2009 Academic Rankings of the Conferences

by anh_sc79 on Aug 27, 2009 12:42 PM PDT Comment 21 comments

Note: Of course I had to write this at the same time as the big announcement reg QBs was made

We always like to have fun with numbers here on CC. Last year, we ranked FBS conferences in terms of average academic rankings (and no, unlike our friends at Berkeley or Stanford, we don't bring up the number of Nobel prize winners or rankings when we get clownstomped [which we never do] by a 3rd rate academic school in SEC or MWC :) )

Ok, back to fun. US News & World Report just came out with its 2010 Rankings. And as expected, there is little movement. The only scary things... SEC is moving up. Imagine what happens to voter, schedule, and image manupulation if SEC becomes #1. So here is the standing, and rankings by conference is after the jump

	2009	2008	2007
ACC	48.7	48.3	50.0
Big Ten	50.2	50.1	51.4
Pac Ten	72.8	72.3	73.3
SEC	103.3	101.6	105.0
Big 12	104.2	99.4	97.7
Big East	114.3	112.1	111.0
Mountain West	132.5	143.0	142.7
C-USA	162.2	154.1	160.1
MAC	177.3	174.1	174.4
WAC	181.3	199.6	192.4
Sun Belt	231.5	228.0	228.0

Here are the rankings (basically very similar), based on scoring by academic councelors (5 best, 1 worst ). Thank God, SEC didn't make a move yet here...

ACC	4.18
Big Ten	4.16
Pac Ten	4.06
Big 12	3.88
SEC	3.78
Big East	3.71
Mountain West	3.66
C-USA	3.59
MAC	3.41
WAC	3.34
Sun Belt	3.17

ACC
Atlantic
Boston College	34
Clemson	61
Florida State	102
Maryland	53
North Carolina State	88
Wake Forest	28

Coastal
Duke	10
Georgia Tech	35
Miami FL	50
North Carolina	28
Virginia	24
Virginia Tech	71
AVERAGE	48.7

ACC: Solid across the board. FSU is pushing the average up

Big Ten
Illinois	39
Indiana	71
Iowa	71
Michigan	27
Michigan State	71
Minnesota	61
Northwestern	12
Ohio State	53
Penn State	47
Purdue	61
Wisconsin	39




AVERAGE	50.2

Big Ten: Solidly bunched together. No bottom outliers.

Pac Ten
Arizona	102
Arizona State	121
California	21
Oregon	115
Oregon State	167
Southern California	26
Stanford	4
UCLA	24
Washington	42
Washington State	106





AVERAGE	72.8

Pac-10: Top and bottom heavy.

SEC
East
Florida	47
Georgia	58
Kentucky	128
South Carolina	110
Tennessee	106
Vanderbilt	17

West
Alabama	96
Arkansas	128
Auburn	88
Louisiana State	128
Mississippi	167
Mississippi State	167
AVERAGE	103.3

SEC: ESSEESEE! ESSEESEE!! ESSEEESSEE!!! Too many bottom feeders. No great schools besides Vandy (that's why Vandy never wins the SEC)

Big 12
North
Colorado	77
Iowa State	88
Kansas	96
Kansas State	167
Missouri	102
Nebraska	96

South
Baylor	80
Oklahoma	102
Oklahoma State	167
Texas	47
Texas A&M	61
Texas Tech	167

AVERAGE	104.2

Big-12: If they could put Rice instead of Baylor, they'd be #4

Big East
Cincinnati	167
Connecticut	66
Louisville	167
Pittsburgh	56
Rutgers	66
South Florida	167
Syracuse	58
West Virginia	167







AVERAGE	114.3

Big East: Another reason why BE is practically no different than MWC in football. Academics suck compare to other BCS conferences.

Others: Probably not very relevant.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Barkley just named starting QB!

by PHAT JULIO on Aug 27, 2009 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yeap just head it too!

on the main page!

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Aug 27, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you also hear?

Ucla is also on the Sierra Club’s “Green School” list? (and they talk about medicinal pot outlets cropping up around LA like kudzu? Wastewood is the place to get stoned, I guess)

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 27, 2009 1:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My only problem with this otherwise interesting little set of rankings, is that the USNWR Top College rankings are kind of garbage. They have criteria which are only very loosely and tangentially related to academic prowess, and as such tend to be questionable.

