Athletic Life in College: The Football “Scene”

College Search & Selection
41

<p>barrons,
For your statement that U Wisconsin admissions "have moved up to where U Michigan was just a few years ago," can you elaborate? </p>

<p>The acceptance rate at U Michigan in the USNWR data was 47% (although I understand it swelled to 50% for this most recent year) vs 58% at U Wisconsin. Perhaps you are talking about in-state admissions as I have seen some estimates of 65%+ acceptance rate for Michigan residents to U Michigan. Not sure what it is at U Wisconsin. Is that what you meant? </p>

<p>Also, U Michigan has stronger numbers for Top 10% students and standardized test scores. Furthermore, given that these are state schools with mandated requirements for in-state students and that the state of Michigan has a population almost twice that of Wisconsin (11mm vs 6mm) and thus greater choice and selectivity among state residents, it seems that the demographics favor Michigan. On top of that, U Wisconsin has over 30,000 undergraduate students while U Michigan has only 25,500.</p>

42

<p>As for U-M, research suggests that prospective students care most about the academics here, but it also shows that the reason some people choose U-M over schools that are equally (or even more) prestigious is that they want the "whole package" which presumably includes all the rah-rah football stuff. If the football program totally tanked, I could see that hurting Michigan's yield, and maybe even its application volume. But it has a pretty good "dynastic" reputation and I think many people would regard a bad year as just that, a bad year. I don't think prospective students would seriously question whether they could still enjoy football season during their tenure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, given that these are state schools with mandated requirements for in-state students

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here's a fun bit of trivia! At the moment, we do not have mandated requirements for in-state students. Several years back we had a stated requirement that we had to keep nonresident enrollment limited, but that's been out of the boilerplate for some time. Of course, nothing is stopping the legislature from putting it back in, so it's not like U-M is free to do whatever it wants in terms of residency mix.</p>

<p>In fact, the MI House of Representatives has just cooked up a new policy whereupon all MI public U's "have to" accept anyone who graduates from a MI public high school in the top 10% of their high school class. However, that provision is unlikely to stay in the bill. We'll see--it could be interesting.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Michigan is 0-4 since Bo Schembechler died! Now that would be one heck of a curse

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The curse of the "Bo-bino" lives on for one more week. It will be fun to see how the Wolverines play the Domers this Saturday. At least Carr's boys won't be facing the spread offense.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Northwestern probably had the most Fun! Excitement! Drama! as the Wildcats came back to beat U Nevada on a last second touchdown. If only the students could have been in session to enjoy it…

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Cardiac ‘Cats are back!!</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Ivy League has more stringent rules than NCAA. For example, Ivy League football teams cannot offer athletic scholarships, even though they play in NCAA Division I. I'll bet that the Ivy League restricts preseason football practice relative to other Division I schools, which means a later start to the season.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Ivy League is hardly the only Div-I conf that doesn’t allow FB schollies. For example, the Patriot League and Pioneer FB League also don’t allow schollies for FB.</p>

<p>And the Ivies later start to the season has nothing to do with summer camp practices, but rather has to do with the fact that the Ivies have a 10 game schedule as opposed to a 12 game schedule.</p>

45

<p>corbett,
In addition to k&s's comments above, I want to add that there is an inconsistency between Ivy football waiting til 9/15 to start play and other Ivy sports which are well into their seasons, eg, Cornell men's and women's soccer teams have each already played 4 games.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
Cornell men's and women's soccer teams have each already played 4 games.

