(06-08-2013 10:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 03:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  You can see why Rice and UAB had been grouped with the old CUSA schools. Both, especially Rice, look really out of place in future CUSA.

This is what I've long thought, the next school into the AAC if UC/UConn move on is probably going to be Rice due to its academic reputation and a need to balance out the western division.

After Rice I would think Old Dominion would make a lot of sense for the AAC because it brings a growing state into the conference and a natural rival for ECU. It doesn't sound like it makes sense now but 10 years down the road it might.

I would say Rice and UMass.

I don't think it makes sense for the AAC to add another member east of Temple. It makes more sense to build the conference together.

UMass doesn't have the local talent base to build a strong program. This factor is neglected by those who advocate UMass to the AAC. There isn't going to be a lot of votes to add a 2-10 school if ODU or Marshall is going 10-2 every year in CUSA and playing in on campus 40,000 seat football stadiums while UMass seats 17k.

With the Liberty Bowl now partnering with the B12, I could see where they might look at Memphis as an expansion candidate. Memphis and Cincinnati to the B12. Then probably Rice and Army to the AAC, with the AAC dropping down to 10 in basketball.

CUSA and SBC

(06-08-2013 12:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 08:30 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  1) UConn would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and tied for #3 in the SEC.
2) SMU would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and #3 in the SEC.

They would both fit in very well in the ACC, Big 10, or PAC 12.

Not bad for two little ol' G5 schools ......

Louisville sticks out like a sore thumb in the ACC.

You mean the fact that we have a "very high" research ranking and three ACC members are just "high"? Look at it from the other side: We fit right in because most of the other schools are also "very high."

It's always easy to pick on a school that's on the rise, simply because we started from a lower rung on the ladder. It would be interesting to see where schools like Clemson, FSU & NC State were a generation or two ago.

Since some rankings (especially the USNews rankings) are based on peer impressions and not hard facts, it will also be interesting to see if peer impressions change more quickly than the facts in Louisville's case.

the school with the most unrealized potential has to be New Mexico. The flagship school in a high growth state with no P5 teams. decent academic rep. decent basketball. If they could just put together a halfway decent football team for 5 years straight, and get their football atendance up either the PAC 12 or the Big 12 will scoop them up. If the Big 12 takes them, then colorado state would be good geographic partner. At that point the b12 might as well take BYU and let west virginia join the ACC.

(06-08-2013 02:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  the school with the most unrealized potential has to be New Mexico. The flagship school in a high growth state with no P5 teams. decent academic rep. decent basketball. If they could just put together a halfway decent football team for 5 years straight, and get their football atendance up either the PAC 12 or the Big 12 will scoop them up. If the Big 12 takes them, then colorado state would be good geographic partner. At that point the b12 might as well take BYU and let west virginia join the ACC.

Oh. Is that how it works then?

(06-08-2013 01:44 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  CUSA and SBC

CUSA's not too bad. Not as good as it was, but no where near as bad as the SBC. Only 4 are below the RU/H level, with two at the DRU level and two at M/L. FAU & FIU will likely be ranked in USNR in the next couple of years as well.

(06-08-2013 02:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  the school with the most unrealized potential has to be New Mexico. The flagship school in a high growth state with no P5 teams. decent academic rep. decent basketball. If they could just put together a halfway decent football team for 5 years straight, and get their football atendance up either the PAC 12 or the Big 12 will scoop them up. If the Big 12 takes them, then colorado state would be good geographic partner. At that point the b12 might as well take BYU and let west virginia join the ACC.

I've always wondered about New Mexico. They could fit nicely in either the PAC or the B12 and already bring one of the largest basketball fan bases in the country.

It does sound like the B12 is more comfortable looking East with replacement candidates. Cincinnati and Memphis both have much larger budgets than UNM and Colorado State. The recruiting potential in Ohio and Tennessee is a lot higher than New Mexico or Colorado too.

This point has been debated ad nauseum but having seen the behind-the-scenes numbers in manpower and $$'s that it takes to establish and maintain an institution that leads the world in research in multiple, mostly medical related fields I just don't think it's philosophically or statistically possible to create a meaningful ranking system that compares, even relatively, RH/H and RH/VU institutions with others. Should a student pick Tulsa over UAB? Depends. Is their passion for Maths & Sciences? More to the point, is the student interested in studying genetics, biomechanical engineering, and/or transplant medicine? If so then UAB is going to offer a more valuable education. Sociology, earth sciences, or psychology? Then UAB's probably middle of the pack in value for them.

