(05-12-2016 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well actually, the article said the Big 12 is looking at Cincy, BYU, UConn, and Colorado State, not Houston.

And how many current P5 schools have a US News ranking as low as Houston's #187?

I bet not all that many. And while I know Houston fans hate US News because of your terrible ranking, well, tough beans. To the rest of the academic world, US News matters a lot.

The ACC cares about it:

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-leads-pow...2014-09-09

No academic takes USNWR seriously except that a lot of HS seniors do. That's why Clemson cheated in giving info to US News. But among academics it is meaningless.

Depends on what you mean by "academic". If you mean professors, that's true enough.

But, professors don't make decisions about conference membership, administrators do. I've been in academia for 25 years, and I can assure you that academic administrators take them quite seriously. They will crow when their rankings rise, and know they will take heat from Boards of Regents and the like if they fall.

Down at LSU all they care about is football, right? IIRC about 10 years ago, there was a rumor in the Louisiana media that US News was going to rank LSU's Law School ahead of Tulane's that year, which historically never happens. The LSU Board of Regents immediately issued a statement to the press crowing about that and congratulating them. Only turned out it either just happened that one year or didn't happen at all.

Why do you think the ACC is crowing about its USN ranking?

Why do you think Clemson tried to manipulate them? Why do you think the US Naval Academy did the same?

Why have even Ivy league schools been caught fudging their USN numbers?

Because they matter, that's why.

They matter to HS seniors who colleges try to attract, so they can't be ignored and they can be used. But the administrators, like the professors, think they are worthless in measuring academic quality. They would never brag to another academic about USNWR.

So when they are looking at other schools for adding to a conference, they don't view USNWR as relevant to academic quality.

First, they aren't worthless. They obviously have a strong correlation with reality. Ask professors what the best schools in the country are, and they name schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, and well, those are the top 3 in the US News rankings.

Second, you keep missing the point: No matter what the admins and professors say to each other about the flaws in USNWR behind closed doors, publicly, they know they matter from a marketing and PR point of view, and since conferences are all about marketing and PR, they of course matter greatly in those decisions. And it's why admins - even at elite schools - have tried to manipulate their USNWR ranking.

Again, Houston is ranked 187 in US News. How many P5 schools are ranked below that?

I agree with you but that has nothing to do with USNWR......I have never even read USNWR and I know that schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale are academically elite...Heck, people in Africa know that lol....

(05-12-2016 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well actually, the article said the Big 12 is looking at Cincy, BYU, UConn, and Colorado State, not Houston.

And how many current P5 schools have a US News ranking as low as Houston's #187?

I bet not all that many. And while I know Houston fans hate US News because of your terrible ranking, well, tough beans. To the rest of the academic world, US News matters a lot.

The ACC cares about it:

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-leads-pow...2014-09-09

No academic takes USNWR seriously except that a lot of HS seniors do. That's why Clemson cheated in giving info to US News. But among academics it is meaningless.

Depends on what you mean by "academic". If you mean professors, that's true enough.

But, professors don't make decisions about conference membership, administrators do. I've been in academia for 25 years, and I can assure you that academic administrators take them quite seriously. They will crow when their rankings rise, and know they will take heat from Boards of Regents and the like if they fall.

Down at LSU all they care about is football, right? IIRC about 10 years ago, there was a rumor in the Louisiana media that US News was going to rank LSU's Law School ahead of Tulane's that year, which historically never happens. The LSU Board of Regents immediately issued a statement to the press crowing about that and congratulating them. Only turned out it either just happened that one year or didn't happen at all.

Why do you think the ACC is crowing about its USN ranking?

Why do you think Clemson tried to manipulate them? Why do you think the US Naval Academy did the same?

Why have even Ivy league schools been caught fudging their USN numbers?

Because they matter, that's why.

They matter to HS seniors who colleges try to attract, so they can't be ignored and they can be used. But the administrators, like the professors, think they are worthless in measuring academic quality. They would never brag to another academic about USNWR.

So when they are looking at other schools for adding to a conference, they don't view USNWR as relevant to academic quality.

