but that it was only "half a university" with several Colleges emphasized down at IU instead, and I think that hurts Purdue's overall ranking.
I also was under the impression that OSU and Texas were almost mirrors of each other for undergrad experience, but OSU had an edge for Graduate Research.
Again, US News is a weak ranking system, I'm sure there are systems out there that have both Higher than OSU, but OSU has improved leaps and bounds over the Large State school that took anyone with a check back in the 80ies.
Prepscholar has the 3 schools entry requirements listed as:
OSU requires a 3.8 GPA, and a 29 (out of 36) ACT score.
Texas is a 3.75 GPA and a 1350 on the new 1600 SAT scale.
Purdue is a 3.72 and a 1300 on the new 1600 SAT scale.
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
Graduation/Retention: 22.5%
Undergrad Academic Reputation: 22.5%
Faculty Resources: 20%
Student selectivity: 12.5%
Financial resources: 10%
Graduation rate performance: 7.5%
Alumni giving: 5%
So less than a quarter is based on the actual undergrad academic reputation.
Schools that are highly selective get a double boost. Highly selective schools not only take the best students available (12.5%), but those students are more likely to achieve both first-year retention and six-year graduation rate (22.5%).
Now, if a school outperforms its selectivity and achieves a higher graduation rate than predicted by its incoming student population, it can somewhat "catch up" with graduation rate performance (7.5%), but that's a MUCH smaller weight than the combined 35% for selectivity and outright retention/graduation rates.
https://www.thoughtco.com/comparison-of-the-big-ten-universities-786967
I've said before that Purdue--outside of engineering--is not particularly hard to get into. This bears that out, with a 56% admission rate compared to Northwestern (11%), Michigan (29%), and Minnesota (44%) and Maryland (48%). Then with 6-year graduation rates, you see Northwestern (94%), Michigan, (91%), Maryland (87%), while Purdue is down at 77%. Wisconsin, PSU, Illinois, and OSU somewhat outperform their admission rate with their graduation rates, but of those 4 schools, Illinois is the only one with a similar engineering reputation as Purdue. Those schools all have similar acceptance rates but higher graduation rates, and they're numbers 17-20 on the above list while Purdue is 22.
So the rankings are NOT based on how good of an education you receive at each institution. Which isn't to say that any of the schools on that list will give you a bad education. But it's to say that only 22.5% of the ranking is based on the actual undergrad academic reputation of the school, and 77.5% is based upon "other".
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
Graduation/Retention: 22.5%
Undergrad Academic Reputation: 22.5%
Faculty Resources: 20%
Student selectivity: 12.5%
Financial resources: 10%
Graduation rate performance: 7.5%
Alumni giving: 5%
So less than a quarter is based on the actual undergrad academic reputation.
Schools that are highly selective get a double boost. Highly selective schools not only take the best students available (12.5%), but those students are more likely to achieve both first-year retention and six-year graduation rate (22.5%).
Now, if a school outperforms its selectivity and achieves a higher graduation rate than predicted by its incoming student population, it can somewhat "catch up" with graduation rate performance (7.5%), but that's a MUCH smaller weight than the combined 35% for selectivity and outright retention/graduation rates.
https://www.thoughtco.com/comparison-of-the-big-ten-universities-786967
I've said before that Purdue--outside of engineering--is not particularly hard to get into. This bears that out, with a 56% admission rate compared to Northwestern (11%), Michigan (29%), and Minnesota (44%) and Maryland (48%). Then with 6-year graduation rates, you see Northwestern (94%), Michigan, (91%), Maryland (87%), while Purdue is down at 77%. Wisconsin, PSU, Illinois, and OSU somewhat outperform their admission rate with their graduation rates, but of those 4 schools, Illinois is the only one with a similar engineering reputation as Purdue. Those schools all have similar acceptance rates but higher graduation rates, and they're numbers 17-20 on the above list while Purdue is 22.
So the rankings are NOT based on how good of an education you receive at each institution. Which isn't to say that any of the schools on that list will give you a bad education. But it's to say that only 22.5% of the ranking is based on the actual undergrad academic reputation of the school, and 77.5% is based upon "other".
https://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/subject-ranking/engineering-and-IT#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html
-
I was under the impression that What Purdue did well, it did better than OSU; but that it was only "half a university" with several Colleges emphasized down at IU instead, and I think that hurts Purdue's overall ranking.
Per my link above:
OSU has a 54% admission rate and an 84% six-year graduation rate.
Purdue has a 56% admission rate and a 77% six-year graduation rate.
So while their admission rates are similar, either OSU is overperforming their admission rate or Purdue is underperforming their admission rate. Those three numbers combined (admission / graduation-retention / over-underperformance) are a combined 42.5% of the overall US News ranking.
