(08-13-2019 09:12 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 06:42 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 05:46 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 02:50 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  NC State is the land grant, but not the Flagship. Definitions vary, but UNC is one of the top research universities in the country. That, along with its "public ivy" status, and age, law/medical schools, gives it the pedigree sought after by people who give out such labels.

Kurtz,

Unlike the split between NC State and UNC-Ch, UVa has it's own Engineering School and has had since the 1820's, as well as it's own Architecture School. Other than the Vet School, Military Science, and Food Science, there is not much at VT that is not in Charlottesville.

NC State has the following that UNC-Ch does not:

Architecture, Design, Aerospace Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Animal Sciences, Food Sciences, Crop Sciences, Veterinary School, Horticulture, Forestry, Pulp and Paper, and Textiles. Lots of research dollars in those things.

UNC-Ch has the following that NC State does not:

Med, Dental, Nursing, and Public Health schools, Law school, Pharmacy school, Auditory program, Music, Journalism School, Library Science, and Radiology. We also share governance with UNC-Ch which you do not with UVa so your formative experience is not really analogous. Having taught at VT for a while is the reason I say this.

It's not an opinion; UNC is the flagship university in North Carolina. That's all I was pointing out.

Most flagships are land-grant, produce the highest R&D expenditures, have medical schools, and produce the most earned doctoral degrees. Vs. UVA, VT is land-grant, has significantly higher R&D expenditures, has a (fairly recent) medical school, and produces more than 1.5x doctoral degrees. Yet UVA is the flagship in VA because of its age, its Jefferson connection, and higher selectivity (at VT you apply to a specific college, whereas UVA has general admission. Many VT colleges are harder to get into that UVA general admission, but UVA is still in more selective overall).

It doesn't matter that NCSU has engineering and architecture programs while UNC generally does not. UNC is still the flagship because of its age, its selectivity, its top-10ish R&D expenditures.

Overall, UNC and UVA tick the marks for jobs where pedigree matters (doctors, lawyers, politicians, C-level execs). Their public ivy status grants them that, and that's really just historical. If VT and NCSU were founded first, they'd probably have the flagship status.

Most flagships are not necessarily land grants. VT, NCSU, Auburn, Clemson, Mississippi St., Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Purdue, Michigan St. and Iowa St. are all the land grants in their states. Most of the west has separate land-grants and flagships-WSU, OSU, Montana St., Colorado St., Utah St., NMSU, So.Dakota St., No.Dakota St..

26 Universities are both the land-grant and flagship universities in their states. Over half, so I guess "most" is still accurate. The list:


University of Alaska Fairbanks
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California Berkely
University of Connecticut
University of Deleware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
University of Kentucky
Louisiana State University
University of Maine
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
Rutgers University
New Mexico State University
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Rhode Island
University of Tennessee
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wyoming

Not New Mexico St. I'm not familiar with the rankings of Alaska-Fairbanks vs. Alaska-Anchorage. And Pennsylvania is really hard to classify since Penn St., Pitt and Temple are not fully "state" universities. Also California really has all of U of C the land grant. UC-Davis is the strongest ag school among the University of California campuses. MIT is also listed as a land grant for Massachusetts, so it may be shared there.

But you could add West Virginia and Idaho to that list (not that Boise fans wouldn't complain!).

(08-13-2019 08:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True but the state of Texas recognizes Texas A&M as both it’s land grant university and one of its two public flagship universities

Only an A&M fan wouldn't understand the general point of the conversation.

(08-14-2019 08:18 AM)Midwestan Wrote:  Thanks for the responses orangefan, slhNavy91, and esayem. I'm sort of an old coot and don't remember as much as I used to. I do remember that the Atlantic 10 was known as the Eastern 8 when it stared in the mid-70's! A top-tier Eastern Football League as envisioned by JoePa would have been a stretch, given that Army and Navy have small enrollments that are basically capped compared to their larger D-1 neighbors. I couldn't remember which happened first: Penn State joining the Big 10 OR West Virginia and Rutgers leaving the A-10 for the Big East.

Even though Rutgers and Temple had some minor successes in the mid- and late 70's, they were still seen as 'basketball first' schools, and it would have been hard for them and the service academies to be consistently competitive in football on a weekly basis, compared to the other 5 teams. Even if some people harbored thoughts of a new football conference involving Virginia Tech, Virginia, and Maryland, there was no way UVa or UMd would have done so by leaving the established ACC at that time.

