NY Times article on CR effect on non-revenue sports

[Sea Goat]

Notre Dame just won the NCAA men's soccer championship, and I swear I saw ACC on their uniforms. I also see them on our schedule in everything including football. That's good enough for me.

It shouldn't be - the old stalwarts of he ACC didn't need ND to shore it up and ultimately ND does what's best for ND only - you'll see.

 

[specialisthusky]

What is your point with this list? I had a book written in the 80s about the Public Ivys. I don't know what happened to it. UVA was in it. Are you saying that someone has expanded the public ivys to include this list? That would really water it down.

In 2001 Green's Guide reevaluated the list on the criteria: public schools with academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution.

The one's I have listed above are outstide of your cut off point which considers a school good or bad.

My point is: your not only basing your argument on an arbitrary number set by a a very nonscientific poll, but books have literally been published suggesting you are wrong.

 

[btstimpy]

Stimpmeister - let's agree to disagree - you believe the ACC has maintained its academic integrity with the Louisville add and I believe you it sold a piece of its soul. Regardless, you must admit that the ACC has zero, with a "Z", academic requirements for new members.

Free advice - don't die on the beach defending the Louisville addition on any terms other than its dubious football pedigree.

I didn't say I'm impressed with Louisville's academic pedigree. I said I'm not impressed with the academic pedigree of any school ranked below 50. Big Ten folks over on a Penn State Board were trumpeting that they got Maryland and the ACC got Louisville. I'm not impressed with Maryland academics either. They are both below 50. I've seen many a football recruit not be able to get past the UVA academic standard get picked right up by Maryland. Happens all the time. Low standards there.

 

[btstimpy]

In 2001 Green's Guide reevaluated the list on the criteria: public schools with academic quality comparable to an Ivy League institution.

The one's I have listed above are outstide of your cut off point which considers a school good or bad.

My point is: your not only basing your argument on an arbitrary number set by a a very nonscientific poll, but books have literally been published suggesting you are wrong.

If someone wrote a book trying to credit that list for offering Ivy League like educations, then somone was trying to widen the net enough to sell a lot of books. That's all.

This is the kind of list I like to see UVA associated with:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eague-college-leads-world-richest-alumni.html

I'm not impressed very much with that other list. But that's just me.

 

[HawkHusky]

I didn't say I'm impressed with Louisville's academic pedigree. I said I'm not impressed with the academic pedigree of any school ranked below 50. Big Ten folks over on a Penn State Board were trumpeting that they got Maryland and the ACC got Louisville. I'm not impressed with Maryland academics either. They are both below 50. I've seen many a football recruit not be able to get past the UVA academic standard get picked right up by Maryland. Happens all the time. Low standards there.

So there's no difference between being ranked 62nd (Maryland) and 161st (Louisville).

Because that makes perfect sense......

 

[btstimpy]

It shouldn't be - the old stalwarts of he ACC didn't need ND to shore it up and ultimately ND does what's best for ND only - you'll see.

I recognize that it is the universal opinion here that Notre Dame is bad news. We're going to try this arrangement with Notre Dame for a dozen years or so to see how it works out. If everyone hates it in a decade, we'll do something different. The article at the top of this thread talks about the travel being tough on Notre Dame's kids in the ACC. They might get tired of that after a while. Who knows?

 

[btstimpy]

So there's no difference between being ranked 62nd (Maryland) and 161st (Louisville).

Because that makes perfect sense......

UConn is highly competitive in basketball. Use the basketball analogy. If you're a top ten basketball team, and you look at another team ranked 62 or 161, there is a difference. But are you impressed with either?

 

[HawkHusky]

UConn is highly competitive in basketball. Use the basketball analogy. If you're a top ten basketball team, and you look at another team ranked 62 or 161, there is a difference. But are you impressed with either?

Apples to oranges..but I'll bite.

Since you chose the basketball analogy: If one team has an RPI or SOS of 62 then they will be much more likely to make the NCAA tournament than a team with an RPI or SOS of 161.

So yes I find an at-large tournament bid impressive.

 

[specialisthusky]

UConn is highly competitive in basketball. Use the basketball analogy. If you're a top ten basketball team, and you look at another team ranked 62 or 161, there is a difference. But are you impressed with either?