Of the others, Faculty and Financial resources are a combined 30%. OSU is the state's flagship university. Purdue and Indiana are "split flagships" for the reasons you point out, where the two are deliberately not competing with each other. I'll bet that negatively affects at least the financial resources piece of the puzzle for both Purdue and IU, and wouldn't be surprised if the "faculty resources" are somewhat also impacted, although some of those resources [faculty salary, for one] may actually help Purdue in that engineering professors are typically some of the highest-paid faculty, and Purdue has a higher proportion of engineer->non-engineer than OSU. I.e. even though they have similar engineering enrollment, OSU has 150% the total undergrad enrollment of Purdue, so it's a smaller proportion.
So even if the academic reputations of the two were perfectly equal (not sure where those numbers rank), I would bet that OSU would edge Purdue out for the other metrics.
And based on that split, note that IU doesn't even get into the "others receiving votes" category. Why? 79% acceptance rate but only a 76% six-year graduation graduation rate means they're not selective nor have high graduation rates. That, along with the "split flagship" model that probably hampers them like it does Purdue, pushes them out.
-
https://www.graduateshotline.com/ranks/
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/subject-ranking/engineering-and-IT#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html
I'm not knocking Wisconsin, Badge...
Your first three ranks show Purdue as ahead of Wisconsin in engineering. Not by an enormous margin, of course, but ahead. It was 11th vs 16th, 8th (tie) vs 14th (tie) for doctorate, and 25th vs 40th worldwide.
Your last rank is overall, not limited to engineering, and Wisconsin is a ways ahead of Purdue. This suggests that Wisconsin's OVERALL ranking makes up for them being somewhat below in engineering. I'd also state that this final link, if you read methodology, has a lot more to do with graduate research than undergraduate education. Which is important, but is a completely different metric than quality of undergrad education.
And to my point, although Wisconsin is good but several places below Illinois/Purdue on the list, the other two, PSU and OSU, are farther down. Not bad, but still below.
-
I was under the impression that What Purdue did well, it did better than OSU; but that it was only "half a university" with several Colleges emphasized down at IU instead, and I think that hurts Purdue's overall ranking.
I also was under the impression that OSU and Texas were almost mirrors of each other for undergrad experience, but OSU had an edge for Graduate Research.
Again, US News is a weak ranking system, I'm sure there are systems out there that have both Higher than OSU, but OSU has improved leaps and bounds over the Large State school that took anyone with a check back in the 80ies.
Prepscholar has the 3 schools entry requirements listed as:
OSU requires a 3.8 GPA, and a 29 (out of 36) ACT score.
Texas is a 3.75 GPA and a 1350 on the new 1600 SAT scale.
Purdue is a 3.72 and a 1300 on the new 1600 SAT scale.
I agree about OSU improvement... especially from when I was in college. They deserve a lot of credit.
-
Yeah my uncle always jokes about how much more impressive his OSU degree gets the longer he lives.
Hell, when I was debating between OSU, Wisconsin and Pitt for law school about 12 years ago, they were a toss up in terms of rankings. Now Wisconsin and OSU are right around 30, which is about what Wisconsin was, and a raise for OSU, while Pitt has plummeted down to like #80. I think in the most recent rankings it's right below Kansas and Rutgers.
-
Serious question, what jobs are there/industries where employers are actually looking at where you went to undergrad, and/or your transcripts?
I don't think anybody in our division (prominent financial services firm/ large parent co.)asks for transcripts or gives a #### where you went to undergrad. the only reason graduate/professional credentials come up, is for salary purposes (nobody cares about those grades either). I've done my fair share of hiring. I don't give a hoot about grades/school
In my former life as a prosecutor, there was also zero emphasis on grades/school. References, and interview were everything.
-
I would say Florida and Miami are surprisingly high on the list, Texas and Washington too low. Other than that, it looks about right to me.
Top public schools by reputation with FBS football programs? Cal, Michigan, UVA, UNC, UCLA, Texas, in about that order. I would put Wisconsin in the next tier (and of course at the top of it).
USN&WR's rankings put a lot of stock into financial resources, which gives the top private schools a big boost. Nonetheless, the graduation rates and post-graduation income levels at those top private schools are nothing to sneer at. And FYI, Notre Dame is absolutely a top-tier undergrad institution. Probably not quite on the same level as a graduate university, but still very high. Absolutely belongs in the neighborhood it's in on this list.
-
Serious question, what jobs are there/industries where employers are actually looking at where you went to undergrad, and/or your transcripts?
I don't think anybody in our division (prominent financial services firm/ large parent co.)asks for transcripts or gives a #### where you went to undergrad. the only reason graduate/professional credentials come up, is for salary purposes (nobody cares about those grades either). I've done my fair share of hiring. I don't give a hoot about grades/school
In my former life as a prosecutor, there was also zero emphasis on grades/school. References, and interview were everything.