Midwestan - The Big Ten invited Penn State to join in date 1989. The move became effective for the 1992-93 basketball season and 1993 football season. The move was the first of several realignment moves that came in two waves:

First Wave:
12/15/89 Penn State joins the Big Ten
2/6/90 Notre Dame signs a five year television deal with NBC breaking with the CFA
8/1/90 Arkansas joins the SEC
9/13/90 Florida State joins the ACC
9/25/90 South Carolina joins the SEC
10/10/90 Miami joins the Big East
12/13/90 The Big East Football Conference is formed
(Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech join for football only)

Second Wave:
2/11/94 The SEC signs a television contract with CBS breaking with the CFA
2/15/94 The Big East signs a television contract with CBS breaking with the CFA
2/25/94 The Big 12 Conference is formed
3/9/94 Rutgers and West Virginia join the Big East as full members
4/22/94 TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, San Jose St. and UNLV join the WAC
7/11/94 Notre Dame joins the Big East in all sports except football
1/95 Conference USA is formed (Houston, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Tulane and So.Miss. for all sports, Marquette, DePaul, Saint Louis, UAB, USF, Charlotte for all sports but football).

With respect to the Eastern Conference back in 1981, I believe UMd was a target of JoePa. UMd had OOC rivalries with Penn State, WVU and Syracuse and had a strong relationship with Penn State in particular as a neighboring flagship. With respect to Temple and Rutgers, they were clearly late comers to big time football, but both made the commitment to move to I-A at the time of the split, are located in large markets and played all or many of their games in NFL stadiums. In addition, with the I-A/I-AA split, they had already successfully scheduled on a regular basis all of the traditional big time schools in the East, so would have been naturals for the conference. Finally, both had very good relationships with JoePa and Penn State. My belief is that JoePa eyed an eight team conference of Penn State, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, Maryland, BC, Rutgers and Temple.

(08-14-2019 09:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 09:12 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 06:42 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 05:46 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Kurtz,

Unlike the split between NC State and UNC-Ch, UVa has it's own Engineering School and has had since the 1820's, as well as it's own Architecture School. Other than the Vet School, Military Science, and Food Science, there is not much at VT that is not in Charlottesville.

NC State has the following that UNC-Ch does not:

Architecture, Design, Aerospace Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Animal Sciences, Food Sciences, Crop Sciences, Veterinary School, Horticulture, Forestry, Pulp and Paper, and Textiles. Lots of research dollars in those things.

UNC-Ch has the following that NC State does not:

Med, Dental, Nursing, and Public Health schools, Law school, Pharmacy school, Auditory program, Music, Journalism School, Library Science, and Radiology. We also share governance with UNC-Ch which you do not with UVa so your formative experience is not really analogous. Having taught at VT for a while is the reason I say this.

It's not an opinion; UNC is the flagship university in North Carolina. That's all I was pointing out.

Most flagships are land-grant, produce the highest R&D expenditures, have medical schools, and produce the most earned doctoral degrees. Vs. UVA, VT is land-grant, has significantly higher R&D expenditures, has a (fairly recent) medical school, and produces more than 1.5x doctoral degrees. Yet UVA is the flagship in VA because of its age, its Jefferson connection, and higher selectivity (at VT you apply to a specific college, whereas UVA has general admission. Many VT colleges are harder to get into that UVA general admission, but UVA is still in more selective overall).

It doesn't matter that NCSU has engineering and architecture programs while UNC generally does not. UNC is still the flagship because of its age, its selectivity, its top-10ish R&D expenditures.

Overall, UNC and UVA tick the marks for jobs where pedigree matters (doctors, lawyers, politicians, C-level execs). Their public ivy status grants them that, and that's really just historical. If VT and NCSU were founded first, they'd probably have the flagship status.

Most flagships are not necessarily land grants. VT, NCSU, Auburn, Clemson, Mississippi St., Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Purdue, Michigan St. and Iowa St. are all the land grants in their states. Most of the west has separate land-grants and flagships-WSU, OSU, Montana St., Colorado St., Utah St., NMSU, So.Dakota St., No.Dakota St..