One makes the NCAA, the other is still 50 spots away from bring the last CBI invite.

 

[Sea Goat]

I didn't say I'm impressed with Louisville's academic pedigree. I said I'm not impressed with the academic pedigree of any school ranked below 50. Big Ten folks over on a Penn State Board were trumpeting that they got Maryland and the ACC got Louisville. I'm not impressed with Maryland academics either. They are both below 50. I've seen many a football recruit not be able to get past the UVA academic standard get picked right up by Maryland. Happens all the time. Low standards there.

Back on point, Stimpy - the ACC has zero, with a "Z", academic requirements for entry. Yes or no?

Further, I'm no Terp fan, but comparing UMD to Louisville really strains the limits of credulity. It's not close and doing so diminishes your credibility.
You know damn well that noses were firmly held in the administration offices in Charlottesville, Chapel Hill, Atlanta, Boston, Miami, Winston-Salem, Durham when the vote to add Louisville to the ACC was taken. If you don't admit that, then I've lost you.

Be real, Stimpmeister - the ACC has added school that admits 72% of its applicants and graduates only 50% in 6 years! It is less of an institution of higher learning than it is a crap shoot!

 

[specialisthusky]

Sorry double post...can't figure out how to delete on new app.

 

[B1GALUM]

No argument. Ohio State is a crapyy commuter school in Columbus, Ohio, and Maryland is a crappy commuter school in DC. Let's set the base.

As an alum and faculty member, I take issue with your view of Ohio State as a crappy commuter school. You need to spend more time researching universities before you make such pronouncements.
Here is a place to start:
http://www.osu.edu/highpoints/
http://www.osu.edu/visitors/aboutohiostate.php

 

[Pudge]

The USN&WR is a stupid index to keep promoting in University ranking. If you have some knowledge of how they get their numbers, you would seek some other clearer ranking indexes. The AAU is a solid group of research institutions ... but seems to have some flaws in its acceptance of members. In any event, Louisville is an obvious outlier in this grand discussion of solid academic institutions.

 

[btstimpy]

The USN&WR is a stupid index to keep promoting in University ranking. If you have some knowledge of how they get their numbers, you would seek some other clearer ranking indexes. The AAU is a solid group of research institutions ... but seems to have some flaws in its acceptance of members. In any event, Louisville is an obvious outlier in this grand discussion of solid academic institutions.

It's probably the first index any University uses on a website to promote their academic standing. I didn't create the index. If you don't like it, you can take it up with USN&WR. Others like the Wall Street Journal, Princeton, Forbes, etc. have tried to create other indexes. Everyone still goes back to the USN&WR one.

 

[btstimpy]

As an alum and faculty member, I take issue with your view of Ohio State as a crappy commuter school. You need to spend more time researching universities before you make such pronouncements.
Here is a place to start:
http://www.osu.edu/highpoints/
http://www.osu.edu/visitors/aboutohiostate.php

Yes. and Louisville probably took offense to E Gordon Gee calling them a crappy school too. They publish links about how wonderful their medical school is. You can rank this stuff down to the schools within a University or even down to a major. That gets too complicated. Louisville isn't a world beater academically. There is no argument there. But watching others that aren't world beaters themselves throw stones is a joke.

 

[CL82]

The Basketball Selection Committee bases who it picks for the NCAA tournament based on RPI don't they? I'd bet you don't consider a team with a RPI of 52 to be very good do you? They would be a bubble team. You can list Tulane and Texas as bubble schools. If you go onto the USNWR website, you can't even see schools past 50 on the first page. 50 is as high as it will sort on a page. What do you suggest? The top 100 is elite academically? The Top 100 basketball teams can't even make the NCAA tournament. I see academics no different.

.

 

[UPitt]

This whole acedemic argument is really stupid. I find it hard to believe that anyone will agree that Louisville is on par with Uconn, or anyone else within the ACC or B1G when you compare Universities as a whole. I agree Louisville is not a terrible school (160s out of 1000s of colleges) and is likely above average when compared to all forms of higher education, but Ville is not in the same tier as Uconn, B1G, or ACC. Louisville was chosen for athletics to enter an athletic sports league, and that is what it is. I don't think anyone should consider the decision to be anything but an athletic decision.