First, they aren't worthless. They obviously have a strong correlation with reality. Ask professors what the best schools in the country are, and they name schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, and well, those are the top 3 in the US News rankings.

Second, you keep missing the point: No matter what the admins and professors say to each other about the flaws in USNWR behind closed doors, publicly, they know they matter from a marketing and PR point of view, and since conferences are all about marketing and PR, they of course matter greatly in those decisions. And it's why admins - even at elite schools - have tried to manipulate their USNWR ranking.

Again, Houston is ranked 187 in US News. How many P5 schools are ranked below that?

No, you are missing the point.

When it comes to expansion, USNWR is irrelevant. ARWU and Carnegie matter. When the AAU kicked out Nebraska, they used their own ranking which showed Nebraska too low at #109. Yet they were good enough for the Big 10. Houston was #104. (FYI, USF was #87).

Anyone other than Cincy/UCONN doesn't make sense. Especially if there needs to be a Big 12 network to even begin expansion.

(05-12-2016 04:28 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  No academic takes USNWR seriously except that a lot of HS seniors do. That's why Clemson cheated in giving info to US News. But among academics it is meaningless.

Depends on what you mean by "academic". If you mean professors, that's true enough.

But, professors don't make decisions about conference membership, administrators do. I've been in academia for 25 years, and I can assure you that academic administrators take them quite seriously. They will crow when their rankings rise, and know they will take heat from Boards of Regents and the like if they fall.

Down at LSU all they care about is football, right? IIRC about 10 years ago, there was a rumor in the Louisiana media that US News was going to rank LSU's Law School ahead of Tulane's that year, which historically never happens. The LSU Board of Regents immediately issued a statement to the press crowing about that and congratulating them. Only turned out it either just happened that one year or didn't happen at all.

Why do you think the ACC is crowing about its USN ranking?

Why do you think Clemson tried to manipulate them? Why do you think the US Naval Academy did the same?

Why have even Ivy league schools been caught fudging their USN numbers?

Because they matter, that's why.

They matter to HS seniors who colleges try to attract, so they can't be ignored and they can be used. But the administrators, like the professors, think they are worthless in measuring academic quality. They would never brag to another academic about USNWR.

So when they are looking at other schools for adding to a conference, they don't view USNWR as relevant to academic quality.

First, they aren't worthless. They obviously have a strong correlation with reality. Ask professors what the best schools in the country are, and they name schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, and well, those are the top 3 in the US News rankings.

Second, you keep missing the point: No matter what the admins and professors say to each other about the flaws in USNWR behind closed doors, publicly, they know they matter from a marketing and PR point of view, and since conferences are all about marketing and PR, they of course matter greatly in those decisions. And it's why admins - even at elite schools - have tried to manipulate their USNWR ranking.

Again, Houston is ranked 187 in US News. How many P5 schools are ranked below that?

I agree with you but that has nothing to do with USNWR......I have never even read USNWR and I know that schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale are academically elite...Heck, people in Africa know that lol....

Correct, but that's not relevant. USNWR isn't supposed to "create" the reality of who the best schools are, they are supposed to compile and reflect it. And their list clearly shows that they do. Perfectly, with 100% accuracy? Of course not, no method can, including a method that polls professors. But obviously, USNWR does largely capture the "perceived reality" of what professors - and the public like you - think about how elite schools stack up.

Furthermore, the public usually only has an idea about who the best are - as you say, we all know that Yale, Harvard, etc. are the elite - but do you have the same idea about whether Kansas State is better than Houston? Probably not. So in that case, the USNWR rankings are relied on by decision makers. In effect, they DO create the perceptions about who is better once we get below the elite level.

So for Houston to be ranked #187, well, that's bad.

(05-12-2016 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  No academic takes USNWR seriously except that a lot of HS seniors do. That's why Clemson cheated in giving info to US News. But among academics it is meaningless.

Depends on what you mean by "academic". If you mean professors, that's true enough.

But, professors don't make decisions about conference membership, administrators do. I've been in academia for 25 years, and I can assure you that academic administrators take them quite seriously. They will crow when their rankings rise, and know they will take heat from Boards of Regents and the like if they fall.