26 Universities are both the land-grant and flagship universities in their states. Over half, so I guess "most" is still accurate. The list:


University of Alaska Fairbanks
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California Berkely
University of Connecticut
University of Deleware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
University of Kentucky
Louisiana State University
University of Maine
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
Rutgers University
New Mexico State University
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Rhode Island
University of Tennessee
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wyoming

Not New Mexico St. I'm not familiar with the rankings of Alaska-Fairbanks vs. Alaska-Anchorage. And Pennsylvania is really hard to classify since Penn St., Pitt and Temple are not fully "state" universities. Also California really has all of U of C the land grant. UC-Davis is the strongest ag school among the University of California campuses. MIT is also listed as a land grant for Massachusetts, so it may be shared there.

But you could add West Virginia and Idaho to that list (not that Boise fans wouldn't complain!).

Well, the list has 29 states on it, not 26 (perhaps it was updated). I agree that New Mexico should be eliminated and Idaho and West Virginia added, so that gets you to 30 states with combination Land Grant/Flagship universities.

I hear what you're saying about Cal and UC Davis, but UC Davis was part of UC Berkeley until 1959, so UC Berkeley was the original Land Grant.

As far as states with Land Grant/Flagship splits, here is my list:

Alabama/Auburn
Colorado/Colorado St.
Indiana/Purdue
Iowa/Iowa St.
Kansas/Kansas St.
Michigan/Michigan St.
Ole Miss/Mississippi St.
Montana/Montana St.
New Mexico/New Mexico St.
No.Carolina/No.Carolina St.
No.Dakota/No.Dakota St.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Oregon/Oregon St.
So.Carolina/Clemson
So.Dakota/So.Dakota St.
Texas/Texas A&M
Utah/Utah St.
Virginia/Virginia Tech
Washington/Washington St.

Despite legislative designations in a number of other states, New York is the only state that has true coequal flagships, with the SUNY "university centers" at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook all sharing that role. Cornell is New York's Land Grant. Since many of its colleges are private, though, Cornell cannot be considered a flagship.

Flagships from small New England and Plains & Western States (especially those with just 1 or 2 CD) simply lack the population base to support a FBS program and a top tier University. The only one who does is Delaware, and they do it by running a model of 60% out of state students and placing their University at the crossroads of three major states (Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), recruiting heaving NYC to DC corridor and California. It is the only R1 level school in the bunch - only they and Vermont have really strong AI. In the West the schools tended to be more like land grant general access and due to high poverty levels (New Mexico), thin populations or indifference (Nevada) never developed in strong Universities. The list below are those just too small a state

Vermont (good AI), Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Delaware (strong AI, research), Alaska.

Those who never developed sufficiently as strong undergrad schools -- primarily the lack of competition for seats makes these almost open access schools, much like most of the list above

New Mexico (good research school), Nevada/UNLV, Hawaii (strong research school, simply too isoslated)

West Virginia and Nebraska are the lone exceptions. In theory Delaware (similar to West Virginia, is almost a Philly suburb) could join them with a heavy out of State based athletic recruitment.

UConn and UMass are the two strong larger state flagships that never made it to Power status. This is largely because they started FBS football far too late, New England not embracing college football at the highest level. West Virginia (which basically is a Pittsburgh suburb) and Nebraska have a long highest level tradition in football, and were helped by strong neighboring states with football madness.

I should have narrowed my flagship definition to be R1 flagship. That would have eliminated the Nevada schools, the Dakota schools, URI, Vermont, NHU, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Maine and Alaska from the list. Isolation does in Hawaii, poverty NM (makes them open access). That leaves UDel, UMass and UConn as the exceptions.

(08-14-2019 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True but the state of Texas recognizes Texas A&M as both it’s land grant university and one of its two public flagship universities

Only an A&M fan wouldn't understand the general point of the conversation.

I acknowledged your general point was true but also corrected your error of citing A&M as an example of a land grant that is not also a state flagship university

Only a longhorn fan would have failed to read my statement carefully and see that

(08-14-2019 12:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True but the state of Texas recognizes Texas A&M as both it’s land grant university and one of its two public flagship universities

Only an A&M fan wouldn't understand the general point of the conversation.

I acknowledged your general point was true but also corrected your error of citing A&M as an example of a land grant that is not also a state flagship university

Only a longhorn fan would have failed to read my statement carefully and see that

Again, you had a Aggie snowflake reaction to a general point. With your point, most of the land grants would be considered a "flagship" so your comment is off point from the discussion which is identifying the General/liberal arts flagship and the Land Grant/Ag universities which are not also the General/liberal arts flagship.

(08-14-2019 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 12:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True but the state of Texas recognizes Texas A&M as both it’s land grant university and one of its two public flagship universities

Only an A&M fan wouldn't understand the general point of the conversation.