A much more robust raking system is that employed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which actually focuses on the academic achievements by faculty & students (such as number of pubications by faculty, frequency of citations of those works, etc). Applying these results may change the overall comparison between conferences.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by SoCal Oski on Aug 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Typical spin by Cal and UCLA fans

Who are disgruntled about supposedly low rankings.

Now let me get few points across why we do this on CC:

1) We track average ranking of undergrad programs because it affects football to some extent:

a) High rankings have some positive effect on recruiting

- Affects recruit decision to attend certain school because of post-NFL or no-NFL career outcomes
- High ranking brings national recognition and more glamour

b) On the other hand it has negative impacts

- Smaller pool of recruits (see NW, Stanford, Rice, Duke etc and their performance on the field)
- Some marginal recruits are concerned about staying eligibile (see Vontaze Burfict)
- Lower rated schools are able to admit marginal students (ASU last year, USF brought in few non-qualifiers, Southern Miss’s top receiver won’t probably get in to any SEC school)

c) More difficult the school is (applies to Cal, UCLA), more difficult it is to keep players eligibie. It is easier to remain eligible at FIU than Cal

2) Because undergrad rankings matter, we only track undergrad rankings

3) The rankings you mentioned (SJTU ranking) are pretty much irrelevant for undergrad education which we track here on CC. How many Nobel prize winners teach undergrad classes? And just because a professor is a Nobel prize winner and great research, doesn’t mean he is a great teacher.

In fact, going through few years of PhD program, my most difficult TA assignments were with “top” researchers who were extremely lousy at lecturing. I literally ended up teaching one class

ndergrad education has little to do with academic research and number of citations. What % of undergrad students end up going to grad schools and become PhD? Do you think DeSean Jackson or Reggie Bush care about the number of citations certain professor has? They care about understanding the class and passing it with a good grade if possible

5) Undergrad education sets foundation for life for most of the students. Very small % ends up going to research or other form of academia. For most of undergrads, college is about (lets forget about girls and partying for a moment) is about getting a job, building a network and setting a foundation stone for the rest of your life.

6) USNWR tracks exactly stuff like that – how certain college prepares you for future life. There is a great correlation between starting salary and rankings for example (among other things).

I am always amuzed by “USNR rankings sucks” crowd, especially ones at UCB and UCLA. Probably 90% of those whiners have nothing to do with academia. It’s actually hilarious that the biggest “academic card” player at BN barely got in to a second rate law school from supposedly best public school in US.

by anh_sc79 on Aug 27, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hostile much?

Your aggressive rant says more about you than me, I believe.

I am not disgruntled at all regarding USNWR rankings. However, anyone who believes that the criteria they employ are an accurate measure of “academics” either has a severe misunderstanding, or generous definition or academics.

Further, the effect these “rankings” have on recruiting is questionable at best. Prime athletes are far more interested in the athletic rank than the academic one – you as much as make that argument yourself. If not, how would supposedly “academically lower ranked” schools such as Florida or Alabama manage to recruit such desired players?

Lastly, your amusement at the USNWR Sucks crowd, and the overall tone of your flaming response, sounds a bit like one of those pre-rehearsed replies from someone who has had to endure criticism about their choice of school. Way too pat and apparently pre-loaded.

Seriously, relax.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by SoCal Oski on Aug 27, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not true at all SoCal Oski

We’re friends right? Okay, so let me state that although anh_sc79 hardly posts here, he is prolly the smartest tack here in our crowd. Don’t get all huffy just because he has excellent command of the English language, trust me with this one. He is as shy as he is intelligent so, the likelihood that he’s pre-hearsed this is so far off the mark it would be akin to me telling you that you are a fairweather Cal Bears’ fan. (i don’t know if that plays out well, but hopefully you get the gist).

Trust me SoCal, you wanna fight- you’ll get one with anh_sc79. But watch out bro, like I said keep “having command” and “English” in your sights ‘cause he’ll cut you up one!

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 27, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

:) you are exagerrating the "English" part

My writing usually reads “funky” because I am not a native speaker.

by anh_sc79 on Aug 27, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lets take it easy everyone...