Same experience here, although I'm sure it differs by industry. It's a good topic for friendly banter at a job interview, basically, if your school's team just went deep in the NCAA or won a big bowl game or something. Other than that, most people don't even know where their colleagues got their degrees.
-
I think it matters for your first job, but not beyond that.
-
Serious question, what jobs are there/industries where employers are actually looking at where you went to undergrad, and/or your transcripts?
I don't think anybody in our division (prominent financial services firm/ large parent co.)asks for transcripts or gives a #### where you went to undergrad. the only reason graduate/professional credentials come up, is for salary purposes (nobody cares about those grades either). I've done my fair share of hiring. I don't give a hoot about grades/school
In my former life as a prosecutor, there was also zero emphasis on grades/school. References, and interview were everything.
I've worked several places where school (and honors, but not grades) mattered; more to the point, with several people involved in hiring who cared deeply about what school applicants attended. And I've worked with a lot of clients who viewed the world the same way. Yes, graduate programs mattered more, but in hiring for positions that required undergrad, but not graduate degrees, undergrad institution matters, too.
I've never liked it, but those biases definitely exist out there in the world.
-
I'm not knocking Wisconsin, Badge...
Your first three ranks show Purdue as ahead of Wisconsin in engineering. Not by an enormous margin, of course, but ahead. It was 11th vs 16th, 8th (tie) vs 14th (tie) for doctorate, and 25th vs 40th worldwide.
Your last rank is overall, not limited to engineering, and Wisconsin is a ways ahead of Purdue. This suggests that Wisconsin's OVERALL ranking makes up for them being somewhat below in engineering. I'd also state that this final link, if you read methodology, has a lot more to do with graduate research than undergraduate education. Which is important, but is a completely different metric than quality of undergrad education.
And to my point, although Wisconsin is good but several places below Illinois/Purdue on the list, the other two, PSU and OSU, are farther down. Not bad, but still below.
When you consider the sheer number of engineering schools (>500) in this country, I'd argue that they are ranked similarly.
Any school in the top 25 is elite. Think about this.
-
Serious question, what jobs are there/industries where employers are actually looking at where you went to undergrad, and/or your transcripts?
I think it matters for your first job, but not beyond that.
Even in engineering, it rarely matters much beyond your first job. Once you get into the industry for a few years, it's all about work experience.
That said, I've had a lot of people comment favorably to me about other engineers they've had from Purdue*.
I don't think having that sort of reputation makes much of a difference except MAYBE at the margins, if you have two candidates who are equal in all other ways. But 5-10 years beyond college, you don't have candidates that are equal in that way because they actually have real-world experience to base decisions on.
* FWIW, I'll bet engineers from all the "top" schools get this sort of feedback. Obviously I haven't heard it because I'm a Boilermaker rather than a Wolverine, or Illini, or Badger, etc.
-
I've worked several places where school (and honors, but not grades) mattered; more to the point, with several people involved in hiring who cared deeply about what school applicants attended. And I've worked with a lot of clients who viewed the world the same way. Yes, graduate programs mattered more, but in hiring for positions that required undergrad, but not graduate degrees, undergrad institution matters, too.
I've never liked it, but those biases definitely exist out there in the world.
The only people I've seen like this are the people who went to "networking" schools. Here on the West Coast, USC is the prime example of this.
I suppose it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you drop a quarter-million dollars or so on your education, you want the name on that diploma to be a SIGNIFICANT door-opener for you. As a result, once you get get to a position of power, you allow that name to open doors for those you hire at a rate beyond what they'd probably get on their own.
I haven't seen as much of that bias from the folks who went to large, public, state schools.
-
* FWIW, I'll bet engineers from all the "top" schools get this sort of feedback. Obviously I haven't heard it because I'm a Boilermaker rather than a Wolverine, or Illini, or Badger, etc.
No doubt. I hear it a lot too with regard to the Big Ten schools. Pretty hard to go wrong with most all of them, to be very honest.
-
No doubt. I hear it a lot too with regard to the Big Ten schools. Pretty hard to go wrong with most all of them, to be very honest.
Agreed.
-
No doubt. I hear it a lot too with regard to the Big Ten schools. Pretty hard to go wrong with most all of them, to be very honest.
It's not just engineering. Oddly one of the things I noticed about moving out of Michigan, was how much more clout having an MSU degree was. Within the state, it was always, "oh, you went to the cow college, sorry you didn't get into Michigan." Outside Michigan it was always, "wow, you went to a Big Ten school?"
-
I think it matters for your first job, but not beyond that.
This!!!! Once you've had a job, what you accomplished and what you learned are more important than where you went to school. As for grades... a lot of 3.0 out perform 3.7's... I think there is a range of acceptability. I'm usually more impressed with someone balancing school, activities and a part time job and still obtaining good grades.