(06-08-2013 02:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  the school with the most unrealized potential has to be New Mexico. The flagship school in a high growth state with no P5 teams. decent academic rep. decent basketball. If they could just put together a halfway decent football team for 5 years straight, and get their football atendance up either the PAC 12 or the Big 12 will scoop them up. If the Big 12 takes them, then colorado state would be good geographic partner. At that point the b12 might as well take BYU and let west virginia join the ACC.

it hasn't been the Big 12 that has been stopping WVU from joining the ACC all these years

The AAC and SEC have little consistency amongst their institutions. Nebraska sticks out like a sore thumb in the Big 10 as does Louisville in the ACC.

(06-08-2013 07:58 PM)blazr Wrote:  This point has been debated ad nauseum but having seen the behind-the-scenes numbers in manpower and $$'s that it takes to establish and maintain an institution that leads the world in research in multiple, mostly medical related fields I just don't think it's philosophically or statistically possible to create a meaningful ranking system that compares, even relatively, RH/H and RH/VU institutions with others. Should a student pick Tulsa over UAB? Depends. Is their passion for Maths & Sciences? More to the point, is the student interested in studying genetics, biomechanical engineering, and/or transplant medicine? If so then UAB is going to offer a more valuable education. Sociology, earth sciences, or psychology? Then UAB's probably middle of the pack in value for them.

This isn't really a ranking system in the purest sense. Its more of a measure of the various schools' basic mission via the Carnegie classification and a measure of their national academic perception via the USNR rankings.

(06-08-2013 02:08 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 12:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 08:30 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  1) UConn would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and tied for #3 in the SEC.
2) SMU would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and #3 in the SEC.

(2) They would both fit in very well in the ACC, Big 10, or PAC 12.

Not bad for two little ol' G5 schools ......

Louisville sticks out like a sore thumb in the ACC.

You mean the fact that we have a "very high" research ranking and three ACC members are just "high"? Look at it from the other side: We fit right in because most of the other schools are also "very high."

It's always easy to pick on a school that's on the rise, simply because we started from a lower rung on the ladder. It would be interesting to see where schools like Clemson, FSU & NC State were a generation or two ago.

(1) Since some rankings (especially the USNews rankings) are based on peer impressions and not hard facts, it will also be interesting to see if peer impressions change more quickly than the facts in Louisville's case.

(1) Wouldn't it make more sense for peer assessment to trail "hard facts"? The opinion of those "ranking" these institutions have been formed over years and decades. It'll take more then a few years to truly change that perception in any meaningful way.

(2) SMU would not fit in well with the ACC. UConn is a solid (not great) fit.

(06-07-2013 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  Surprised UCF is VH in research. USF is designated as a Florida state research university along with UF and FSU. UCF is not (unless that has changed only in the last couple of years).

It has to do with the number of doctorates awarded, not the amount of research UCF is doing. USF does triple the research UCF does.

And that state designation isn't followed any longer. And USF was in the classification below FSU and UF. They implemented a new designation this spring and only FSU and UF are included.

(06-09-2013 11:27 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 02:08 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 12:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 08:30 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  1) UConn would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and tied for #3 in the SEC.
2) SMU would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and #3 in the SEC.

(2) They would both fit in very well in the ACC, Big 10, or PAC 12.

Not bad for two little ol' G5 schools ......

Louisville sticks out like a sore thumb in the ACC.

You mean the fact that we have a "very high" research ranking and three ACC members are just "high"? Look at it from the other side: We fit right in because most of the other schools are also "very high."

It's always easy to pick on a school that's on the rise, simply because we started from a lower rung on the ladder. It would be interesting to see where schools like Clemson, FSU & NC State were a generation or two ago.

(1) Since some rankings (especially the USNews rankings) are based on peer impressions and not hard facts, it will also be interesting to see if peer impressions change more quickly than the facts in Louisville's case.

(1) Wouldn't it make more sense for peer assessment to trail "hard facts"? The opinion of those "ranking" these institutions have been formed over years and decades. It'll take more then a few years to truly change that perception in any meaningful way.

(2) SMU would not fit in well with the ACC. UConn is a solid (not great) fit.

I just meant that SMU would fit academically, based solely on their ranking (#58) which is pretty much in line with the ACC.

Actually, SMU would fit best in a conference of Southern private schools:

Duke
Wake
Miami
Tulane
Vanderbilt
Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Baylor
Rice

Of course, that will never happen.