Solid response by ANH…I know him personally, he is not a bomb thrower.

A lot of this directed towards BN not Cal but there are some on the Cal side that do like to rub peoples noses in it.

I think we can all agree that the P-10 is still one solid conference in both academics and athletics…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Aug 27, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not about you, it's about the same crap that I see on ucla / cal blogs & forums

So don’t take it personal. It’s actually your responce that fits into classic “pre-rehearsed” replies that I hear from Michigan, UCLA, and Cal fans and alums (who work in my firm) explaining their lower rankings compared to Ivies and some other private schools like NW, Emory, Chicago etc.

No one yet to criticize me for any choice of school. If you actually knew anything about me, my background, the schools I went to, and what I do know (like few posters that post here), you wouldn’t be saying that.

As for other comments such as effect of ranking on recruiting, I never claimed that it is sole or very important factor. However, it does play a role in recruiting. That’s how guys like Andrew Luck or Trent Edwards end up at Stanford despite its miserable on the field record.

by anh_sc79 on Aug 27, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trent Edwards might have played in the pros if he went to school with an offensive line!

Paul D. Kelley

BN is a myopic site

by so.cal.native1952 on Aug 27, 2009 3:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Isn't he an NFL starter?

He is with the Bills.

by anh_sc79 on Aug 28, 2009 5:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

shush with the "facts" :-)

by impaulv on Aug 28, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok so I screwed up I really don't follow pro ball that much, but he did get beat up a lot at Sitford

Paul D. Kelley

BN is a myopic site

by so.cal.native1952 on Aug 28, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Back on earth...

… this is nonsense:

Big East: Another reason why BE is practically no different than MWC in football. Academics suck compare to other BCS conferences.

Reality: Pitt, SU, UConn, and Rutgers are as good academically as most BCS schools, and by your numbers the Big East is much closer to the SEC and Big 12 than the Mountain West despite being weighed down academically by three commuter schools (Louisville, Cinci, and USF) and one school that’s the only major state school for a small, rural state and therefore can’t be as academically selective as it might want to be (WVU).

MWC
BYU 71
Utah 126
TCU 110
Air Force (not in the national university category)
Colorado State 128
San Diego State 167
Wyoming 167
UNLV 239
New Mexico 167

So let’s make this pretty clear. Only one MWC is even close to being an academic peer of SU, Pitt, UConn, and Rutgers (BYU). Colorado State, Utah, and TCU are in the bottom slots of Tier 2. SDSU, Wyoming, and New Mexico — like USF, Louisville, Cinci, and USF (and a few schools in the Big 12 and SEC) are tier 3. UNLV is tier 4. And Air Force is not a national university at all.

Yes, the MWC is far and away the best non-BCS conference. No, they’re not in the Big East’s league, or even close.

by drothgery on Aug 28, 2009 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Air Force is top-25 quality education at least, if not top-10

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/94/colleges-09_United-States-Air-Force-Academy_94419.html

USNWR doesn’t rank service academies in its national ranking, but if it was ranked, it would be close to top-25. So there goes your argument that MWC doesn’t have a member that ranks close to any school in BE. In fact, BE doesn’t have any schools that rank close to #1 school in MWC.

by anh_sc79 on Aug 29, 2009 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup!

by impaulv on Aug 30, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We have universal agreement on this. So then, which school deserves the title of “Greatest Public University in America?” Clue: it’s not located in California.

by Locoweed 1.1 on Aug 31, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing about the air forse acadamy if you get thur there and combat you really will not have to work for peanuts, unless your somebody like MR

Paul D. Kelley

BN is a myopic site

by so.cal.native1952 on Aug 30, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Data

One thing I’d be interested to see is how the results would change if we used each school’s total score within the ranking, rather than the ranking itself. Presumably, the scores that resulting in the rankings were not as evenly distributed as the rankings themselves, i.e.

School / Score / Rank
School A – 75 – 12
School B – 74 – 13
School C – 69 – 14

Basically, the improvement in quality between A and B is not the same as between B and C, even though just looking at the rankings might imply that. I have no idea what affect (if any — it might be minimal) this would have on the scores you worked up, but I’d be interested to see those results as well.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Aug 28, 2009 2:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs