(09-08-2013 03:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 02:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 01:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

Somewhat, but Louisville's undergraduate academics are an asterisk compared to their medical school. Like Pitt, UNC, Duke, WF, and UVa, the core of the University of Louisville is the medical school and everything that surrounds the medical school.

The league knew Louisville has a mission to educate students from the State of Kentucky and in that sense, Louisville is different from the rest of the ACC. However, it was the medical school that made the pill easier to swallow for certain league members.

Cincinnati also has a medical school and it's academic undergraduate profile is better than Louisville's. Cincy would not have been out of step with the culture of the ACC, just not in the top two/thirds.

The ACC sold out when they invited FSU. FSU's academics were worse than UofL's are now when they were first invited. It's been all downhill for the ACC's high standards since. UNC turned out to be the biggest academic cheater in the NCAA recently, and we've discovered that Miami isn't far behind...

As for providing sex for recruits, OSU still has much to learn. Miami and UNC could teach the Cowboys a bunch...

UNC has high standards for non-athletes - always have. UNC has had no standards for athletes since the 1940's. It's not new. I'd say Louisville was behind where FSU was when FSU was admitted. But, someone has to be at the bottom. Look at Nebraska in the B10.

If the ACC wanted to add an egg head, we could have approached Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Tulane, Davidson, etc. The goal was to add a decent school with an athletic profile that made money for the other 14 members. Louisville fit that bill better than Cincy. It was nothing against Cincy and it doesn't mean that other ACC schools are drinking Louisville koolaid.

However, if UNC is going to blatently cheat with athletes that would could not gain admission into Clemson, what do overall academics mean? Once expansion became about money and turf, certain biases fade, but even the fading of some biases don't help schools that are geographically redundant to a potentially expanding conference.

(09-08-2013 03:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 02:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 01:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

Somewhat, but Louisville's undergraduate academics are an asterisk compared to their medical school. Like Pitt, UNC, Duke, WF, and UVa, the core of the University of Louisville is the medical school and everything that surrounds the medical school.

The league knew Louisville has a mission to educate students from the State of Kentucky and in that sense, Louisville is different from the rest of the ACC. However, it was the medical school that made the pill easier to swallow for certain league members.

Cincinnati also has a medical school and it's academic undergraduate profile is better than Louisville's. Cincy would not have been out of step with the culture of the ACC, just not in the top two/thirds.

The ACC sold out when they invited FSU. FSU's academics were worse than UofL's are now when they were first invited. It's been all downhill for the ACC's high standards since. UNC turned out to be the biggest academic cheater in the NCAA recently, and we've discovered that Miami isn't far behind...

As for providing sex for recruits, OSU still has much to learn. Miami and UNC could teach the Cowboys a bunch...

Bitcruncher - Now you know why Duke stays mad at UNC - they have nothing like the Sweet Caroline with which to entice a recruit. All they have a few cheap strip clubs and the local working girls.

No comment about UNC's hypocrisy...

Wasn't try to say UC deserved in over UofL. In fact never said that.
Just wanted to set the record straight when you indicated that UofL's UG programs were an asterisk next to their School of Medicine that you seem to think is the centerpiece of that institution. The School of Med is not the centerpiece of their academics and it's not highly ranked academically. Both their G, UG and prof programs are at best very middling.

The ACC set the academic bar much lower admitting UofL so for future expansion (if they ever do expand) touting academics is a criteria will fall on deaf ears.

And you are right someone does have to be at the bottom of each conference. Difference is that Nebraska is at the bottom of the Big10 (as the only non AAU Big10 member having very recently lost their AAU status) but the difference top to bottom in the Big10 is much narrower than top to bottom in the ACC when the ACC added UofL.

Big10 can still tout academics as a criteria...ACC not so much.

(09-08-2013 02:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you don't think research, and graduate research in particular matters to UNC, Duke, Pitt, GT, NC State, VT, FSU, Clemson, and UVa, you really are out of touch.

Surely you can understand that the league office will hunt and peck to find a blurb that covers all the schools to stick on the website and since you, BC, Wake Forest, ND, and to a lesser degree Miami, are focused mainly at the undergraduate level, talking about the research punch of the other schools would leave them on the sideline of the descriptors.

