<p>UCLA ranked amongst the nation's most successful universities at the 2004 Olympic Games, ranking No. 1 among all universities in number of different medalists (19) and number of Olympians (56). If UCLA were a country, it would have placed 14th overall in the medal count. </p>
<p>Overall, UCLA has won 214 medals - 106 gold, 54 silver and 54 bronze. The Bruins have had at least one competitor in every Olympics since 1920 with one exception (1924), and UCLA has won a gold medal in every Olympics since 1932</p>
<p>In terms of the absolute best at both athletics and academics, how can anyone deny Stanford?</p>
<p>I saw a funny clip on the CalTech basketball team. I guess losing by less than a blowout is an accomplishment. They're all so very.... CalTechish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If UCLA were a country, it would have placed 14th overall in the medal count.
[/quote]
In the 2004 Athens games, Cal had 34 athletes and won 15 medals (a success rate of 44% vs. UCLA's 34%). Cal would have placed 18th overall in the medal count...not bad for UCLA's nerdier, older brother...;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Laxattack,
I think the idea was that this was to be a blend of academics and athletics. Duke definitely belongs on both counts. We all know it’s a great school, but it was also 11th in last year’s Directors Cup final standings (USC was 5th and Boston College was 58th). </p>
<p>And for publics, U North Carolina was 3rd overall (# 2 public after UCLA) while U Texas was 8th (unless you meant U Tennessee which was 7th).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Directors Cup is a joke ranking. I know I'll ruffle some feathers when I say this but how many of us follow the mens/womens golf team? How many of us are on the edge of our seats waiting for the results of the field hockey team to come back? You have to add some weight to schools and I'd say the "big 4" (Football, Baseball, Hockey, Basketball) is the best way to go. These are the sports that people attend...which is why UT (Top notch football/basketball/baseball) would be far above the rest. USC has great football, mediocre basketball, mediocre baseball while a school like BC has all 4 sports, including a hockey championship, bigtime college football/basketball programs (don't know about baseball). </p>
<p>Duke doesn't belong because it has a basketball team. We wouldn't consider Cal-state long beach a good athletic school just because they have a top baseball program. I'm not saying they'd have to be good at other sports, but to be able to pack a stadium and compete in other sports, besides basketball, has to mean something. I don't consider Duke a great combo because of basketball just like I don't consider Rice a good combo because of baseball. </p>
<p>UNC is only a bit better as they have a good baseball team, but even then they aren't on the same level as UT, UCLA, UM</p>
<p>
[quote]
at least we show up and win our bowl games... a lot more than UCLA has done over the past 5 years...
<p>Michigan has hockey and football...your baseball team isn't top notch. You haven't been to the CWS in god knows how long.</p>
<p>Your basketball team is not something to write home about either, whereas TX has the two biggest sports (football and basketball) competing for titles year in and year out.</p>
<ul>
<li>I wish it weren't the case, but I wanna see Cal win a Rose Bowl - bad. Academic standards take a backseat...in the meantime, football season ticket revenue has increased tremendously.*</li>
</ul>
<p>I scoffed at all the people who had Duke going deep in the Tourney since they haven't had a legitimate inside game in several years (which is why Duke has been bounced early in the past few yrs).</p>
<p>Btw, I also scoffed at all the "experts" who thought ND FB was a legit national title contender 2 yrs ago even tho the Domers returned a D that was sieve-like.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry, ignore my last post. I misread something and thought you were talking about Duke carrying the mantle as far as academics amongst college basketball teams.</p>
<p>Who cares! Duke and Stanford can just accept more 2400 scorers to compensate for their athletes.</p>
<p>By the way, Duke is cruising towards a lacrosse championship this year. I would consider lax a bigger sport than baseball at the collegiate level.</p>
<p>How about the kids that worked their butt off to get good grades, hoping to get into their dream school, just to find out that an athelete with much worse stats got a full ride.</p>
<p>I live in Texas, and the only 3 kids from my class to get into Rice were all football players who had poor grades, class ranks and standardized test scores. One of my best friends got rejected from Rice with like a 102 average, class rank of 12/580 and 1430 SATs. There's no way any of the 3 kids had stats even close to my friend.</p>
<p>Also, there were a few other football players that got offers to good schools, such as Stanford and Vanderbilt, that had absolutely no shot at getting in had they not been atheletes. One kid got an offer to go to Stanford despite the fact that he got like a 14?? out of 2400 on the SATs. Another kid, who wound up actually going to Vandy got a 20 on the ACTs.</p>