Stimpy, I also agree schools become very lumped in the rankings after you get past the ivy and near ivy schools, but I would make that cut off at about 15 - 25 schools. Those very top schools excel at everything and belong to be ranked as highly. I think you can group the schools from 25 to 75 ( or maybe even 100) in the same group, with the higher ranking schools having more departments higher ranked. For this group of schools, individual rankings of departments and graduate rankings are very important. Many students, including myself, choose a University based on rankings of the field of study they plan on entering. Speaking as a Pitt grad, I would take offence to not being compared or lumped with your own UVA. I think the STEM fields at Pitt, especially at the graduate level, can compete with most non-ivy type schools, including UVA.

Stimpy, would you consider the Medical School, Pharmacy School, or Bioengineering School at Pitt to be that inferior to UVA that I should be ashamed of my degree?

University rankings have there place, and if used appropriately they can provide important information to students applying for school. But no one should look at rankings and say that one school is clearly better than the next at all aspects, because ABC rankings says so. Each rankings group uses different criteria to rank Universities. The overall ranking of a school is far less important than the individual ranking of a department or major to an individual student looking to earn a degree and use this degree to apply for jobs. Having said this, to generalize and say that there is a clear cut off line (#50 as described by Stimpy) to define superior vs inferior schools is not a correct assumption. Many students graduating from schools ranked below #50 (including Pitt and Uconn and maybe even Ville) will be better educated and hold a more valuable degree than students from schools ranked above #50.

 

[frankthetank]

No argument. Ohio State is a crapyy commuter school in Columbus, Ohio, and Maryland is a crappy commuter school in DC. Let's set the base.

Ohio State, what you call a "crappy commuter school" and keep intimating that their former president was some type of hypocrite on academics, is ranked #52 in the US News rankings that you deem being in the top 50 as the arbiter of whether a school is academically elite. Come on, now. I understand the football-driven impetus behind adding Louisville for the ACC and actually give credit to Swofford for the underrated move of significantly impairing the Big 12's future paths to expansion (which elevates the ACC by comparison long-term), but it's completely disingenuous to compare their academics to AAU schools like Ohio State and Maryland or flagship schools that have competitive undergrad admissions like UConn. Surely someone that went to an institution like UVA (assuming that you actually attended that school) would understand the difference.

I'm someone that has actually defended the ACC quite a bit over the past couple of years when the rest of the world thought it was going to get split apart. Even as a Big Ten guy, I emphasized many times on my blog that the ACC was stronger than what people gave it credit for (with a lot of my Big Ten readers vehemently disagreeing with me). However, ACC fans need to step back and not mistake the fact that they cheated death as a sign that they actually have strength on par with the Big Ten or SEC. I see way too many ACC fans falling into the same trap today that Big 12 fans fell into a year ago when they deluded themselves into thinking that they could poach the likes of Florida State. Survival does not equal strength. The ACC might be stronger than what fans outside of the ACC believe, but the conference is also significantly weaker (in terms of the factors driving conference realignment) than its fans within it want to believe.

 

[btstimpy]

Back on point, Stimpy - the ACC has zero, with a "Z", academic requirements for entry. Yes or no?

Further, I'm no Terp fan, but comparing UMD to Louisville really strains the limits of credulity. It's not close and doing so diminishes your credibility.
You know damn well that noses were firmly held in the administration offices in Charlottesville, Chapel Hill, Atlanta, Boston, Miami, Winston-Salem, Durham when the vote to add Louisville to the ACC was taken. If you don't admit that, then I've lost you.

Be real, Stimpmeister - the ACC has added school that admits 72% of its applicants and graduates only 50% in 6 years! It is less of an institution of higher learning than it is a crap shoot!

No conference has an academic requirement for entry other than perhaps the Ivy League. The ACC used to have higher academic standards than the NCAA for athletes. It's the reason South Carolina left in the 1970s. They wanted lower standards for football players. Since the 80s, the ACC has been operating at the same standards as the NCAA.

What the ACC has is the highest average rank academically of any major conference using the USN&WR rankings with Louisville included in the ACC's numbers and Maryland and Rutgers in the Big Ten's numbers. Someone ran these numbers on another site I was reading.