-
There are only four school groups in the US.
Impressive
That is fine
That is OK
That is a no.
-
what's the difference between the "fine" category and the "ok" category? :)
-
Big Ten vs SEC
:57:
-
what's the difference between the "fine" category and the "ok" category? :)
How many beers you've had
-
what's the difference between the "fine" category and the "ok" category? :)
the # of beers you've consumed..
-
Fine is Northwestern.
OK is Ohio State.
Impressive is Ivy and Stanford and Duke.
Some Ivy, not all.
-
The SEC is not the best P5 academically, but it probably is not the worst. Lower half ...
-
Fine is Northwestern.
OK is Ohio State.
Impressive is Ivy and Stanford and Duke.
Some Ivy, not all.
Nebraska is a no?
-
Nebraska is an OK.
-
Big Ten vs SEC
:57:
Did the B10 offer Florida? We'd fit right in.
-
If UF were to apply, they'd be taken in a heartbeat. Everything fits aside from geography. Probably dominate baseball, I reckon, not that I recognize baseball as a college sport.
-
teams that seem pretty good at baseball that enter the conference sometimes don't dominate as expected
-
If UF were to apply, they'd be taken in a heartbeat. Everything fits aside from geography. Probably dominate baseball, I reckon, not that I recognize baseball as a college sport.
Guaranteed. And while Vanderbilt has some things in its favor too, the overall identity fit isn't nearly as tight as with Florida.
Excluding UT-Austin, which other "southern" schools fit best? The example I used to call best was UNC. But ever since the academic scandal, I just don't think the case is airtight. UVa would be another jewel kind of add.
And then we get to schools like Mizzou, where yeah they basically fit but the allure is just not the same.
-
Don't sleep on Va Tech's academics!
-
I thought about them. It wasn't their academic rating or athletics but their identity. "Polytechnic" isn't the Big Ten's identity. Being a senior military college is different, too.
-
Guaranteed. And while Vanderbilt has some things in its favor too, the overall identity fit isn't nearly as tight as with Florida.
Excluding UT-Austin, which other "southern" schools fit best? The example I used to call best was UNC. But ever since the academic scandal, I just don't think the case is airtight. UVa would be another jewel kind of add.
And then we get to schools like Mizzou, where yeah they basically fit but the allure is just not the same.
Not too many to choose from.
Vandy might not be perfect, but having Nashville would be nice. Good place for a CCG every year.
Georgia Tech?
Georgia has come a long way on the academic side. Not sure if they'd ever get AAU status, but that may not matter anymore.
-
teams that seem pretty good at baseball that enter the conference sometimes don't dominate as expected
Well...
Teams that seem pretty good at football that enter the conference sometimes don't dominate as expected.
-
what was that Frost quote?
"People better get us now"
-
Penn State was going to run roughshod too.
-
Nashville would be nice, but does anyone on this board really think Nashville would become a BIG10 town if Vandy became a BIG10 school? It will still be an SEC town and Tenn town.
Same with GT and Atlanta. UVA would be a great target. I still think the BIG should aggressively go after KU and OU
-
I'm good with UVA, so long as Rutgers is gone. That experiment needs to end now that Comcast has dropped BTN out of their coverage area (and might drop BTN in totality).
If taking KU would come with OU, well, OK. I guess.
I'm down for two 8-team conferences within the B1G Athletic Association.
-
I'm good with UVA, so long as Rutgers is gone. That experiment needs to end now that Comcast has dropped BTN out of their coverage area (and might drop BTN in totality).
If taking KU would come with OU, well, OK. I guess.
I'm down for two 8-team conferences within the B1G Athletic Association.
or two 9-team conferences if the Horns want to play
-
or two 9-team conferences if the Horns want to play
It'd be fun for sure, but it's just so geographically challenging, I don't see it ever happening.
-
the geography would be made as good as possible
Texas, OU, KAnsas, Nebraska, Iowa would be five of the nine. Perhaps Mizzou or Texas A&M or Oklahoma St would be another of the nine. might include Minnesoooota or Illinois or ................... Wisconsin!
-
or two 9-team conferences if the Horns want to play
Imagine a 20 team conference. With two 10 team divisions. Then the winners could play their conference championship game on January 1 in Pasadena. That would be too insanely progressive to ever work, I know. But I can dream.
-
Imagine a 20 team conference. With two 10 team divisions. Then the winners could play their conference championship game on January 1 in Pasadena. That would be too insanely progressive to ever work, I know. But I can dream.
You're California-dreaming, my friend.
-
Atlanta has a LOT of B1G fans and CFB here is King. The Dawgs seem to be recruiting well again.
Nice day here today. 81F right now mid afternoon.