I took a cut at this using just the Go5 conferences. The schools are sorted based off of the USNR rankings with National Universities ranked separately from Regional Universities.

AAC CUSA MAC MWC SBC


National Universities (1-199)
CUSA- Rice: 17; RU/VH
AAC- Tulane: 51; RU/VH
AAC- SMU: 58; RU/H
AAC- UConn: 63; RU/VH
AAC- Tulsa: 83; DRU
MAC- Miami: 89; RU/H
MAC- UMass: 97; RU/VH

MAC- Buffalo: 106; RU/VH
AAC- Temple: 125; RU/H
MAC- Ohio: 131; RU/H
MWC- Colorado St: 134; RU/VH
AAC- Cincy: 139; RU/VH
CUSA- UAB: 151; RU/VH
MWC- Hawaii: 156; RU/VH
MWC- Wyoming: 156; RU/H
SBC- Idaho: 165; RU/H
MWC- SDSU: 165; RU/H
AAC- USF: 170; RU/VH
AAC- UCF: 174; RU/VH
MWC- USU: 174; RU/H
MWC- New Mexico: 179; RU/VH
MAC- Ball St: 184; RU/H
MAC- BGSU: 184; RU/H
AAC- Houston: 184; RU/VH
MWC- Nevada: 189; RU/H
SBC- NMSU: 189; RU/H
MAC- NIU: 189; RU/H
MAC- WMU: 189; RU/H
AAC- ECU: 199; DRU
CUSA- La Tech: 199; RU/H
CUSA- UNCC: 199; DRU

National Universities, rankings not published (200+)
AAC- Memphis: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- FAU: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- FIU: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- MTSU: RNP; DRU
CUSA- ODU: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- UNT: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- USM: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- UTEP: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- UTSA: RNP; RU/H
MAC- Akron: RNP; RU/H
MAC- CMU: RNP; DRU
MAC- Kent St: RNP; RU/H
MAC- Toledo: RNP; RU/H
MWC- UNLV: RNP; RU/H
SBC- Ga So: RNP; DRU
SBC- Ga St: RNP; RU/VH
SBC- UALR: RNP; DRU
SBC- ULL: RNP; RU/H
SBC- USA: RNP; RU/H
SBC- UTA: RNP; RU/H

Regional Universities
SBC- App St: 10-R(S); M/L
MWC- Air Force: 31-LA; Bac/A&S
CUSA- WKU: 33-R(S); M/L
MWC- Fresno St: 38-R(W); M/L
MWC- SJSU: 38-R(W); M/L
CUSA- Marshall: 41-R(S); M/L
SBC- Tx St: 46-R(W); M/L
SBC- Ark St: 56-R(S); M/L
MWC- Boise St: 62-R(W); M/L
SBC- Troy: 67-R(S); M/L
MAC- EMU: 80-R(MW); M/L
SBC- ULM: 91-R(S); M/L

National Liberal Arts Colleges
AAC- Navy: 14-LA; Bac/A&S

(06-09-2013 12:27 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I took a cut at this using just the Go5 conferences. The schools are sorted based off of the USNR rankings with National Universities ranked separately from Regional Universities.

AAC CUSA MAC MWC SBC


National Universities (1-199)
CUSA- Rice: 17; RU/VH
AAC- Tulane: 51; RU/VH
AAC- UConn: 63; RU/VH
MAC- UMass: 97; RU/VH
MAC- Buffalo: 106; RU/VH
MWC- Colorado St: 134; RU/VH
AAC- Cincy: 139; RU/VH
CUSA- UAB: 151; RU/VH
MWC- Hawaii: 156; RU/VH
AAC- USF: 170; RU/VH
AAC- UCF: 174; RU/VH
MWC- New Mexico: 179; RU/VH
AAC- Houston: 184; RU/VH
SBC- Ga St: RNP; RU/VH

The Group of 5 All-Academic Conference would be pretty well balanced East/west and cover most of the major markets sans California. I vote for the poor man's CIC to be a reality
Divisions
WEST
Hawaii
New Mexico
Colorado State
Houston
Rice
Tulane
UAB
(Air Force FB only)

EAST
Buffalo
Cincinnati
UCONN
UMASS
USF
UCF
Georgia State
(Navy FB only)

Alternate 12 team model drops Hawaii (travel) and Georgia State (big surprise about the VH level research). Unlike any of the current Go5 conferences, this conference would have some actual bragging rights over the BigXii, SEC, and ACC.