- ACC avg. = 54.9, median 47
- B1G avg. = 57.2, median 62
- PAC-12 avg. = 80.8, median 86
- SEC avg. = 96.9, median 97
- Big XII avg. = 112.0, median 101
- AAC avg. = 119.0, median 135.

But the answer to your question is NO. There is no "academic requirement". With that said, the ACC is the best. After seeing this all the Big Ten homers wanted to put the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins into their numbers. Uh. No. They aren't in the Big Ten. They might be in the CIC and playing as an associate lacrosse team, but they aren't in the Big Ten.

 

[SubbaBub]

Sagarin ranks college basketball teams every week. There are over 300 of them, and yes there is movement in these rankings past 50 every week. The teams ranked past 50 in the Sagarin rankings don't get a lot of attention as being quality basketball. The basketball snobs really only care about the top 25. It is not any different with the academic snobs. Most of those only care about the top 25, and they certainly stop looking past 50.

I had a guy on one of the Penn State boards from Purdue bashing Louisville a couple of months ago. Purdue. That's a mediocre school not even ranked in the top 65, and here he was acting like an academic snob. It's a joke. I was at the University of Arizona last year, and they have a big sign on the side of the main building reading USNWR ranks UA one of America's Top Universities. They aren't even in the top 100. Talk about marketing deception. When people from mediocre academic institutions start bashing others over academics, it's a joke.

I'll take a STEM graduate from Purdue over one from UVA every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Another reason the USNews rankings are worth as much as a pre-season coaches poll.

 

[UPitt]

I'll take a STEM graduate from Purdue over one from UVA every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Another reason the USNews rankings are worth as much as a pre-season coaches poll.

As a STEM graduate, I completely agree. In fact, using the highly touted USNews rankings, Purdue graduate engineering trumps every ivy school.

 

[btstimpy]

This whole acedemic argument is really stupid. I find it hard to believe that anyone will agree that Louisville is on par with Uconn, or anyone else within the ACC or B1G when you compare Universities as a whole. I agree Louisville is not a terrible school (160s out of 1000s of colleges) and is likely above average when compared to all forms of higher education, but Ville is not in the same tier as Uconn, B1G, or ACC. Louisville was chosen for athletics to enter an athletic sports league, and that is what it is. I don't think anyone should consider the decision to be anything but an athletic decision.

Stimpy, I also agree schools become very lumped in the rankings after you get past the ivy and near ivy schools, but I would make that cut off at about 15 - 25 schools. Those very top schools excel at everything and belong to be ranked as highly. I think you can group the schools from 25 to 75 ( or maybe even 100) in the same group, with the higher ranking schools having more departments higher ranked. For this group of schools, individual rankings of departments and graduate rankings are very important. Many students, including myself, choose a University based on rankings of the field of study they plan on entering. Speaking as a Pitt grad, I would take offence to not being compared or lumped with your own UVA. I think the STEM fields at Pitt, especially at the graduate level, can compete with most non-ivy type schools, including UVA.

Stimpy, would you consider the Medical School, Pharmacy School, or Bioengineering School at Pitt to be that inferior to UVA that I should be ashamed of my degree?

University rankings have there place, and if used appropriately they can provide important information to students applying for school. But no one should look at rankings and say that one school is clearly better than the next at all aspects, because ABC rankings says so. Each rankings group uses different criteria to rank Universities. The overall ranking of a school is far less important than the individual ranking of a department or major to an individual student looking to earn a degree and use this degree to apply for jobs. Having said this, to generalize and say that there is a clear cut off line (#50 as described by Stimpy) to define superior vs inferior schools is not a correct assumption. Many students graduating from schools ranked below #50 (including Pitt and Uconn and maybe even Ville) will be better educated and hold a more valuable degree than students from schools ranked above #50.

It sounds like you want to put the line at 100. If you do that, then you include just about everyone in the ACC and everyone in the Big Ten other than a couple of outliers (Nebraska, NC State, and Louisville). Yes Louisville is a significant outlier then. But the academic elite in this country is the Ivy League and near Ivy League as you say. That crowd is does not look at schools past 50 as academic marvels. They just don't. The ACC is fortunate to have 2 in that top 20 group and 3 more just outside in the 20s. I go up to 50 to be generous.