Down at LSU all they care about is football, right? IIRC about 10 years ago, there was a rumor in the Louisiana media that US News was going to rank LSU's Law School ahead of Tulane's that year, which historically never happens. The LSU Board of Regents immediately issued a statement to the press crowing about that and congratulating them. Only turned out it either just happened that one year or didn't happen at all.

Why do you think the ACC is crowing about its USN ranking?

Why do you think Clemson tried to manipulate them? Why do you think the US Naval Academy did the same?

Why have even Ivy league schools been caught fudging their USN numbers?

Because they matter, that's why.

They matter to HS seniors who colleges try to attract, so they can't be ignored and they can be used. But the administrators, like the professors, think they are worthless in measuring academic quality. They would never brag to another academic about USNWR.

So when they are looking at other schools for adding to a conference, they don't view USNWR as relevant to academic quality.

First, they aren't worthless. They obviously have a strong correlation with reality. Ask professors what the best schools in the country are, and they name schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, and well, those are the top 3 in the US News rankings.

Second, you keep missing the point: No matter what the admins and professors say to each other about the flaws in USNWR behind closed doors, publicly, they know they matter from a marketing and PR point of view, and since conferences are all about marketing and PR, they of course matter greatly in those decisions. And it's why admins - even at elite schools - have tried to manipulate their USNWR ranking.

Again, Houston is ranked 187 in US News. How many P5 schools are ranked below that?

No, you are missing the point.

When it comes to expansion, USNWR is irrelevant. ARWU and Carnegie matter. When the AAU kicked out Nebraska, they used their own ranking which showed Nebraska too low at #109. Yet they were good enough for the Big 10. Houston was #104. (FYI, USF was #87).

*Sigh* ... for the third time, how many P5 schools are ranked below Houston's #187 in USNWR? This space reserved .... And then you can twist your tongue into knots explaining why that's merely a coincidence and even if it isn't it doesn't matter because they use "Carnegie", and you will convince probably nobody who isn't a hopeful Houston fan. But Good Luck With That.

Beyond that, Nebraska has two key differences with Houston. At around #100, they were and are last in the B1G in USNWR, but not by all that much, around 15 positions. They weren't an embarrassment. And most critically, Nebraska was a true blue-chip football blue-blood, one of the 15 biggest names in the country. That can massage some academic ranking points.

Houston would be a much greater academic embarrassment for the Big 12, and they don't have anywhere near the brand value to compensate.

The recent record seems to show that a low USNWR counts for a lot, there has to be a strong extenuating circumstance to overcome it. With Nebraska, it was their elite brand value. With the ACC and Louisville, it was strong-arming by Clemson and FSU that overrode the antipathy of the Carolina elitists at a time when FSU/Clemson bolting for another conference could have killed a vulnerable ACC.

Houston also has nothing circumstantial like that going for it.

(05-13-2016 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by "academic". If you mean professors, that's true enough.

But, professors don't make decisions about conference membership, administrators do. I've been in academia for 25 years, and I can assure you that academic administrators take them quite seriously. They will crow when their rankings rise, and know they will take heat from Boards of Regents and the like if they fall.

Down at LSU all they care about is football, right? IIRC about 10 years ago, there was a rumor in the Louisiana media that US News was going to rank LSU's Law School ahead of Tulane's that year, which historically never happens. The LSU Board of Regents immediately issued a statement to the press crowing about that and congratulating them. Only turned out it either just happened that one year or didn't happen at all.

Why do you think the ACC is crowing about its USN ranking?

Why do you think Clemson tried to manipulate them? Why do you think the US Naval Academy did the same?

Why have even Ivy league schools been caught fudging their USN numbers?

Because they matter, that's why.

They matter to HS seniors who colleges try to attract, so they can't be ignored and they can be used. But the administrators, like the professors, think they are worthless in measuring academic quality. They would never brag to another academic about USNWR.

So when they are looking at other schools for adding to a conference, they don't view USNWR as relevant to academic quality.