I don't know enough about the Carnegie designations to know if there is a significant difference between H and VH but I would think it would be better to take a high ranked H like #58 SMU or #89 Miami over a Ga State that doesn't break the top 200 but has a VH classification. Several of the P5 conferences have H schools but none have one that is RNP. Otherwise good list.

(06-09-2013 04:26 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I don't know enough about the Carnegie designations to know if there is a significant difference between H and VH but I would think it would be better to take a high ranked H like #58 SMU or #89 Miami over a Ga State that doesn't break the top 200 but has a VH classification. Several of the P5 conferences have H schools but none have one that is RNP. Otherwise good list.

USNWR are not a very good measure of academic depth, scope, and infrastructure - it's sort of an academic beauty pageant based on reputation and selectivity over productivity- which in academics is grant funding. Other rankings systems with a stronger weight on research funding are probably a better reference for how Universities perceive themselves academically (see http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf). The Carnegie designation is a decent way of grouping similar institutions- at least similar in academic scope and mission. There's a reason why the B1G and PAC feel like the more homogeneous conferences of like schools. They both are restricted to large institutions (public or private) with VH level research activity. One issue with the cluster of VH schools is that Rice and Tulane are both lower enrollment schools, so they don't quite fit the mold.

But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

(06-09-2013 12:27 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I took a cut at this using just the Go5 conferences. The schools are sorted based off of the USNR rankings with National Universities ranked separately from Regional Universities.

AAC CUSA MAC MWC SBC


National Universities (1-199)
CUSA- Rice: 17; RU/VH
AAC- Tulane: 51; RU/VH
AAC- SMU: 58; RU/H
AAC- UConn: 63; RU/VH
AAC- Tulsa: 83; DRU
MAC- Miami: 89; RU/H
MAC- UMass: 97; RU/VH

MAC- Buffalo: 106; RU/VH
AAC- Temple: 125; RU/H
MAC- Ohio: 131; RU/H
MWC- Colorado St: 134; RU/VH
AAC- Cincy: 139; RU/VH
CUSA- UAB: 151; RU/VH
MWC- Hawaii: 156; RU/VH
MWC- Wyoming: 156; RU/H
SBC- Idaho: 165; RU/H
MWC- SDSU: 165; RU/H
AAC- USF: 170; RU/VH
AAC- UCF: 174; RU/VH
MWC- USU: 174; RU/H
MWC- New Mexico: 179; RU/VH
MAC- Ball St: 184; RU/H
MAC- BGSU: 184; RU/H
AAC- Houston: 184; RU/VH
MWC- Nevada: 189; RU/H
SBC- NMSU: 189; RU/H
MAC- NIU: 189; RU/H
MAC- WMU: 189; RU/H
AAC- ECU: 199; DRU
CUSA- La Tech: 199; RU/H
CUSA- UNCC: 199; DRU

National Universities, rankings not published (200+)
AAC- Memphis: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- FAU: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- FIU: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- MTSU: RNP; DRU
CUSA- ODU: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- UNT: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- USM: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- UTEP: RNP; RU/H
CUSA- UTSA: RNP; RU/H
MAC- Akron: RNP; RU/H
MAC- CMU: RNP; DRU
MAC- Kent St: RNP; RU/H
MAC- Toledo: RNP; RU/H
MWC- UNLV: RNP; RU/H
SBC- Ga So: RNP; DRU
SBC- Ga St: RNP; RU/VH
SBC- UALR: RNP; DRU
SBC- ULL: RNP; RU/H
SBC- USA: RNP; RU/H
SBC- UTA: RNP; RU/H

Regional Universities
SBC- App St: 10-R(S); M/L
MWC- Air Force: 31-LA; Bac/A&S
CUSA- WKU: 33-R(S); M/L
MWC- Fresno St: 38-R(W); M/L
MWC- SJSU: 38-R(W); M/L
CUSA- Marshall: 41-R(S); M/L
SBC- Tx St: 46-R(W); M/L
SBC- Ark St: 56-R(S); M/L
MWC- Boise St: 62-R(W); M/L
SBC- Troy: 67-R(S); M/L
MAC- EMU: 80-R(MW); M/L
SBC- ULM: 91-R(S); M/L

National Liberal Arts Colleges
AAC- Navy: 14-LA; Bac/A&S

The American looks pretty good.