Outside of that range harping on academics is pointless. It is an athletic conference. The ACC brought Louisville in to play football, basketball, and the rest of the sports that the ACC sponsors. And yes you can break this academic ranking stuff down to the individual school level and the individual major level within a University if you like. I'm sure Lousville can find some major that they are top 10 in. VCU here is Richmond boasts a top 10 music department. Pitt has a fine medical school. And I haven't seen Pitt fans throwing stones at Louisville either.

When you get into individual majors you're going to find something that every school ranked in the top 200 is good at including Louisville.

 

[uconnfan68]

It's probably the first index any University uses on a website to promote their academic standing. I didn't create the index. If you don't like it, you can take it up with USN&WR. Others like the Wall Street Journal, Princeton, Forbes, etc. have tried to create other indexes. Everyone still goes back to the USN&WR one.

Isn't USN&WR the one you submit your own answers for their questionnaire? No bogus info there...

 

[btstimpy]

As a STEM graduate, I completely agree. In fact, using the highly touted USNews rankings, Purdue graduate engineering trumps every ivy school.

I have my undergraduate engineering degree from UVA and my graduate engineering degree from Georgia Tech, whose ranking trumped Purdue at the time as well as UVA. I found UVA much harder to get through than Georgia Tech. It's relative. Georgia Tech is the more prestigious engineering school. UVA is the more prestigious university, but engineering at UVA is hard. The classes are smaller. Everyone in them is a genious certainly smarter than me. And the grading is on a curve.

If you want to get into that debate about Ivy League level engineering schools, you need to bring MIT into the picture.

 

[btstimpy]

Ohio State, what you call a "crappy commuter school" and keep intimating that their former president was some type of hypocrite on academics, is ranked #52 in the US News rankings that you deem being in the top 50 as the arbiter of whether a school is academically elite. Come on, now. I understand the football-driven impetus behind adding Louisville for the ACC and actually give credit to Swofford for the underrated move of significantly impairing the Big 12's future paths to expansion (which elevates the ACC by comparison long-term), but it's completely disingenuous to compare their academics to AAU schools like Ohio State and Maryland or flagship schools that have competitive undergrad admissions like UConn. Surely someone that went to an institution like UVA (assuming that you actually attended that school) would understand the difference.

I'm someone that has actually defended the ACC quite a bit over the past couple of years when the rest of the world thought it was going to get split apart. Even as a Big Ten guy, I emphasized many times on my blog that the ACC was stronger than what people gave it credit for (with a lot of my Big Ten readers vehemently disagreeing with me). However, ACC fans need to step back and not mistake the fact that they cheated death as a sign that they actually have strength on par with the Big Ten or SEC. I see way too many ACC fans falling into the same trap today that Big 12 fans fell into a year ago when they deluded themselves into thinking that they could poach the likes of Florida State. Survival does not equal strength. The ACC might be stronger than what fans outside of the ACC believe, but the conference is also significantly weaker (in terms of the factors driving conference realignment) than its fans within it want to believe.

The ACC is stronger right now than it has ever been in its history. It has never had as much money as the Big Ten. The schools are not as large. The states not as industrial. And the football tradition not as rich. There is nothing new with this. However, there are demographic trends taking place within the United States that favor the ACC continuing to improve and strengthen.

I got into a debate on another board with a Big Ten person who indicated that Big Ten schools intend to address this by filling up their enrollment with Chinese students. As an American, I don't really like that idea. But that's what they are planning to do apparently and already doing it in some areas. I have no idea what that will do in the athletic arena. I'm not familiar with what sports the Chinese like other than gymnastics.

I saw where you thought that the ACC picking up Pittsburgh and Louisville were counter moves regarding the Big XII. I agree in the case of Pittsburgh. I'm not sure I do in the case of Louisville. Other factors came into play in the case of Louisville. It perhaps worked out that way unintended. The Big XII had all the opportunity in the world to add Louisville. Tom Jurich camped out in DeLoss Dodd's office and couldn't get an invite. Louisville was on a list of several schools that the ACC had analyzed for expansion but did not offer becausee of no room. There are others like UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida, etc. With the sudden departure of Maryland, the ACC was able to act relatively quickly without having to do much analysis. Louisville was added within a week. I don't think there was much discussion about the Big XII at that point. The debate was largely between football and basketball and athletics.