OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:Big East has 4 tier 1 schools in football. 50% pretty good, but they passed up on tier 1 schools like Miami-Oh, Ohio, and Buffalo and added Depaul a tier 3 private school with no D-A football team. Depaul has failed to reach NCAA tournament in two years in the Big East.

DePaul is in Chicago, which is a bigger media market than Buffalo, Miami, & Athens combined. DePaul is also a good match for the Catholic Universities on the BB side of the conference. And the number 1 reason is they make it an 8-8 split between FB schools and BB schools.

bitcruncher Wrote:The university is only part of the education. I know a complete moron who went to Yale.

He got JACKED UP!

WacoBearcat Wrote:The University of Cincinnati is also ranked very highly in this global ranking. Frankly, I cannot understand how UC is only a Tier 3 school in the US News and World Report rankings. But all rankings are subjective, and you just have to find those rankings which show off your university in a favorable light.

That ranking is based, in part, of how many alumni won Nobel Prizes and something called the "Fields Medal", which I had to look up. It is an award given to mathematicians, FWIW.

If you look at the methodology for US News, you can see where UC falls short: less-competitive admissions selectivity, poor alumni giving, and limited faculty resources. It may have a great science program and all that, but US News' numbers are based on criteria that sells to prospective 18 year old students and their families, not PhD students.

That's not to say state-supported schools can't compete with US News. Michigan, UCLA, Cal, and North Carolina all post high marks, and even Rutgers is a quasi-Top 50 school now.

As a geek on these rankings and BCS conference athletics, I'm more into long term trends involving high level athletics institutions and conferences then the rankings per se.

One thing I found very interesting is the rise in the upper echelon Pac 10 teams, the two Texas schools, and Big East (2002 version) schools from 2002 to now and the decline in Big Ten schools.

Stanford +3
California +5
UCLA + 8
Washington +5

Texas +10
Texas A&M + 7

Boston College +5
Syracuse +5
Miami +10
Pittsburgh +13
Rutgers +2
Connecticut +2
Virginia Tech +5

Northwestern -2
Michigan - no change
Wisconsin -4
Illinois +3
Penn State - no change
Ohio State +3
Purdue -6
Iowa -7
Minnesota -8
Michigan State +2
Indiana -7

Back in the 90s, fans made fun of the academics of Big East football schools then as well. So things obviously can change for the better.

As for the ACC, except for a sensational jump by Clemson (+12) in that time frame, for the most part they are 1 or 2 spots either up or down.

If the Big Ten keeps trending downward, the ACC just might surpass them to be become the best academic super-conference.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:As a geek on these rankings and BCS conference athletics, I'm more into long term trends involving high level athletics institutions and conferences then the rankings per se.

One thing I found very interesting is the rise in the upper echelon Pac 10 teams, the two Texas schools, and Big East (2002 version) schools from 2002 to now and the decline in Big Ten schools.

Stanford +3
California +5
UCLA + 8
Washington +5

Texas +10
Texas A&M + 7

Boston College +5
Syracuse +5
Miami +10
Pittsburgh +13
Rutgers +2
Connecticut +2
Virginia Tech +5

Northwestern -2
Michigan - no change
Wisconsin -4
Illinois +3
Penn State - no change
Ohio State +3
Purdue -6
Iowa -7
Minnesota -8
Michigan State +2
Indiana -7

Back in the 90s, fans made fun of the academics of Big East football schools then as well. So things obviously can change for the better.

As for the ACC, except for a sensational jump by Clemson (+12) in that time frame, for the most part they are 1 or 2 spots either up or down.

If the Big Ten keeps trending downward, the ACC just might surpass them to be become the best academic super-conference.

Cheers,
Neil

Any idea about how the rest of the Big 12 has done over time? Baylor jumped 6 placed this year to 75. But I think that's where it was a few years ago.

WacoBearcat Wrote:Any idea about how the rest of the Big 12 has done over time? Baylor jumped 6 placed this year to 75. But I think that's where it was a few years ago.

Back in 2002, Baylor was #78, so over the long haul, it's only been a plus 3. Missouri has dropped 15 spots.

As for the others, I only saved the Top 80 (and later just pared that down to BCS schools in the Top 80) and since neither the Big 12 nor the SEC are seen as academic conferences I saw no need to go beyond the Top 80 since all of the Big Ten and most of the ACC were in that range at that time.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

WacoBearcat Wrote:Any idea about how the rest of the Big 12 has done over time? Baylor jumped 6 placed this year to 75. But I think that's where it was a few years ago.

Back in 2002, Baylor was #78, so over the long haul, it's only been a plus 3. Missouri has dropped 15 spots.