[/quote]
The Cornell men's soccer team reported for preseason training on August</a> 23, and played their first game just 8 days later, on August 31. </p>

<p>That's fine. But all sports are not alike in terms of preseason practice requirements -- in particular, you need a lot more than 8 days of practice for football. If the Ivies wanted to start playing football at the beginning of September, they would have to start the preseason weeks earlier, as other Division I schools do. For example, Alabama started practice on August</a> 3, for their first game on September 1. </p>

<p>But the Ivies don't want to commit their student-athletes to that kind of schedule. For example, Yale (an Ivy co-champion last year) didn't start preseason practice until August</a> 21. That's roughly the same date that the Cornell soccer team started their preseason. But since football requires a much longer preseason, the first football games won't be played until well after the soccer season has started.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And the Ivies later start to the season has nothing to do with summer camp practices, but rather has to do with the fact that the Ivies have a 10 game schedule as opposed to a 12 game schedule.

[/quote]
But this doesn't answer the question: why are the Ivies restricted to only a 10-game schedule ? This must be the shortest schedule in Division I -- even the Patriot and Pioneer FB Leagues have 11 games. And let's add another question -- why do the Ivies ban their football teams from the Division I-AA playoffs, even if they qualify ? </p>

<p>The answer to both questions is that Ivy League college presidents feel that the football season is already long enough. They want to avoid further committing their student-athletes, in both the preseason and the postseason. So relative to other Division I teams, the Ivies start preseason practice later in the summer, begin the season later, play fewer games, and stay home during the playoffs.</p>

<p>This is one way to limit the pressures of college athletics. Lower-division leagues may have even tighter policies. Division III NESCAC, for example, has only an 8-game football season, which begins later and ends earlier than the Ivy season, with no nonconference or playoff games allowed.</p>

47

<p>corbett,
Thanks for your reply on the start of Ivy football. I'm not fully convinced that they couldn't start playing games earlier (eg, many high schools begin their practices about the same time and yet play games 1-2 weeks earlier), but it's not a big deal either way and it's not wrong or right to me. My point all along in this thread is the "scene" around the football games and how it differs in the college experience that undergraduates will have at some top schools. </p>

<p>I think you make a good point about the 10-game Ivy schedule as I agree that the college season for some schools is already too long. For the major conferences with a playoff, there could be 12 regular season games, a playoff and then a bowl game. I would agree with you that that is too long. (But I am sure that some smart aleck will comment that this is almost never going to be the case for Stanford/Duke/Northwestern/Vanderbilt as they never go to the championship game anyway nor to a bowl game. :p )</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
For the major conferences with a playoff, there could be 12 regular season games, a playoff and then a bowl game.

[/quote]
Actually, there could be more than that. That's only 14 games. The Ivies play in the FCS (formerly Division 1-AA), where there can be as many as 15 games: 11 regular season games, plus 4 postseason playoff games.</p>

<p>For example, the 2006 UMass football team began practices on 08/09, then played a total of 15 weekly games, with only one week off, between 09/02 and 12/15. </p>

<p>The 2007 Yale team, on the other hand, didn't start practicing until 08/21, and will play their 10th and final game on 11/17.</p>

49

<p>What I meant was about 4 years ago UM had an average ACT of 28 and about 60% in the top 10% and an accept rate around 60% overall--where UW was last year. I don't put much stock in Top 10% numbers as only half or so even report that anymore and they seem given to wide variation and interpretations. But the UM average uw Gpa number for the Fall 2004 class was 3.72 and the ACT was 28 with an accept rate around 60%. UW's numbers for last Fall (2006) were 58% accepted, 28 avg ACT, 3.67 gpa avg. uw. Also the total UG enrollment is only 28,500 with an FTE of 26,653. UW has lots more part-timers than UM.</p>

50

<p>barrons,
Interesting comparisons, but I am not sure where a couple of your numbers are coming from, eg, enrollment. Using the most recently released Common Data Sets, here is what I found:</p>

<p>Undergraduate Enrollment
U Wisconsin: 27,437 full-time +2618 part-time = 30,055 total
U Michigan: 24,631 full-time + 924 part-time = 25,555 total</p>

<p>ACT Scores (25/75 Range)
U Wisconsin: 26-30
U Michigan: 27-31</p>

<p>% of students scoring at 30 or better on the ACT
U Wisconsin: 26%
U Michigan: 38%</p>