I acknowledged your general point was true but also corrected your error of citing A&M as an example of a land grant that is not also a state flagship university

Only a longhorn fan would have failed to read my statement carefully and see that

Again, you had a Aggie snowflake reaction to a general point. With your point, most of the land grants would be considered a "flagship" so your comment is off point from the discussion which is identifying the General/liberal arts flagship and the Land Grant/Ag universities which are not also the General/liberal arts flagship.

My point only had to do with A&M specifically since you cited A&M incorrectly in your example. Nowhere did I say our situation applied to any of the others in your example

A&M is both a state flagship and the state land grant which is different from the other schools in your example

I wasn’t even nasty about it and the correction was largely for the benefit of the others on this board who don’t know about our dual status

(08-14-2019 11:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Flagships from small New England and Plains & Western States (especially those with just 1 or 2 CD) simply lack the population base to support a FBS program and a top tier University. The only one who does is Delaware, and they do it by running a model of 60% out of state students and placing their University at the crossroads of three major states (Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), recruiting heaving NYC to DC corridor and California. It is the only R1 level school in the bunch - only they and Vermont have really strong AI. In the West the schools tended to be more like land grant general access and due to high poverty levels (New Mexico), thin populations or indifference (Nevada) never developed in strong Universities. The list below are those just too small a state

Vermont (good AI), Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Delaware (strong AI, research), Alaska.

Those who never developed sufficiently as strong undergrad schools -- primarily the lack of competition for seats makes these almost open access schools, much like most of the list above

New Mexico (good research school), Nevada/UNLV, Hawaii (strong research school, simply too isoslated)

West Virginia and Nebraska are the lone exceptions. In theory Delaware (similar to West Virginia, is almost a Philly suburb) could join them with a heavy out of State based athletic recruitment.

UConn and UMass are the two strong larger state flagships that never made it to Power status. This is largely because they started FBS football far too late, New England not embracing college football at the highest level. West Virginia (which basically is a Pittsburgh suburb) and Nebraska have a long highest level tradition in football, and were helped by strong neighboring states with football madness.

I should have narrowed my flagship definition to be R1 flagship. That would have eliminated the Nevada schools, the Dakota schools, URI, Vermont, NHU, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Maine and Alaska from the list. Isolation does in Hawaii, poverty NM (makes them open access). That leaves UDel, UMass and UConn as the exceptions.

What is AI here?

I've never understood the reverence accorded Land-Grant status in discussions of conference realignment. It was simply a funding mechanism to help states establish universities and is not necessarily a measure of institutional worth or quality. A lot of respected schools in the eastern US were established and had successfully stood the test of time long before the Morrill Acts were passed in 1862 and 1890 and thus were not designated as Land-Grant Universities. In Ohio, for example, Ohio University (1787). Miami University (1809), and the University of Cincinnati (1819) all predate the establishment of Ohio State University, the state's designated Land-Grant institution.

(08-14-2019 10:23 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 09:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 09:12 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 06:42 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  It's not an opinion; UNC is the flagship university in North Carolina. That's all I was pointing out.

Most flagships are land-grant, produce the highest R&D expenditures, have medical schools, and produce the most earned doctoral degrees. Vs. UVA, VT is land-grant, has significantly higher R&D expenditures, has a (fairly recent) medical school, and produces more than 1.5x doctoral degrees. Yet UVA is the flagship in VA because of its age, its Jefferson connection, and higher selectivity (at VT you apply to a specific college, whereas UVA has general admission. Many VT colleges are harder to get into that UVA general admission, but UVA is still in more selective overall).

It doesn't matter that NCSU has engineering and architecture programs while UNC generally does not. UNC is still the flagship because of its age, its selectivity, its top-10ish R&D expenditures.

Overall, UNC and UVA tick the marks for jobs where pedigree matters (doctors, lawyers, politicians, C-level execs). Their public ivy status grants them that, and that's really just historical. If VT and NCSU were founded first, they'd probably have the flagship status.

Most flagships are not necessarily land grants. VT, NCSU, Auburn, Clemson, Mississippi St., Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Purdue, Michigan St. and Iowa St. are all the land grants in their states. Most of the west has separate land-grants and flagships-WSU, OSU, Montana St., Colorado St., Utah St., NMSU, So.Dakota St., No.Dakota St..