As for the others, I only saved the Top 80 (and later just pared that down to BCS schools in the Top 80) and since neither the Big 12 nor the SEC are seen as academic conferences I saw no need to go beyond the Top 80 since all of the Big Ten and most of the ACC were in that range at that time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks. It's comical the way that schools are chasing these rankings. I heard a story today that Baylor is thinking about putting its athletics department under student activities. Why you ask? Because U.S. News and World Reports deducts rankings points when athletics departments lose money.(And Baylor is running a deficit in athletics) But if the athletic department is located in student activities then it doesn't matter because U.S. News and World Reports does not look at specific departments so who cares if student activities loses money. Also, its important to stop enrollments in classes at 49. Once class enrollments hit 50, then there is a deduction.

WacoBearcat Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

WacoBearcat Wrote:Any idea about how the rest of the Big 12 has done over time? Baylor jumped 6 placed this year to 75. But I think that's where it was a few years ago.

Back in 2002, Baylor was #78, so over the long haul, it's only been a plus 3. Missouri has dropped 15 spots.

As for the others, I only saved the Top 80 (and later just pared that down to BCS schools in the Top 80) and since neither the Big 12 nor the SEC are seen as academic conferences I saw no need to go beyond the Top 80 since all of the Big Ten and most of the ACC were in that range at that time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks. It's comical the way that schools are chasing these rankings. I heard a story today that Baylor is thinking about putting its athletics department under student activities. Why you ask? Because U.S. News and World Reports deducts rankings points when athletics departments lose money.(And Baylor is running a deficit in athletics) But if the athletic department is located in student activities then it doesn't matter because U.S. News and World Reports does not look at specific departments so who cares if student activities loses money. Also, its important to stop enrollments in classes at 49. Once class enrollments hit 50, then there is a deduction.

Hmmm...maybe that's why Vandy moved up one spot.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

WacoBearcat Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

WacoBearcat Wrote:Any idea about how the rest of the Big 12 has done over time? Baylor jumped 6 placed this year to 75. But I think that's where it was a few years ago.

Back in 2002, Baylor was #78, so over the long haul, it's only been a plus 3. Missouri has dropped 15 spots.

As for the others, I only saved the Top 80 (and later just pared that down to BCS schools in the Top 80) and since neither the Big 12 nor the SEC are seen as academic conferences I saw no need to go beyond the Top 80 since all of the Big Ten and most of the ACC were in that range at that time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks. It's comical the way that schools are chasing these rankings. I heard a story today that Baylor is thinking about putting its athletics department under student activities. Why you ask? Because U.S. News and World Reports deducts rankings points when athletics departments lose money.(And Baylor is running a deficit in athletics) But if the athletic department is located in student activities then it doesn't matter because U.S. News and World Reports does not look at specific departments so who cares if student activities loses money. Also, its important to stop enrollments in classes at 49. Once class enrollments hit 50, then there is a deduction.

Hmmm...maybe that's why Vandy moved up one spot.

Cheers,
Neil

It may be Neil. You may see more schools folding their athletic department operations into other departments or offices like student activities. By doing so, schools can hide athletic departments deficits more effectively, while claiming the move was for academic/compliance reasons. So schools losing money in athletics, actually get rewarded by U.S. News and World Report for making this move. There are a lot of idiotic things associated with these rankings.

DFW HOYA Wrote:

WacoBearcat Wrote:The University of Cincinnati is also ranked very highly in this global ranking. Frankly, I cannot understand how UC is only a Tier 3 school in the US News and World Report rankings. But all rankings are subjective, and you just have to find those rankings which show off your university in a favorable light.

That ranking is based, in part, of how many alumni won Nobel Prizes and something called the "Fields Medal", which I had to look up. It is an award given to mathematicians, FWIW.

If you look at the methodology for US News, you can see where UC falls short: less-competitive admissions selectivity, poor alumni giving, and limited faculty resources. It may have a great science program and all that, but US News' numbers are based on criteria that sells to prospective 18 year old students and their families, not PhD students.

That's not to say state-supported schools can't compete with US News. Michigan, UCLA, Cal, and North Carolina all post high marks, and even Rutgers is a quasi-Top 50 school now.

We used to be a bonafide Top 50 school and it NJ supported us like UConn is supported by Connecticut (which by the way is how it should be done) we'd definitely be Top 50 by their standards. The nice thing about this football stuff is that alumni giving is up, I just graduated I already made a committment to academic giving and athletic giving for the year. Small amounts mind you but I felt the need to give back and so did my desire for better season tickets next year.

bitcruncher Wrote:I can see this is a tierful subject.

Wow, 2/3s of a pun, PU!

Topcard91 Wrote:Some folks who have been in research labs may have heard the same thing. Most researchers want to be published in Journals in their specific field (Bacteriology, Virology etc etc)

I always heard that the Journals Science and Nature were the cupcakes of scientific journals. Kind of like Popular Science.

It doesn't get much better than Science and Nature.

brista21 Wrote:

DFW HOYA Wrote:

WacoBearcat Wrote:The University of Cincinnati is also ranked very highly in this global ranking. Frankly, I cannot understand how UC is only a Tier 3 school in the US News and World Report rankings. But all rankings are subjective, and you just have to find those rankings which show off your university in a favorable light.

That ranking is based, in part, of how many alumni won Nobel Prizes and something called the "Fields Medal", which I had to look up. It is an award given to mathematicians, FWIW.