<p>% of students scoring at 24 or better on the ACT
U Wisconsin: 91%
U Michigan: 94%</p>

<p>% of students with HS GPA of 3.0 or higher (only number U Michigan provides)
U Wisconsin: 95%
U Michigan: 98%</p>

<p>Average HS GPA
U Wisconsin: 3.67
U Michigan: 3.75</p>

<p>Acceptance Rate
U Wisconsin: 58%
U Michigan: 47%</p>

<p>Top 10% Students
U Wisconsin: 58%
U Michigan: 90%</p>

<p>Going by the numbers, U Michigan has the edge in all categories, but the two schools are very close save for the big difference in number of Top 10% students. Given that the other numbers are so close, why do you suppose U Michigan has so much higher a percentage of Top 10% students? Is this a function of the larger population in Michigan or something else?</p>

51

<p>The only precaution with comparing GPA across institutions is that U-M recalculates it. </p>

<p>As for why U-M has so many Top 10% students, it may be because the place has a heavy emphasis on grades and curriculum. They look at transcripts really closely.</p>

52

<p>I was using a much more detailed source with the exact numbers. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.bpa.wisc.edu/datadigest/DataDigest2006-2007.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bpa.wisc.edu/datadigest/DataDigest2006-2007.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Also counting specials and part-timers the same as full-timers really is faulty analysis. Madison is a large city and many people take advantage of the extended day classes to take a course. This overstates the actual number of full-time students. That's why I also noted the FTE (full time equivalent) number which is more comparable across schools with different profiles.</p>

<p>UW also recalcs the gpa similar to how UM does it.</p>

<p>"Academic grade point average (GPA). We recalculate GPAs based on unweighted academic courses only."</p>

<p>Finally my basic point was that UW today is about where UM was a few years ago in the numbers. I know UW is still a bit behind today. The population advantage alone gives UM a big edge for better average instate students.</p>

53

<p>Ah, that's helpful. I think U-M periodically discusses scrapping the recalculation because it's so time-consuming. </p>

<p>Not that I care to split hairs with you over Michigan vs. Wisconsin "quality" or "prestige." I agree with you that there is not a huge gap between the two places. One thing that may also help U-W Madison is that you don't have an MSU to compete with. You've got branch campuses that are appealing for their own reasons, just as MI has 15 publics across the state, but unless I'm mistaken none of the other publics in Wisconsin are quite like MSU is in Michigan. That makes Wisconsin even better poised to get the cream (ha! a pun!) of the students in the state.</p>

54

<p>Yesterday the football “scenes” at various colleges undoubtedly spawned many fun parties at the tailgates, in the stands and on the campuses and numerous raucous celebrations (not to mention some audible sighs of relief) from the folks at Duke, Stanford, and U Michigan. It was also Opening Weekend in the Ivy League and finally, one can make some direct comparisons of the football “scenes” at the various Top 30 colleges. </p>

<p>Here is the full recap of the results and the fan attendance: </p>

<p>The Football Scene </p>

<p>College , Opponent , W/L Score , Attendance</p>

<p>MAJOR DIV 1 (Public)<br>
UC Berkeley , Louisiana Tech , W , 42-12 , 58,057
U Virginia , @ U North Carolina , W , 22-20 , 58,000
UCLA , @ Utah , L , 6-44 , 43,056
U Michigan , Notre Dame , W , 38-0 , 111,178
U North Carolina , U Virginia , L , 20-22 , 58,000</p>

<p>MAJOR DIV 1 (Private)<br>
Stanford , San Jose State , W , 37-0 , 36,144
Duke , @ Northwestern , W , 20-14 , 23,716
Northwestern , Duke , L , 14-20 , 23,716
Vanderbilt , Ole Miss , W , 31-17 , 34,180
Notre Dame , @ U Michigan , L , 0-38 , 111,178
USC , @ U Nebraska W 49-31 84,959
Wake Forest , Army , W , 21-10 , 32,142
Rice , Texas Tech , L , 24-59 ,<br>
Georgetown (Div I-AA) , Yale , L , 14-28 , 2674</p>