First, they aren't worthless. They obviously have a strong correlation with reality. Ask professors what the best schools in the country are, and they name schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, and well, those are the top 3 in the US News rankings.

Second, you keep missing the point: No matter what the admins and professors say to each other about the flaws in USNWR behind closed doors, publicly, they know they matter from a marketing and PR point of view, and since conferences are all about marketing and PR, they of course matter greatly in those decisions. And it's why admins - even at elite schools - have tried to manipulate their USNWR ranking.

Again, Houston is ranked 187 in US News. How many P5 schools are ranked below that?

No, you are missing the point.

When it comes to expansion, USNWR is irrelevant. ARWU and Carnegie matter. When the AAU kicked out Nebraska, they used their own ranking which showed Nebraska too low at #109. Yet they were good enough for the Big 10. Houston was #104. (FYI, USF was #87).

*Sigh* ... for the third time, how many P5 schools are ranked below Houston's #187 in USNWR? This space reserved .... And then you can twist your tongue into knots explaining why that's merely a coincidence and even if it isn't it doesn't matter because they use "Carnegie", and you will convince probably nobody who isn't a hopeful Houston fan. But Good Luck With That.

Beyond that, Nebraska has two key differences with Houston. At around #100, they were and are last in the B1G in USNWR, but not by all that much, around 15 positions. They weren't an embarrassment. And most critically, Nebraska was a true blue-chip football blue-blood, one of the 15 biggest names in the country. That can massage some academic ranking points.

Houston would be a much greater academic embarrassment for the Big 12, and they don't have anywhere near the brand value to compensate.

The recent record seems to show that a low USNWR counts for a lot, there has to be a strong extenuating circumstance to overcome it. With Nebraska, it was their elite brand value. With the ACC and Louisville, it was strong-arming by Clemson and FSU that overrode the antipathy of the Carolina elitists at a time when FSU/Clemson bolting for another conference could have killed a vulnerable ACC.

Houston also has nothing circumstantial like that going for it.

And for the 3rd time-None of the decision makers care about USNWR when they are looking at expansion candidates. So your question is irrelevant.

(05-13-2016 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Houston would be a much greater academic embarrassment for the Big 12

We're talking about a league that accepted West Virginia here.

Per the 2015-16 Common Data Sets, Houston's freshmen have higher average SATs/ACTs than

Texas Tech
West Virginia
Oklahoma St
Kansas St
Iowa St
Kansas

So embarrassing.

As to your argument about USNWR, Houston is about to embark on a slow and steady climb in those rankings.

You see, the 2016 USNWR rankings were based on the 2014-15 Common Data set which reports the 6-year graduation rate for the fall 2008 freshman class.

Since we already have the 2015-16 Common Data Set, we know that Houston's 6-year grad rate for the 2009 class improved 3% compared to what was reported in 2014-15 (48% to 51%).

Graduation rates impact nearly 25% of the USNWR ranking. Other metrics the USNWR rankings consider also improved at UH in the 2015-16 Common Data Set.

BTW, the anticipated six-year graduation rate for the 2015-16 Houston freshman class is 65%. This grad rate will be reflected in the 2023 USNWR rankings.

And while the 2016-17 freshman class hasn't enrolled yet, applications are up over 30% this year after the Peach Bowl win. Whereas 18K kids applied to Houston for 2015-16, don't be surprised to see 25K+ apply for 2016-17. Which means the acceptance rate will decline. And the average SAT/ACTs will climb.

By 2024, you will see Houston easily in the Top 125 USNWR.

(05-13-2016 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by "academic". If you mean professors, that's true enough.

But, professors don't make decisions about conference membership, administrators do. I've been in academia for 25 years, and I can assure you that academic administrators take them quite seriously. They will crow when their rankings rise, and know they will take heat from Boards of Regents and the like if they fall.

Down at LSU all they care about is football, right? IIRC about 10 years ago, there was a rumor in the Louisiana media that US News was going to rank LSU's Law School ahead of Tulane's that year, which historically never happens. The LSU Board of Regents immediately issued a statement to the press crowing about that and congratulating them. Only turned out it either just happened that one year or didn't happen at all.