RE Research: No. You are getting confused again. Research is important to some schools, like Pitt. They are very good at it. However, Syracuse's research emphasis/prowess has NOTHING to do with Pitt or their research emphasis/prowess. Pitt isn't in a conference that uses it as a selling point. There are misguided souls who think that B1G schools are better than they are because they are in a conference that markets itself as being strong in research. Nobody thinks ACC schools are better than they are because they are in a conference that markets itself as being good at research. People might thinks so for other reasons, but not because of the conference's research. There is no cross over. In summary, in the ACC, Pitt's research and Boston College's research are two very, very different things and there is virtually no connection between the two.

RE Blurb: So in other words, the one common thing throughout ACC academics is a strong commitment to providing the best education possible outside of the IVY League. Weird. That sounds a lot like.... well never mind.

(09-08-2013 07:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 03:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 02:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 01:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

Somewhat, but Louisville's undergraduate academics are an asterisk compared to their medical school. Like Pitt, UNC, Duke, WF, and UVa, the core of the University of Louisville is the medical school and everything that surrounds the medical school.

The league knew Louisville has a mission to educate students from the State of Kentucky and in that sense, Louisville is different from the rest of the ACC. However, it was the medical school that made the pill easier to swallow for certain league members.

Cincinnati also has a medical school and it's academic undergraduate profile is better than Louisville's. Cincy would not have been out of step with the culture of the ACC, just not in the top two/thirds.

The ACC sold out when they invited FSU. FSU's academics were worse than UofL's are now when they were first invited. It's been all downhill for the ACC's high standards since. UNC turned out to be the biggest academic cheater in the NCAA recently, and we've discovered that Miami isn't far behind...

As for providing sex for recruits, OSU still has much to learn. Miami and UNC could teach the Cowboys a bunch...

UNC has high standards for non-athletes - always have. UNC has had no standards for athletes since the 1940's. It's not new. I'd say Louisville was behind where FSU was when FSU was admitted. But, someone has to be at the bottom. Look at Nebraska in the B10.

If the ACC wanted to add an egg head, we could have approached Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Tulane, Davidson, etc. The goal was to add a decent school with an athletic profile that made money for the other 14 members. Louisville fit that bill better than Cincy. It was nothing against Cincy and it doesn't mean that other ACC schools are drinking Louisville koolaid.

However, if UNC is going to blatently cheat with athletes that would could not gain admission into Clemson, what do overall academics mean? Once expansion became about money and turf, certain biases fade, but even the fading of some biases don't help schools that are geographically redundant to a potentially expanding conference.

UNC's "high standards" are selectively applied and it's not just athletes that get a pass. Tens of thousands of legacy morons have UNC degrees. Lol!

(09-08-2013 08:16 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Wasn't try to say UC deserved in over UofL. In fact never said that.
Just wanted to set the record straight when you indicated that UofL's UG programs were an asterisk next to their School of Medicine that you seem to think is the centerpiece of that institution. The School of Med is not the centerpiece of their academics and it's not highly ranked academically. Both their G, UG and prof programs are at best very middling.

The ACC set the academic bar much lower admitting UofL so for future expansion (if they ever do expand) touting academics is a criteria will fall on deaf ears.

And you are right someone does have to be at the bottom of each conference. Difference is that Nebraska is at the bottom of the Big10 (as the only non AAU Big10 member having very recently lost their AAU status) but the difference top to bottom in the Big10 is much narrower than top to bottom in the ACC when the ACC added UofL.

Big10 can still tout academics as a criteria...ACC not so much.

(09-06-2013 05:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

the 19 million saved figured has to do with discarded research equipment that one school has that another school needs. any research equipment a school buys to fulfill a research grant that costs over $5,000 gets retained by the university. a lot of times this translates into stockpiles of equipment that a university doesnt need. one of the advantages of the CIC is that they lend this stuff to other schools instead of those schools having to buy it.

the 19 million is a pinprick in what the CIC does.

-the CIC combines their library system giving a nebraska student the same access as a northwestern student. this is the largest college library system in the US, they allow transferable credits between members, as well as temporary faculty transfers

-they real money has to do with research grants. the CIC gives them a major advantage when going after research grants and thats where the CIC racks in the cash.

There is no transfer of discarded lab equipment between universities. Absurd. Discarded equipment is out of date and useless to other schools that actually aren't...say, full of high school kids. You never worked in an academic lab setting. I can tell by your post. The $19 million is actually savings from the CIC purchasing consortium for things like bulk software, e-journal subscription, and even dorm furniture. How they factor that savings, from resale probably, is entirely unknown. Hey, that's great, but many universities already belong to consortiums.