<p>IVIES (All Div I-AA)<br>
Princeton , Lehigh , L , 21-32 , 8640
Harvard , @ Holy Cross , L , 28-31 , 10,942
Yale , @ Georgetown , W , 28-14 , 2674
U Penn , Lafayette , L , 7-8 , 12,162
Columbia , @ Fordham , L , 10-27 , 3721
Dartmouth , Colgate , L , 28-31 , 5115
Cornell , Bucknell , W , 38-14 , 10,118
Brown , Duquesne , W , 28-17 , 3135</p>

<p>DIVISION III<br>
MIT , Framingham , L , 10-17 , 350
U Chicago , Elmhurst , L , 13-36 , 1885
Wash U , Wheaton College , L , 14-55 , 828
Johns Hopkins , Gettysburg , L , 10-41 , 600
Carnegie Mellon , @ Hobart , L , 26-27 , 900
Tufts , did not play </p>

<p>NO TEAM<br>
Caltech<br>
Emory</p>

55

<p>111,178 went to see Michigan play Notre Dame. Amazing.</p>

56

<p>Hawkette: DIII LACs...Didn't they play?
Also, remember that one would naturally expect far larger numbers to show up at schools with larger enrollments. Sorry...I still don't get the point to this listing, other than attempting to provide insight into something that is fairly well known...The larger the school, the greater the turnout at major sporting events.<br>
Is this thread trying to make another point that is perhaps less obvious? Or are you simply listing the W/L results as a service to CC readers? If so, very nice.</p>

57

<p>danas,
U Michigan's numbers are definitely impressive and that must be an incredibly fun place to be when the Wolverines are winning! (Would love to hear from anyone who was there who can provide some inside color on what the scene was like) Nice to see them get back on the right track although it was painful to see how far Notre Dame has fallen. Will they even win a game this year? Football Saturdays in South Bend could come to resemble a morgue this fall if they don't turn things around quickly.</p>

<p>gabriellah,
Thanks for your questions and the opportunity to explain again the purpose of this thread. </p>

<p>As high schoolers go about their college search process, many are interested to learn about the life that they will encounter outside of the classroom. Part of that is the athletic scene, which is dominated by football in the fall and basketball in the winter (hockey in a few locales). This thread was created to illuminate the differences among top colleges in the athletic and football “scene” that students can expect as part of their social life at a college. </p>

<p>While all of the USNWR Top 30 national universities can offer a superior undergraduate academic experience, they differ sharply in the social and athletic experiences that they offer. The thread has focused solely on the national universities because of these differences which are much less sharp when comparing the various LACs. But if you or someone else would like to add a LAC component, then please go ahead if you think it would add value. More information is better and I would add that for anyone who wants to post about schools not in the groupings that I provide, eg, U Wisconsin, Boston College, etc. </p>

<p>With regard to your comment about school size, I think you make a valid point and thus I’d like to introduce a ratio that takes school size into account. This ratio measurement, which divides the size of the home attendance by the undergraduate enrollment of the college should be a good indicator of the local and student interest in the games and the relative strength of the football “scene” at many colleges. </p>

<p>As applied to the biggest football powers, this ratio may underestimate their strength because their stadiums are only so big. I have no doubt that places like U Michigan, Notre Dame, USC and now Cal could attract even more fans if their stadiums were larger. There is also good local support for lesser powers like Stanford and Vanderbilt and maybe Wake Forest (as well as U Virginia, UCLA, and U North Carolina) and they also have capacity issues for some of their games. But this ratio should provide an useful comparison of the football “scenes” at the various types of colleges that make up the USNWR Top 30 (Division I scholarship public and private, Division I-AA, and Division III). As the numbers below clearly reveal, the differences are not small. </p>