If you look at the methodology for US News, you can see where UC falls short: less-competitive admissions selectivity, poor alumni giving, and limited faculty resources. It may have a great science program and all that, but US News' numbers are based on criteria that sells to prospective 18 year old students and their families, not PhD students.

That's not to say state-supported schools can't compete with US News. Michigan, UCLA, Cal, and North Carolina all post high marks, and even Rutgers is a quasi-Top 50 school now.

We used to be a bonafide Top 50 school and it NJ supported us like UConn is supported by Connecticut (which by the way is how it should be done) we'd definitely be Top 50 by their standards. The nice thing about this football stuff is that alumni giving is up, I just graduated I already made a committment to academic giving and athletic giving for the year. Small amounts mind you but I felt the need to give back and so did my desire for better season tickets next year.

From my personal experience I can tell you private schools (at least my Alma Mater) does a way better job of connecting with alums than public schools do. I graduated years ago and Santa Clara still sends me mail every other week, whether it is the magazine, an update from the Dean, our latest rankings or new courses for managers. I get mail all the time from them as well as invitations to alum gatherings. They even have their own alum Friendster style Web community. From UCONN, I get occassional mail and a phone call once in a while asking for money. I think it is unfair to compare alum giving at private schools vs. public ones since kids from private schools tend to come from richer parents. If you are a state school, the most important thing is have the state supporting you. If a state is behind a school, anything is possible.

One rat in the USN&WR criteria is "peer school evaluations", which explains how when certain schools join conferences laden with upper-tier schools they sometimes suddenly rise in the rankings. Apparently, their new conference mates realize the incentive to improve their evaluations. Sounds simlar to "good-ole-boy" networks.

Gray Avenger Wrote:One rat in the USN&WR criteria is "peer school evaluations", which explains how when certain schools join conferences laden with upper-tier schools they sometimes suddenly rise in the rankings.

Except that the truly "upper-tier" schools are generally in conferences with very stable (read=no expansion) memberships: Ivy, Big 10, Pac 10, etc.

What does it matter?

A university's mission depends on the people it serves. How good your education is depends on the teacher's ability to generate an interest in the subject being taught. Some very good schools don't know how to teach certain types of people. But that's not their mission.

So what does it all mean? In the whole scheme of life, that is.

It's a way for some schools to lord it about and say... I'm better than you!

My thought is... So?

bitcruncher Wrote:What does it matter?

A university's mission depends on the people it serves. How good your education is depends on the teacher's ability to generate an interest in the subject being taught. Some very good schools don't know how to teach certain types of people. But that's not their mission.

So what does it all mean? In the whole scheme of life, that is.

It's a way for some schools to lord it about and say... I'm better than you!

My thought is... So?

I'm sure some feel the exact same way about the Sports Polls and Rankings!

It's just a way for some schools to lord it about and say...I'm better than you!

So?

Of course, since academics is the mission of the institution and sports is merely the sideshow, I know which is more important to college presidents.

Cheers,
Neil

DFW HOYA Wrote:

Gray Avenger Wrote:One rat in the USN&WR criteria is "peer school evaluations", which explains how when certain schools join conferences laden with upper-tier schools they sometimes suddenly rise in the rankings.

Except that the truly "upper-tier" schools are generally in conferences with very stable (read=no expansion) memberships: Ivy, Big 10, Pac 10, etc.

I believe that's a little misleading since it's not as though the Ivy League remains together because of its sports affiliation. In other words if the Big Ten come calling to Princeton, they are still saying 'No, thank you."

The more accurate statement to me is that the "upper-tier" schools are more likely NOT to even be in a super sports conference.

Eighteen of the Top 30 do not play sports in a BCS conference. If there is a split with ND and Georgetown staying with the bb schools, that goes up to 20 out of the Top 30, or two thirds of them not in a BCS conference.

The statement remains true even when looking at the Top 50, which then becomes 28 of the Top 50 (or 30 of the Top 50 in the split scenario).

Cheers,
Neil

Gray Avenger Wrote:One rat in the USN&WR criteria is "peer school evaluations", which explains how when certain schools join conferences laden with upper-tier schools they sometimes suddenly rise in the rankings. Apparently, their new conference mates realize the incentive to improve their evaluations. Sounds simlar to "good-ole-boy" networks.

Well using that criteria, isn't there then an incentive for the schools in OTHER conferences (which outnumber the members of a single conference considerably) to lower the "peer school evaluation" in order to have in conference schools have a chance to advance?

While I think there certainly is a "good-ole-boys" network in academia as well as in sports, it begins with the academia network which then has slippage over into the college sports scene assuming that institution even plays high level Division 1 sports.

Cheers,
Neil

One thing the ratings do prove is that schools that use open or near-open admissions do not gain favor in this ranking. The Big East has a few good schools at the top but there are seven "Tier III" schools to which their numbers won't rise up the list regardless of the presence of Top 25 and Top 50 schools in their league.