Every hear of interlibrary loan? It's not 1960 anymore. Perhaps you mean the Hathitrust..but maybe you should actually check out the membership. Or perhaps you mean a student at Lincoln can drive to Chicago to take out a book at Northwestern's library. That's great, but you still may not be able to use special collection libraries (like law or health). Hope you checked on that before your 18 hour drive. And while you are in Chicagoland, don't bother going to the University of Chicago without a letter of introduction ready from UNL's library director.

Guess what, credits transfer between most major universities and the CIC doesn't actually facilitate that. They do have some remote course offerings for obscure language courses and a doctoral student travel program...other consortiums have the doctoral student/researcher travel program as well. The CIC also does not facilitate visiting faculty.

There is absolutely no advantage, ZERO, in CIC membership when applying for grants. The CIC "racks up" no cash, other from the annual dues of its members. My lord, the ignorance on this topic continues to be astounding. Don't get me wrong, the CIC is nice for its members, but people flat out have no real idea what it actually does and doesn't do, nor the actually real world significance of what it does do.

(09-06-2013 05:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

the 19 million saved figured has to do with discarded research equipment that one school has that another school needs. any research equipment a school buys to fulfill a research grant that costs over $5,000 gets retained by the university. a lot of times this translates into stockpiles of equipment that a university doesnt need. one of the advantages of the CIC is that they lend this stuff to other schools instead of those schools having to buy it.

the 19 million is a pinprick in what the CIC does.

-the CIC combines their library system giving a nebraska student the same access as a northwestern student. this is the largest college library system in the US, they allow transferable credits between members, as well as temporary faculty transfers

-they real money has to do with research grants. the CIC gives them a major advantage when going after research grants and thats where the CIC racks in the cash.

Virtually every school in the US has libraries that are already linked. I actually can't think of a single school that isn't apart of a substantial inter-library loan agreement that is irrelevant to athletic affiliation. For instance, I know SU shares library resources with IVY League institutions, but we are in the ACC.

And temporary faculty transfers already exist. Actually, my first class at SU was taught by a Michigan professor.

And finally, I have no idea if in-conference institutions are more likely to honor transferred credits, so maybe I'm wrong. However, I would be amazed if Michigan honors a higher percentage of Nebraska credits than they do Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, Pitt, Boston College, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Miami and so on credits.

Sorry, didn't see your response.

I believe the interlibrary loan system was built in the early 1980s. Every single research library, and even many public libraries, in the US is linked to it.

(09-07-2013 08:39 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I've yet to see the Big 10 deviate from academic profile when expanding.

Except for Nebraska, who was well known to be in the process of being shown the door out of the AAU, is dead last in the Big Ten research expenditures (at the time, about $100 million behind the next school), and dead last and US News rankings (20-30 spots below the next B10 school at the time and I believe the only school out of the top 100). No, the Big Ten doesn't compromise at all for football.

Athletic conferences, shockingly, are foremost about athletics and the revenue derived from them. Academics might give a school an extra check mark on the list of traits that make them desirable over other candidate members, but no one is turning down Nebraska or Louisville given the membership openings at the time and relative strengths of their athletic departments. No one is tripping over themselves to invite Rice, either.

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can go to this website to see where American universities rank in research dollars http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html :

In the ACC:

9 Duke
19 UNC
26 Pitt
42 GT
44 UVa
46 MD
62 NC State
64 CINCY
66 VT
69 FSU
79 Miami

Heavy research is key to most of the ACC. GT, NCSU, and VT do not have medical schools, and so have no medical research dollars to speak of otherwise they would be some 10-12 spots higher.

Wake Forest and BC are the two schools that are relatively light on research, however Wake has a large Medical facility and Medical school - Wake Forest Baptist Hospital is the largest hospital in western NC.

So for those saying research is big in the ACC, you are just wrong. In fact medical research is what Duke, UNC, and Pitt live on.


I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

The Center for Measuring University Performance is a good source, but those are either from the wrong file or outdated. The current (FY11) numbers for research expenditures compiled by the NSF are below.

I've added Cincy and UConn for comparison. (As you can see, in a hypothetical where the AAU adds more members, UC definitely has a better shot than UConn).