-
80F here very nice
feels like 84 with 68% humidity
-
B10 West:
Washington
USC
UCLA
Nebraska
Iowa
Oklahoma
Texas
Kansas
Wisconsin
Purdue
B10 East:
Michigan
Ohio St
Penn St
Florida
Vanderbilt
Michigan St
Virginia
North Carolina
Pitt
Duke
-
It's not an original idea, but I'd want one of the 10-team divisions to be the original Big Ten with each division performing a round robin. So, excluding OOCs, the only interdivisional game would be the BTCG.
I know it won't work. It's just what I want. Obviously, challenge one is to get enough additions. Even then, how do you reconcile the central teams being together while UNL and others out west pair with PSU, Maryland and others out east?
-
OAM: you'll take Kansas over Cal? Not this guy.
I've got a slight modification that even Badge847 will approve of:
West
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona State
UCLA
USC
East
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan State
Michigan
Ohio State
You know, just spit balling here.
-
She's perfect.
-
oh brother
-
OAM: you'll take Kansas over Cal? Not this guy.
I've got a slight modification that even Badge847 will approve of:
West
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona State
UCLA
USC
East
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan State
Michigan
Ohio State
You know, just spit balling here.
My man on the West Coast gets it.
Bravo.
-
And then, a further idea. Don't actually make it one weird conference, instead make it two separate conferences. The mind wobbles!
But I'd be down with OAM's divisions too. Looks like fun!
-
The great ideas continue to spew.
How about this conference:
Paterno Division
Penn State
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Rutgers
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Louisville
Bowden Division
Dook
UNC
NC State
Wake Forest
Virginia
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
-
Imagine a 20 team conference. With two 10 team divisions. Then the winners could play their conference championship game on January 1 in Pasadena. That would be too insanely progressive to ever work, I know. But I can dream.
Seems like people are coming around to my line of thinking
-
Where you run into trouble is aligning combinations of the old Big 8, SWC and SEC.
Some schools would have to be purged to get to 20 total.
-
Where you run into trouble is aligning combinations of the old Big 8, SWC and SEC.
Some schools would have to be purged to get to 20 total.
BIG PAC 20
| EAST | WEST |
| Illinois | Arizona |
| Indiana | Arizona State |
| Iowa | California |
| Michigan | Oregon |
| Michigan State | Oregon State |
| Minnesota | Stanford |
| Northwestern | UCLA |
| Ohio State | USC |
| Purdue | Washington |
| Wisconsin | Washington State |
ACC
| NORTH | SOUTH |
| Boston College | Clemson |
| Maryland | Duke |
| Notre Dame | Florida State |
| Penn State | Georgia Tech |
| Pittsburgh | Miami |
| Rutgers | NC State |
| Syracuse | North Carolina |
| Virginia | South Carolina |
| Virginia Tech | Vanderbilt |
| West Virginia | Wake Forest |
SOUTHEAST AND ALSO WEST CONFERENCE
| SEC | SWC |
| Alabama | Arkansas |
| Auburn | Colorado |
| Florida | Iowa State |
| Georgia | Kansas State |
| Kentucky | Nebraska |
| LSU | Oklahoma |
| Mississippi State | Oklahoma State |
| Missouri | Texas |
| Ole Miss | Texas A&M |
| Tennessee | Texas Tech |
-
You purged.
-
Temple, Kansas, Baylor, plus the SWC schools that weren't picked up immediately by major conferences. Sorry TCU
-
I still think the four 16s make the most sense. And I don't give a damn about tv markets. I'd rather protect rivalries, or at least make new ones that make sense
ACC
| NORTH | SOUTH |
| Boston College | Duke |
| Louisville | Florida State |
| Notre Dame | Maryland |
| Pittsburgh | Miami |
| Rutgers | NC State |
| Syracuse | North Carolina |
| Virginia Tech | Virginia |
| West Virginia | Wake Forest |
BIG TEN
| EAST | WEST |
| Illinois | Iowa |
| Indiana | Iowa State |
| Michigan | Kansas |
| Michigan State | Kansas State |
| Northwestern | Minnesota |
| Ohio State | Missouri |
| Penn State | Nebraska |
| Purdue | Wisconsin |
PAC 16
| WEST | EAST |
| California | Arizona |
| Oregon | Arizona State |
| Oregon State | Baylor |
| Stanford | Colorado |
| UCLA | TCU |
| USC | Texas |
| Washington | Texas A&M |
| Washington State | Texas Tech |
SEC
| EAST | WEST |
| Clemson | Alabama |
| Florida | Arkansas |
| Georgia | Auburn |
| Georgia Tech | LSU |
| Kentucky | Mississippi State |
| South Carolina | Oklahoma |
| Tennessee | Oklahoma State |
| Vanderbilt | Ole Miss |
-
Temple, Kansas, Baylor, plus the SWC schools that weren't picked up immediately by major conferences. Sorry TCU
I don't like that Rutgers is still in just because they are a member of the lucky geography club.