26 Universities are both the land-grant and flagship universities in their states. Over half, so I guess "most" is still accurate. The list:


University of Alaska Fairbanks
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California Berkely
University of Connecticut
University of Deleware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
University of Kentucky
Louisiana State University
University of Maine
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
Rutgers University
New Mexico State University
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Rhode Island
University of Tennessee
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wyoming

Not New Mexico St. I'm not familiar with the rankings of Alaska-Fairbanks vs. Alaska-Anchorage. And Pennsylvania is really hard to classify since Penn St., Pitt and Temple are not fully "state" universities. Also California really has all of U of C the land grant. UC-Davis is the strongest ag school among the University of California campuses. MIT is also listed as a land grant for Massachusetts, so it may be shared there.

But you could add West Virginia and Idaho to that list (not that Boise fans wouldn't complain!).

Well, the list has 29 states on it, not 26 (perhaps it was updated). I agree that New Mexico should be eliminated and Idaho and West Virginia added, so that gets you to 30 states with combination Land Grant/Flagship universities.

I hear what you're saying about Cal and UC Davis, but UC Davis was part of UC Berkeley until 1959, so UC Berkeley was the original Land Grant.

As far as states with Land Grant/Flagship splits, here is my list:

Alabama/Auburn
Colorado/Colorado St.
Indiana/Purdue
Iowa/Iowa St.
Kansas/Kansas St.
Michigan/Michigan St.
Ole Miss/Mississippi St.
Montana/Montana St.
New Mexico/New Mexico St.
No.Carolina/No.Carolina St.
No.Dakota/No.Dakota St.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Oregon/Oregon St.
So.Carolina/Clemson
So.Dakota/So.Dakota St.
Texas/Texas A&M
Utah/Utah St.
Virginia/Virginia Tech
Washington/Washington St.

Despite legislative designations in a number of other states, New York is the only state that has true coequal flagships, with the SUNY "university centers" at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook all sharing that role. Cornell is New York's Land Grant. Since many of its colleges are private, though, Cornell cannot be considered a flagship.

Good list. Here is one to add:

Tennessee State University (land grant)/University of Tennessee (flagship)

(08-14-2019 07:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Even if the Big East takes Penn State, though, it's hard to imagine how Penn State does not ultimately end up in the Big Ten, potentially at the same time they did anyway. There is simply to much cultural similarity.

Similarly, even if Syracuse, Pitt and BC go with Penn State in 1981 to form an Eastern Conference, it's hard to imagine that Penn State doesn't end up in the Big Ten. Perhaps the only way it doesn't happen is if the Eastern Conference poaches some strong schools from the ACC and independent ranks outside of the Northeast that put it on equal footing with the Big Ten with respect to the ability to negotiate TV rights.

Agreed on all this, Penn State was always going to eventually choose Michigan State and Michigan and Ohio State over the northeastern schools, it's simply too valuable a set of associations for them. The theorized comprehensive northeastern football conference would have been on borrowed time from day one regardless.

(08-14-2019 07:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Overall, the Big East failed to anticipate the success of NCAA members in winning the right to sell their own television rights and to appreciate the importance of football to those members who compete in that sport.

Did it, though? The Big East was conceived as a vehicle for the basketball-focused east coast schools. Short of somehow convincing the Big 10 to go to some sort of goofy 14/20 arrangement, I'm not sure how much more they could have really done, given the inevitability of the Penn State move. I would argue that they accommodated football for as long as it remained advantageous for them to do so and then cut the cord at the right time.

(08-14-2019 05:06 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  What is AI here?

AI is Academic Index. It basically rates the quality of the undergraduate students who are accepted. A higher AI means more top HS students attend the school. Graduation rates closely follow AI.

Research level (not counting Med schools associated) and AI are the primary prestige rankings of schools.

Flagships from the smaller states tend to be open access, and lack the funding for the most part to be top research schools. So a Montana or New Mexico or Rhode Island is just not on par with even an Oregon State or Kansas State in either AI or research.

(08-14-2019 10:02 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 05:06 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  What is AI here?

AI is Academic Index. It basically rates the quality of the undergraduate students who are accepted. A higher AI means more top HS students attend the school. Graduation rates closely follow AI.

Research level (not counting Med schools associated) and AI are the primary prestige rankings of schools.

Flagships from the smaller states tend to be open access, and lack the funding for the most part to be top research schools. So a Montana or New Mexico or Rhode Island is just not on par with even an Oregon State or Kansas State in either AI or research.