Why do you think the ACC is crowing about its USN ranking?

Why do you think Clemson tried to manipulate them? Why do you think the US Naval Academy did the same?

Why have even Ivy league schools been caught fudging their USN numbers?

Because they matter, that's why.

They matter to HS seniors who colleges try to attract, so they can't be ignored and they can be used. But the administrators, like the professors, think they are worthless in measuring academic quality. They would never brag to another academic about USNWR.

So when they are looking at other schools for adding to a conference, they don't view USNWR as relevant to academic quality.

First, they aren't worthless. They obviously have a strong correlation with reality. Ask professors what the best schools in the country are, and they name schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, and well, those are the top 3 in the US News rankings.

Second, you keep missing the point: No matter what the admins and professors say to each other about the flaws in USNWR behind closed doors, publicly, they know they matter from a marketing and PR point of view, and since conferences are all about marketing and PR, they of course matter greatly in those decisions. And it's why admins - even at elite schools - have tried to manipulate their USNWR ranking.

Again, Houston is ranked 187 in US News. How many P5 schools are ranked below that?

No, you are missing the point.

When it comes to expansion, USNWR is irrelevant. ARWU and Carnegie matter. When the AAU kicked out Nebraska, they used their own ranking which showed Nebraska too low at #109. Yet they were good enough for the Big 10. Houston was #104. (FYI, USF was #87).

*Sigh* ... for the third time, how many P5 schools are ranked below Houston's #187 in USNWR? This space reserved .... And then you can twist your tongue into knots explaining why that's merely a coincidence and even if it isn't it doesn't matter because they use "Carnegie", and you will convince probably nobody who isn't a hopeful Houston fan. But Good Luck With That.

Beyond that, Nebraska has two key differences with Houston. At around #100, they were and are last in the B1G in USNWR, but not by all that much, around 15 positions. They weren't an embarrassment. And most critically, Nebraska was a true blue-chip football blue-blood, one of the 15 biggest names in the country. That can massage some academic ranking points.

Houston would be a much greater academic embarrassment for the Big 12, and they don't have anywhere near the brand value to compensate.

The recent record seems to show that a low USNWR counts for a lot, there has to be a strong extenuating circumstance to overcome it. With Nebraska, it was their elite brand value. With the ACC and Louisville, it was strong-arming by Clemson and FSU that overrode the antipathy of the Carolina elitists at a time when FSU/Clemson bolting for another conference could have killed a vulnerable ACC.

Houston also has nothing circumstantial like that going for it.

If you think Houston looks bad by these metrics, take a look at Memphis. Much worse. And they bring even fewer circumstantial benefits.

I don't often agree with Quo, but he has a point. Flawed as they may be, the US News rankings absolutely matter, and are very relevant. Even to decision makers who may privately despise them.

(05-11-2016 01:42 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's another way to look at academics:

Only three P5 schools have endowments less than $500M: Kansas St, Miss St and Maryland(?!?). Only three more have endowments less than $600M (West Va, Ole Miss, Oregon St).

Here are the G5 schools with endowments more than $500M:

Rice 5.56B
SMU 1.51B
Tulane 1.22B
Cincy 1.2B
BYU 1.05B
Tulsa 1.04B
UMass 768M
Houston 716M
Buffalo 625M
Ohio 550M

If you aren't on that list, you need a helluva academic reputation to be taken seriously as a P5 expansion candidate. Like UConn for example, who barely missed at $437M.

And if you are on that list, you need the athletic infrastructure and fan bases that merits P5 status. Rice, Buffalo, UMass and others don't.

There is a reason the Big 12 is looking at Cincy, BYU, Houston and UConn.

USF is only 60 years old and has a $420 million endowment. USF has a larger student body than every one of those schools you listed. The upside is huge.

An interesting point was made over in the UCSD thread (another "young" school). Basically, schools like UCSD and perhaps USF could just be biding their time for the first round of wealthy alumni to kick the bucket, thus leaving the university generous gifts in the estate. Then I suppose you hope the trend snowballs from there.