The rank is total R&D out of 863 colleges and universities. source: http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/profiles/site;j...ce&ds=herd

5. Duke $1022.2 million
10. Pitt $899.4 million
19. UNC $757.5 million
27. Georgia Tech $655.4 million
39. Maryland $495.4 million
44. Virginia Tech $450.1 million
45. Cincinnati $448.9 million
58. NC State $378.2 million
70. Miami $323.5 million
74. Virginia $292.4 million
82. UConn $253.8 million
89. Florida State $230.4 million
97. Wake Forest $209.1 million
104. Louisville $197.4 million
116. Clemson $166.4
124. Notre Dame $134.4
156. Syracuse $83.7
189. Boston College $52.3

(09-08-2013 12:08 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  RE Outputs: "research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc." And ALL of those are completely irrelevant to the quality of education conferred and are only of questionable relevance to the school's reputation to confer a quality education.

Unless you are in a discipline that is primarily a research field...like biology, neuroscience, or physics because then the quality (and thus experience available) to even an undergraduate in any such a major is impacted by the quantity and quality of "research, publishing, grants, etc". Sorry, imo, undergrad research experiences that are available for a particular field of interest can (and sometimes should) be a determining factor in selecting a school (obviously in combination with other factors), at least in my experience training and teaching in such fields.

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

Research output and reputation seem to be important to ACC presidents (though they have a few undergrad-focused private schools as well).

For that metric, the ARWU ranking of research universities has Rice as the only FBS school in the top 100 (worldwide) that isn't already in a P5 conference. Rice is tied for #92 worldwide and #50 among U.S. universities on that list.

Just below that top 100, the non-P5, FBS schools include

In the range of 53-67 among U.S. universities, 101-150 worldwide:

UMass

In the range of 68-85 among U.S. universities, 151-200 worldwide:

Colorado State
Hawaii

In the range of 86-108 among U.S. universities, 201-300 worldwide:

Buffalo
UAB
UConn
New Mexico
UCF
Cincinnati
Houston
USF

(09-05-2013 08:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 02:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I think I see the issue with the whole Cinci ranking and recognition thing... Since 2010 they've only played one ranked team, and lost to that team. And since the turn of the century, they've played 22 ranked teams and only beat 4 of them. #15, #25, #23, and #12.

uh....lol wrong

Look it up yourself, and let's stick with end of the season rankings because beating a #12 team that ends up unranked at 7-5 doesn't count as a ranked win.

(09-08-2013 09:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 02:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  If you don't think research, and graduate research in particular matters to UNC, Duke, Pitt, GT, NC State, VT, FSU, Clemson, and UVa, you really are out of touch.

Surely you can understand that the league office will hunt and peck to find a blurb that covers all the schools to stick on the website and since you, BC, Wake Forest, ND, and to a lesser degree Miami, are focused mainly at the undergraduate level, talking about the research punch of the other schools would leave them on the sideline of the descriptors.

RE Research: No. You are getting confused again. Research is important to some schools, like Pitt. They are very good at it. However, Syracuse's research emphasis/prowess has NOTHING to do with Pitt or their research emphasis/prowess. Pitt isn't in a conference that uses it as a selling point. There are misguided souls who think that B1G schools are better than they are because they are in a conference that markets itself as being strong in research. Nobody thinks ACC schools are better than they are because they are in a conference that markets itself as being good at research. People might thinks so for other reasons, but not because of the conference's research. There is no cross over. In summary, in the ACC, Pitt's research and Boston College's research are two very, very different things and there is virtually no connection between the two.

RE Blurb: So in other words, the one common thing throughout ACC academics is a strong commitment to providing the best education possible outside of the IVY League. Weird. That sounds a lot like.... well never mind.

I agree with you regarding the common thread being a strong commitment to being the best outside the Ivy League. In fact, past that point the league diverges into separate groups:

1. The graduate research intensive,
2. The undergraduate Ivy-type,
3. The group that attempts to blend 1 and 2.
4. The group that is above average on a broad front, but not necessarily superior.

Duke, UVa, GT, and UNC would be in group 3 - attempting to do both.

NCSU and VT are very much oriented to their graduate programs, less so the undergraduate - group 1.

ND, Miami, BC, Syracuse, and Wake Forest are group 2.

Louisville, FSU, and Clemson are group 4 - all above average schools, but in the sea of hundreds of American universities, not really the top quintile, but second quintile.

I think Pitt is closer to group 3 than 4, but don't know that much about their undergraduate program.

IIRC the real disagreement was over Cincy's culture and research. I can fully concede that Cincy's research is not a big deal to BC, Miami, WF, FSU, or Louisville, but it does matter to the others to whom research is actually their bread and butter.