Where is a good source to measure AI in the way you are doing so here?

For SAT and ACT prepscholar is pretty accurate and more current. You have to guess a schools form or use google

https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...scores-GPA

Rule of thumb, SAT below 1200 is a "hell no" for any P conference looking at G5. GPA is kind of useless

Here is New Mexico, UNLV, Memphis, ECU for a comparison

https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements

Some P5 are below that threshold, but legacy counts (i think this is the entire list below the "line"):

https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...quirements
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleg...scores-GPA

Note: Alabama has been rising quickly. I think they will be above the 1200 line within 4 or 5 years. ISU is really close. UofA is embarrassingly bad; I can't explain them, as ASU is harder to get into.

Graduation rates are even harder to find consistent data. UCLA gives good detail as do all the UC schools

https://www.apb.ucla.edu/campus-statisti...uation-ttd

I have no preference on generic ones. Here is one you can look at entire conferences

https://www.univstats.com/colleges/unive...ation-rate

(08-14-2019 03:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 12:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:31 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True but the state of Texas recognizes Texas A&M as both it’s land grant university and one of its two public flagship universities

Only an A&M fan wouldn't understand the general point of the conversation.

I acknowledged your general point was true but also corrected your error of citing A&M as an example of a land grant that is not also a state flagship university

Only a longhorn fan would have failed to read my statement carefully and see that

Again, you had a Aggie snowflake reaction to a general point. With your point, most of the land grants would be considered a "flagship" so your comment is off point from the discussion which is identifying the General/liberal arts flagship and the Land Grant/Ag universities which are not also the General/liberal arts flagship.

My point only had to do with A&M specifically since you cited A&M incorrectly in your example. Nowhere did I say our situation applied to any of the others in your example

A&M is both a state flagship and the state land grant which is different from the other schools in your example

I wasn’t even nasty about it and the correction was largely for the benefit of the others on this board who don’t know about our dual status

Texas is the premier university in the state of Texas. Its charter was to create a university of the first class. It is the only "flagship" in the purest sense of the term. In the broader sense, A&M is no different than most other land grants as both the traditional liberal arts/science "flagship" and land grant are considered "flagships."

That so called designation doesn't change the way the schools were set up and designed. A&M was a small, specialized school for much of its history-all male to the 60s, strong in ag and engineering and weak most everywhere else until the 70s and 80s.

(08-14-2019 09:06 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 10:23 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 09:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 09:12 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  Most flagships are not necessarily land grants. VT, NCSU, Auburn, Clemson, Mississippi St., Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Purdue, Michigan St. and Iowa St. are all the land grants in their states. Most of the west has separate land-grants and flagships-WSU, OSU, Montana St., Colorado St., Utah St., NMSU, So.Dakota St., No.Dakota St..

26 Universities are both the land-grant and flagship universities in their states. Over half, so I guess "most" is still accurate. The list:


University of Alaska Fairbanks
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California Berkely
University of Connecticut
University of Deleware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
University of Kentucky
Louisiana State University
University of Maine
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
Rutgers University
New Mexico State University
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Rhode Island
University of Tennessee
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wyoming

Not New Mexico St. I'm not familiar with the rankings of Alaska-Fairbanks vs. Alaska-Anchorage. And Pennsylvania is really hard to classify since Penn St., Pitt and Temple are not fully "state" universities. Also California really has all of U of C the land grant. UC-Davis is the strongest ag school among the University of California campuses. MIT is also listed as a land grant for Massachusetts, so it may be shared there.

But you could add West Virginia and Idaho to that list (not that Boise fans wouldn't complain!).

Well, the list has 29 states on it, not 26 (perhaps it was updated). I agree that New Mexico should be eliminated and Idaho and West Virginia added, so that gets you to 30 states with combination Land Grant/Flagship universities.

I hear what you're saying about Cal and UC Davis, but UC Davis was part of UC Berkeley until 1959, so UC Berkeley was the original Land Grant.

As far as states with Land Grant/Flagship splits, here is my list:

Alabama/Auburn
Colorado/Colorado St.
Indiana/Purdue
Iowa/Iowa St.
Kansas/Kansas St.
Michigan/Michigan St.
Ole Miss/Mississippi St.
Montana/Montana St.
New Mexico/New Mexico St.
No.Carolina/No.Carolina St.
No.Dakota/No.Dakota St.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Oregon/Oregon St.
So.Carolina/Clemson
So.Dakota/So.Dakota St.
Texas/Texas A&M
Utah/Utah St.
Virginia/Virginia Tech
Washington/Washington St.