Same could be said for Wake,
BUT
I think any school that was in a major conference in 1980 should be exempt from a purge, along with the predominant Eastern/Southern Indies, which does not include schools like Temple and Rutgers. Sorry.
-
I don't like that Rutgers is still in just because they are a member of the lucky geography club.
Same could be said for Wake,
BUT
I think any school that was in a major conference in 1980 should be exempt from a purge, along with the predominant Eastern/Southern Indies, which does not include schools like Temple and Rutgers. Sorry.
Except for Baylor. Obviously.
-
How could I have brain farted that.
Of course. F Baylor.
-
How did academic rankings get turned into a conference realignment thread? :smiley_confused1:
-
How did academic rankings get turned into a conference realignment thread? :smiley_confused1:
If given enough time every thread will turn into a playoff format or conference realignment thread.
Or chili
-
If given enough time every thread will turn into a playoff format or conference realignment thread.
Or chili
The CFB51 analogy to Godwin's Law?
-
The CFB51 analogy to Godwin's Law?
Unfortunately probably closer to the Infinite Monkey Theorem
-
How did academic rankings get turned into a conference realignment thread? :smiley_confused1:
just about to ask this.
me thinks y'all are getting to much bigxii board in you.
-
I blame Utee...
-
I blame Utee...
that bastage
-
Unfortunately probably closer to the Infinite Monkey Theorem
:)
-
It was you aholes that did it. Look upthread, I only commented. It was OAM and AAA and a couple of badgerfans that were posting their stupid ideas for "new" conferences. I refuse any blame for this, I tell you!
-
F'ing UTee.
-
Hey...
(https://thumb.ibb.co/mRzLyo/tenor.gif) (https://ibb.co/mRzLyo)
-
My least favorite threads are conference realignment threads. A realignment thread with a UT participant is just piling on.
-
Only crazies in Austin, I tell you.
-
Y'all are a bunch of major jerkfaces, you know that?
-
Obvious is obvious.
-
Y'all are a bunch of major jerkfaces, you know that?
I typically respond to the moniker @ss clown most often.
-
Y'all are a bunch of major jerkfaces, you know that?
and this time, I wasn't even on the porch
-
SOUTHEAST AND ALSO WEST CONFERENCE
| SEC | SWC |
| Alabama | Arkansas |
| Auburn | Colorado |
| Florida | Iowa State |
| Georgia | Kansas State |
| Kentucky | Nebraska |
| LSU | Oklahoma |
| Mississippi State | Oklahoma State |
| Missouri | Texas |
| Ole Miss | Texas A&M |
| Tennessee | Texas Tech |
Obviously this would be called the South by Southwest Conference.
-
If given enough time every thread will turn into a playoff format or conference realignment thread.
Or chili
How about this:
I like all chili....but I like chili without beans better.
Now have I made friends with both sides or angered everyone???
-
Do many folks decide where to go to college based on ratings?
Why did you go where you went and where else did you consider?
If you went anywhere of course ...
-
Do many folks decide where to go to college based on ratings?
Why did you go where you went and where else did you consider?
If you went anywhere of course ...
1. Instate was the best dollar for dollar value I received.
2. Which partly went hand in hand with staying near my parents. For one my Mom was sick and two if I needed them to bail me out it was easier having them a 45 minute drive away.
3. I wanted a big school to get lost in, and a lively campus, without cut throat competition where ever I turned. When I was accepted into Michigan, Georgia Tech, Florida, and Texas I was only 18 and had no way of handling the steep out-of-State tuition rates, and on visits, especially to Michigan & GA Tech, I felt in over my head when it came to their sink or swim academics. Glad I took it slow at the University of Arizona.
-
Do many folks decide where to go to college based on ratings?
Why did you go where you went and where else did you consider?
If you went anywhere of course ...
I knew flat out I wanted to be an engineer. I visited Purdue, Bradley, and Illinois. To me, Purdue just seemed like "home".
I originally planned to apply to Purdue, Illinois, Stanford, CalTech, and MIT. Purdue had an online application available [a rarity at the time, since this was late '95 or early '96]. I received my admittance well in advance of the application deadlines of any of the other schools, so I never completed those applications.
I didn't go based on "rankings", but I knew all those schools were good.
-
I think mine went something like this (for undergrad):
1) Is the school at least four hours from home?
2) Can I afford it? Because of a strange set of circumstances (mostly having to do with the cost of living), in-state universities were not necessarily more affordable, but all schools that met this criteria were public universities--though certainly not all public universities fit the criteria.
3) Might it accept me?
4) Does it have programs that interest me (this was not especially limiting--but extracurricular stuff mattered)?
5) Does it have a good academic reputation?
6) Of the schools on the list, which seemed like the best fit for me?