Cincy's biggest problem is geography. They add nothing to the Big 10 or SEC. What they could have added to the ACC is somewhat undercut by Louisville and ND. If the world were fair, the Big 12 would add BYU and Cincy, but Texas will never go for that.

(09-09-2013 04:33 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 02:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I think I see the issue with the whole Cinci ranking and recognition thing... Since 2010 they've only played one ranked team, and lost to that team. And since the turn of the century, they've played 22 ranked teams and only beat 4 of them. #15, #25, #23, and #12.

uh....lol wrong

Look it up yourself, and let's stick with end of the season rankings because beating a #12 team that ends up unranked at 7-5 doesn't count as a ranked win.

Cincy hurt itself for 50 or so years playing in the Missouri Valley and then going independent but not playing a good schedule - essentially a de-emphasis of football, like was done at Duke in 1962, and at Tulane. Coming back on the scene for the last 10-15 is really a short time.

(09-09-2013 02:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

Research output and reputation seem to be important to ACC presidents (though they have a few undergrad-focused private schools as well).

For that metric, the ARWU ranking of research universities has Rice as the only FBS school in the top 100 (worldwide) that isn't already in a P5 conference. Rice is tied for #92 worldwide and #50 among U.S. universities on that list.

Just below that top 100, the non-P5, FBS schools include

In the range of 53-67 among U.S. universities, 101-150 worldwide:

UMass

In the range of 68-85 among U.S. universities, 151-200 worldwide:

Colorado State
Hawaii

In the range of 86-108 among U.S. universities, 201-300 worldwide:

Buffalo
UAB
UConn
New Mexico
UCF
Cincinnati
Houston
USF

ARWU is what most universities use to make actual, internal comparisons. US News is used for the media but not taken that seriously by honest administrators - it's too shallow a set of metrics.

On the above list, only SUNY-Buffalo is also AAU. (I agree that AAU is a "club")

PS. Are you certain about Colorado State - could they have meant Colorado-Boulder?

(09-09-2013 04:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 02:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

Research output and reputation seem to be important to ACC presidents (though they have a few undergrad-focused private schools as well).

For that metric, the ARWU ranking of research universities has Rice as the only FBS school in the top 100 (worldwide) that isn't already in a P5 conference. Rice is tied for #92 worldwide and #50 among U.S. universities on that list.

Just below that top 100, the non-P5, FBS schools include

In the range of 53-67 among U.S. universities, 101-150 worldwide:

UMass

In the range of 68-85 among U.S. universities, 151-200 worldwide:

Colorado State
Hawaii

In the range of 86-108 among U.S. universities, 201-300 worldwide:

Buffalo
UAB
UConn
New Mexico
UCF
Cincinnati
Houston
USF

ARWU is what most universities use to make actual, internal comparisons. US News is used for the media but not taken that seriously by honest administrators - it's too shallow a set of metrics.

On the above list, only SUNY-Buffalo is also AAU. (I agree that AAU is a "club")

PS. Are you certain about Colorado State - could they have meant Colorado-Boulder?

68-85 among U.S. schools and 101-150 worldwide is correct for Colorado State.

CU-Boulder is higher, they're #33 worldwide and #25 among U.S. schools.

(09-09-2013 04:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 04:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 02:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

Research output and reputation seem to be important to ACC presidents (though they have a few undergrad-focused private schools as well).

For that metric, the ARWU ranking of research universities has Rice as the only FBS school in the top 100 (worldwide) that isn't already in a P5 conference. Rice is tied for #92 worldwide and #50 among U.S. universities on that list.

Just below that top 100, the non-P5, FBS schools include

In the range of 53-67 among U.S. universities, 101-150 worldwide:

UMass

In the range of 68-85 among U.S. universities, 151-200 worldwide:

Colorado State
Hawaii

In the range of 86-108 among U.S. universities, 201-300 worldwide:

Buffalo
UAB
UConn
New Mexico
UCF
Cincinnati
Houston
USF

ARWU is what most universities use to make actual, internal comparisons. US News is used for the media but not taken that seriously by honest administrators - it's too shallow a set of metrics.

On the above list, only SUNY-Buffalo is also AAU. (I agree that AAU is a "club")

PS. Are you certain about Colorado State - could they have meant Colorado-Boulder?

68-85 among U.S. schools and 101-150 worldwide is correct for Colorado State.

CU-Boulder is higher, they're #33 worldwide and #25 among U.S. schools.

Hmm, CSU moving up. Good for them.