Despite legislative designations in a number of other states, New York is the only state that has true coequal flagships, with the SUNY "university centers" at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook all sharing that role. Cornell is New York's Land Grant. Since many of its colleges are private, though, Cornell cannot be considered a flagship.

Good list. Here is one to add:

Tennessee State University (land grant)/University of Tennessee (flagship)

Tennessee St. is different. There was a separate act for HBCUs in 1890.

(08-14-2019 05:40 PM)colohank Wrote:  I've never understood the reverence accorded Land-Grant status in discussions of conference realignment. It was simply a funding mechanism to help states establish universities and is not necessarily a measure of institutional worth or quality. A lot of respected schools in the eastern US were established and had successfully stood the test of time long before the Morrill Acts were passed in 1862 and 1890 and thus were not designated as Land-Grant Universities. In Ohio, for example, Ohio University (1787). Miami University (1809), and the University of Cincinnati (1819) all predate the establishment of Ohio State University, the state's designated Land-Grant institution.

They got the federal money. They became large with lots of research. That's what the presidents value.

I don't know that its so much the company pre-1945 (although for Vandy, Duke and Wake Forest it is), but that the schools were big time football schools before the NFL got established. So they developed a tradition that continued into the generations that may have followed NFL football more. The smaller schools like Rice and SMU couldn't continue at the same level when the NFL moved in. A larger school like UCLA might have slipped, but it had tons of alumni. The Ivy League schools also found their support diminished when the NFL came in and they mostly weren't big enough to continue at the top level. Harvard, Yale and Penn might have, but they weren't interested in leaving the rest of the Ivy League behind.

Meanwhile someone like Houston established in the 1940s didn't have the pre-war alumni and most of its alumni grew up in the NFL era. They didn't already have that tradition established. So while UCLA may struggle compared to their success, that struggle is 50k/game while Houston does well to get 40k. UConn always was small time in the Yankee Conference even though they have played for a long time. Yale was the big program in Connecticut, so UConn has the same issue as UH.

(08-16-2019 11:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  I don't know that its so much the company pre-1945 (although for Vandy, Duke and Wake Forest it is), but that the schools were big time football schools before the NFL got established. So they developed a tradition that continued into the generations that may have followed NFL football more. The smaller schools like Rice and SMU couldn't continue at the same level when the NFL moved in. A larger school like UCLA might have slipped, but it had tons of alumni. The Ivy League schools also found their support diminished when the NFL came in and they mostly weren't big enough to continue at the top level. Harvard, Yale and Penn might have, but they weren't interested in leaving the rest of the Ivy League behind.

Up until 1945 the Ivies had some of the most winning programs in the northeast. Then they deemphasized athletics which made it easier for the nfl to take over. May not have played out as easily had they kept pace with other CFB leagues.

Quote:Meanwhile someone like Houston established in the 1940s didn't have the pre-war alumni and most of its alumni grew up in the NFL era. They didn't already have that tradition established. So while UCLA may struggle compared to their success, that struggle is 50k/game while Houston does well to get 40k. UConn always was small time in the Yankee Conference even though they have played for a long time. Yale was the big program in Connecticut, so UConn has the same issue as UH.

UH has a lot to do with the commuter school model limiting how much their students attached themselves to athletics. I think that’s far bigger than prewar or postwar numbers. How well you convert enrolled students into supporters sets your attendance floor barring outliers. A bad rate of conversion can make a big school support like a much smaller one.

Bringing numbers in this can be evidenced by the low percentages of their student body being full time undergrad students, low percentages graduating in six years, and low percentages of their freshmen living on campus. Someone who’s part time, or never lived on campus, or didn’t graduate isn’t likely to develop the kind of bond that someone in the opposite situation would with their school.

For instance UH has improved a massive way in six year grad rate (now 59%) and having more students living on campus that first year (now 44%) as both were around 37% in the early 2000’s. By comparison the average today for the other SWC schools in TX is 78% and 88%. It’s a huge difference.

If you did (total Full time undergrads) X (6 year grad rate) X (Freshman on campus %) you get UH’s net total on par with TCU and Vandy. Go back to the Early 2000’s and it was on par with Rice. It’s a logical reason for why a school with 10k more total enrollment than Texas Tech has attendance that’s barely over half of Tech’s.