7) Did that school accept me? (Yes! Hooray--and on Wisconsin!!)
-
I wanted to go to a big school, for whatever reason.
I actually didn't get into UF at first. So I went 2 hours south to USF in Tampa. After a year there, my mom got diagnosed, so I moved back home. Got my AA at the community college there, then got into UF.
I grew up wanting to be a Gator. I was about 10 inches too short and 80 lbs too light to play LT in the Swamp, lol. But I wound up with my degree from UF, so that's cool. I wish my mom could've lived to see it happen. She'd have been proud.
Florida just happens to be the best school in the state, but I'm still amazed I didn't get in initially. I was well over the average FR acceptance numbers across the board. Meh, doesn't matter now. I visited Vanderbilt with my dad and I recall it looking different...fancier. But hell, if I didn't get into UF, I wouldn't have been accepted to Vandy, right?
-
I just wanted to go to the best in-state school. Leaving the mitten at that point wasn't interesting to me. And U-M had this shiny allure, in part because nobody from my high school had gotten in across the previous 3 or 4 years, and I wanted to prove I could. The specific ways that Ann Arbor sounded so different from our fishing village - all kinds of people, happy - piqued me too.
My parents would not let me restrict my application pool to one school, however. So I also applied to Oakland University (easy application) and to Wayne State because I thought it was the second best school in the state. I'm not sure which school is 2nd best but I am now surprised I was so confident it was WSU.
When I received president scholarships or whatever to fully fund tuition, R&B and other stuff to WSU and OU, initially, they were not happy because I picked Michigan anyway. But within a year or two, they came around. As soon as I matriculated, I knew I did it right.
-
Do many folks decide where to go to college based on ratings?
Why did you go where you went and where else did you consider?
If you went anywhere of course ...
Sort of. I was determined to go out of state. My parents obviously wanted me to stay in state, I said I was only applying to the top two schools in the state (UM and MSU) and no others.
I looked at Wisconsin and Indiana as the two best schools in the region out of stage, plus Syracuse and Missouri as the two top schools nationally in broadcast journalism, which is what I wanted to do.
So it did play a role. I applied to six. Top two in state, top two out of state within the region, and top two nationally for what I wanted to do, all within the qualifier that I knew I wanted to go to a large state school.
-
Overall rankings were not a factor. I knew I was doing Broadcast Journalism (which is my undergrad degree), so I targeted Mizzou and Nebraska. I also seriously considered playing football, which of course meant, not going to Mizzou or Nebraska. ;) Though I did get a letter encouraging me to walk-on with no promises.
I visited and applied to a few of the schools in the (DIII) Iowa Conference, also Dayton. Amazing the monies that are thrown at you when you want to play football AND have strong grades/ACT/SAT.
Ultimately the finalists were Mizzou/Nebraska and Dayton. My younger brother and I drove out to Columbia from Milwaukee (is that considered crazy? Parents allow a 17 and 15 year old, on their own) . We watched Mizzou slaughter Illinois. Anyways, it never did click for me. I still applied/got accepted. I kept an open mind. Dayton kept misspelling my name, losing transcripts, administratively the place was a mess. I spent a night with some students at their dorm, went out. For the record, we had beer, no hookers. Dayton was not my kind of town.
Nebraska had a quirk where it was (not anymore) easy to establish residency, which I did mere days after I graduated High School, as you weren't a 'resident' for tuition purposes until you were a state resident for six continuous months. I paid one semester out of state tuition. It was like $1,400 'in-state' a semester. That was a huge value consideration.
I didn't consider a single school in my home state of WI. No grudge or anything, as I targeted both in the end for law school years later.
-
Do many folks decide where to go to college based on ratings?
Why did you go where you went and where else did you consider?
If you went anywhere of course ...
I wanted a big state school, and the ones in my state wouldn't take me.
There was some allure of the midwest. Visited UW, thought it was OK. Visited Minnesota, didn't care for it. Went back to UW, fell for it.
-
I chose the best engineering school that offered me a full scholarship. I didn't grow up poor exactly, but there's no way I could have afforded Stanford or MIT even with the substantial financial assistance those schools are capable of providing.
-
I chose Wisconsin over Michigan and Northwestern. Illinois did not accept me but the others did.
NU didn't give me enough money so I couldn't do that.
UW made sense because it allowed me to keep my job in Rosemont, IL and commute from Palatine to Madison on school days.
I didn't know much about rankings but I knew I wanted Big Ten.
-
academic rankings didn't matter a bit, football rankings made me chose UNL over the U of Iowa in 1981.
Didn't want to go to college at all. Parents forced me. Wanted a large University because I came from a small high school. 53 kids in my class.
-
My thoughts while in HS...
#1. What was the school ranked
#2. I wanted to go someplace different (meaning not local)
#3. Campus design/look
#3. What would prepare me best for med school
In hindsight...