<p>Ratio of Average Attendance at Home Games/Undergraduate Enrollment, Average Attendance at 2007 Home Games, College</p>

<p>9.67 , 80,795 Notre Dame
7.46 , 32,313 Wake Forest
5.84 , 37,502 Stanford
5.55 , 35,389 Vanderbilt
5.43 , 90,917 USC
4.31 , 110,043 U Michigan
3.99 , 58,554 U Virginia
3.89 , 11,859 Rice
3.40 , 58,250 U North Carolina
2.87 , 72,986 UCLA
2.74 , 65,287 UC Berkeley
2.73, 17,251 Duke
2.35 , 19,189 Northwestern
1.82 , 8,640 Princeton
1.25 , 5,115 Dartmouth
1.25 , 12,162 U Penn
0.75 , 10,118 Cornell
0.52 , 3,135 Brown
0.42 , 2,353 Carnegie Mellon
0.39 , 1,885 U Chicago
0.35 , 2,403 Georgetown
0.22 , 1,638 Wash U
0.19 , 850 Johns Hopkins
0.08 , 350 MIT
No home game yet , 0 Harvard
No home game yet , 0 Yale
No home game yet , 0 Columbia
No home game yet , 0 Tufts
No Team , 0 Caltech
No Team , 0 Emory</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
0.19 , 850 Johns Hopkins

[/quote]
At most schools, the athletic scene revolves around football. At other schools, it revolves around basketball. At a few, it may revolve around hockey.</p>

<p>But Johns Hopkins may be the only school were the athletic scene revolves around lacrosse. Football is a minor Division III sport; lacrosse is played at the Division I national championship level. The official JHU Homecoming weekend is in the spring, and centers on a lacrosse game (for 2008, Homecoming is on April 12, for a game against Maryland). </p>

<p>For JHU, it's completely pointless to use the "football scene" as a measure of school spirit; you would need to look at the "lacrosse scene" instead. The relevant stat would be based on lacrosse game attendance. </p>

<p>As an extreme example, JHU's final lacrosse game in Baltimore last year (for the national championship) drew 52,000 fans -- nearly 12 times the undergraduate enrollment of 4,400. I doubt that there were many games last year, in any other sport or at any other school, that can match that ratio.</p>

59

<p>Holy Cross beat Harvard in the last seconds in front of 11,000 which is more than 4 times the HC enrollment of 2700. The Harvard-HC series dates back to 1904. Holy Cross has good football tradition including a trip to the Orange Bowl in the 40's and usually gets good attendance for home games.</p>

60

<p>Corbett,
I think you make a good point that the athletic scene can be sport specific at a college. However, I think you way overstated the student and local attendance for Johns Hopkins mens lacrosse as the 52,000 attendance figure that you reference was for a NCAA Tournament Finals game and the tickets for that were not team specific. The year before, the attendance at the NCAA semi-final and final was also over 50,000 each day in Philadelphia and none of the participating colleges were from Pennsylvania. </p>

<p>The home attendance for the Hopkins mens lacrosse team last spring was a lot smaller:
Albany-1860 fans
Hofstra-1503 fans
Virginia-4784 fans
Duke-4802 fans
Navy-6856 fans
Loyola-3742 fans</p>

<p>Even their opening game of the NCAA tournament, which was played as a home game vs Notre Dame, drew only 2548 fans. </p>

<p>Taking an average of all of these games, you get 3728 fans which produces a ratio of 0.83. </p>

<p>For a single home athletic event last year, the biggest draw relative to student body size probably involved Rice. Their home football game vs U Texas drew 40,069, producing a ratio over 13 times the college’s undergraduate enrollment. In baseball, Rice also drew nearly 9 times their enrollment to a February game in Houston vs Vanderbilt. The U Texas football numbers are an anomaly as Rice more commonly gets around 10,000 fans and, for baseball, attendance ranges from 2500 to 5000 although it did shoot up to capacity crowds when they participated in the College Baseball World Series.</p>