#1 really was about opening doors. What you learned was up to you.
#2 was about me wanting to be special or different from people I knew... ego driven really...
#3 still remained true.. Love UofC's campus, even if that was where fun went to die
#4 I realized I enjoyed learning through dialogue or challenging positions rather than reading textbooks or memorizing.
-
How I picked my college:
1) Finances - started looking at Ohio Public Universities. Applied to Ohio State, and Ohio University, with a fall back application to Columbus State.
2) Engineering School - Dad and I toured OSU, and it was explained to me that engineers didn't have to take foreign languages. I hated my Spanish classes so much in High school, I made a major life decision on avoiding something I didn't like compared to doing something I wanted.
3) Escaping from under my parents - Now that I was accepted to OSU and their Computer Science Engineering department, I tried to see if I could a similar cost effective packages from another school that I got from OSU. I applied to Purdue, Illinois, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech. I got accepted to 3, and GT pursued me with academic scholarships. So down to Atlanta we went. Man did I like their campus, and everything felt great about going there. Academics would have been cheaper, but boarding was "astronomical" compared to my father suddenly offering that I could stay in my bedroom rent free. (Senor year in High school step mom mandated I had to pay $400 a month for rent...)
So I was born a Buckeye, loved the Bucks and cemented a lifelong passion because I was lazy (avoid foreign language) and cheap (free boarding.)
-
$400/month in HS?
Wow.
-
I had wanted to be an engineer, so I would be the first in my family to go to Tech.
Got a small scholarship to UGA and changed my mind.
-
and now you have a life full of passion for college football
-
I had wanted to be an engineer, so I would be the first in my family to go to Tech.
Got a small scholarship to UGA and changed my mind.
and now you have a life full of passion for college football
It's funny. I probably wouldn't have ever gained a passion for college football if I had been at Purdue during the Coletto years [or earlier], or during the Hazell years. I managed to hit at just the right time, when Tiller revitalized the program and I got to watch Drew Brees from the stands, that Purdue football was exciting.
I realize that for a school like UGA, college football is ALWAYS a thing. Just as it is for schools like Ole Miss / MSU, who aren't exactly always good. Football Saturdays at those schools are just a way of life.
But I can see how Georgia Tech could have been a lot more like Purdue in that way. A student who didn't grow up on GT football, if they went to Georgia Tech during a football "down" cycle, may never even grow interested at all. Especially being in downtown Atlanta where there are SO many possible other things to grab your attention if the football team is a doormat.
-
I can walk to the Tech campus now. Things have changed. And UGA was mediocre in my 3 years there.
-
Tennis was, and is, huge at UGA. And they used to get more folks to. Gymnastics meet than basketball.
https://georgiadogs.com/sports/2017/6/17/magill.aspx
-
Ga Tech was a basketball school when Bobby Cremins was there.
-
The whole ACC was a collection of basketball schools, sans Clemson, before FSU showed up to own the conference.
-
When I was in school, Clemson was a pastry UGA played early each year as a tune up game.
It's interesting how a program in a small town of not particular note could develop into a power over time. I think it may relate to coaching (and cheating at one point). FSU of course did the same thing basically.
Of course, Minnesota and Ole Miss were powers at one time also. Things change. I've speculated before that it takes 20-25 years for a Blue Blood to be tarnished and fall off the map.
-
A thing that helped UGA academically is the Hope Scholarship funded by the lottery. In effect, if you get in, your tuition is paid for. That attracted some of the better students who otherwise would have gone elsewhere. So, the average SAT scores of the incoming class just kept rising and it became more competitive.
https://www.admissions.uga.edu/prospective-students/first-year/fy-profile
I know they renormed SAT scores a few years ago, but an average of 1400 is solid.
-
Oh, and I can login now from my computer.
-
I am musing about how many rankings we have in our lives, whether we pay much attention or not. It's an interesting human tendency I think. I used to see folks come into the wine shop with the latest "top 100" and want whatever was 1-10. They had never tasted them, didn't know who ranked them or how, didn't know anything other than they were 1-10.
That issue is always the big seller for Spectator.
Obviously, it is more than possible, in fact likely, that the best whatever for YOU will be quite different from that of any ranking done by supposed "experts". The best restaurant in your town may well serve a type of food you don't like at a price you really dislike.
But, you can say you have been there I suppose, whether you enjoyed it or not. We rank beaches, drinks, food, colleges, athletic teams EVEN WHEN THERE IS A BROAD PLAYOFF like in bball and the rankings mean zilch, libraries, cities in which to retire, cars, trucks, pillowcases, mattresses, sofas, ...
I suppose the idea that we each should make independent judgments using OUR criteria is too hard?
Information is good, rankings are bad (unless ELA is doing them).