best sport/academic combos?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>you are right, but you have to consider that those kids also worked their butt off in the summers, after school practices in their athletic specialty, those are mostly division I schools, so you need to be really good to get in to play. </p>

<p>and their athletic ability makes the school athletically competitive, which makes student life more interesting.</p>

62

<p>The thing is, I don't really care if a school like UT, Ohio St. or Florida accepts atheletes who might not have gotten in otherwise, but when very selective schools accept sub-par student-atheletes, that's when I have a beef with the system. I guess I just feel bad for the kids that dream of going to schools in the likes of Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Duke, Northwestern, etc... and they get rejected, but yet kids who don't put nearly the same effort into school and aren't nearly as passionate in wanting to attend X College get a full ride.</p>

<p>In the end, it's just wishful thinking on my part for wanting a system in which very selective schools in major sporting conferences don't sacrifice academic standards to try to maintain some level of atheletic competition. Let's face it, most atheletes aren't the brightest crayons in the box.</p>

63

<p>^just noticed that I misspelled athletes like 5 times</p>

64

<p>^just noticed that I misspelled athletes like 5 times</p>

65

<p>crs, scholarships granted to those athletes are funded by the Athletics programs they play for. They aren't taking anything away from more deserving students. In terms of actual space, those super-athletes only make up 2% or less than the entire student body at most top universities. In all likelyhood, those students that you know that were turned down by Rice and other excellent universities wqould probably still have been turned down because those less-academically inclined athletes aren't competing with the same applicant pool to start with.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
I'd say that "honor" (by a slim margin) goes to ND FB.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At least ND football goes to BCS bowls. Just because they underperformed last year doesn't mean they do so on a regular basis. They made fiesta 2 years ago. Also, ND has the hardest schedule (arguably) in college football most years. Cal on the other hand is always touted as a challenger to USC of which, suprisingly, they never challenge.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
The thing is, I don't really care if a school like UT, Ohio St. or Florida accepts atheletes who might not have gotten in otherwise, but when very selective schools accept sub-par student-atheletes, that's when I have a beef with the system. I guess I just feel bad for the kids that dream of going to schools in the likes of Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Duke, Northwestern, etc... and they get rejected, but yet kids who don't put nearly the same effort into school and aren't nearly as passionate in wanting to attend X College get a full ride.</p>

<p>In the end, it's just wishful thinking on my part for wanting a system in which very selective schools in major sporting conferences don't sacrifice academic standards to try to maintain some level of atheletic competition. Let's face it, most atheletes aren't the brightest crayons in the box.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Athletes bring more than just their subpar (as you would say) scores, they bring millions of dollars which help to fund academic and other interests for the school. Until nerds who score 2400 on their SAT's can bring in millions of dollars year in and year out those "dumb" athletes seem pretty good to me. I'd say it's much easier to get a 2400 on the SAT as opposed to getting into a top 5 football program.</p>

68

<p>"Also, ND has the hardest schedule (arguably) in college football most years. "</p>

<p>According to a Jeff Sagarin of the USA Today, Notre Dame's SOS was 18 this year, 24 the year before that (using his formula). The BCS had Notre Dame's SOS from 2 years ago at 33. Their BCS SOS was 4 in 1999, but didn't crack the top 15 in 2000,2001,or 2002. Their schedule really isn't that impressive.</p>

<p>Also, Notre Dame is generally not nearly impressive as where they're ranked. They get into bowl games they don't deserve to be in because they're an independent team, which is why they haven't won a bowl game since 1994. If they were in the Big Ten, they'd probably finish around 3rd (well...not anymore) and go to a more deserving bowl game that they might have a shot at winning.</p>

69

<p>This isn't even a contest -- It is Stanford by a country mile.</p>

<p>You've got to cross reference two heirarchical lists:</p>

<p>The Directors Cup for ath-a-letics
The US News World Report ranking of undergraduate universities.</p>

<p>Let's just do Top 10</p>

<p>USNWR: USNews.com:</a> America's Best Colleges 2008: National Universities: Top Schools</p>

<p>top 10 plus selected other top 30:
Princeton
Harvard
Yale
4. Stanford
Penn
Caltech
MIT
8. Duke
Columbia
Univ. of Chicago
14. Northwestern
19. Notre Dame
21. Cal Berkeley
25. UCLA
25. Michigan
27. USC
28. North Carolina</p>

<p>Top 10 Directors Cup (2007 final standings): National</a> Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics</p>

<p>Stanford
UCLA
North Carolina
Michigan
USC
Florida
Tennessee
Texas
Cal Berkeley
Arizona State
Duke
Georgia
Virginia
Ohio St.
Florida St.
Wisconsin
22. Notre Dame</p>

<p>Simply combining the ordinals from the two lists yields the following combined leaders:</p>

<p>Stanford: 4 + 1 = 5
Duke: 8 + 11 = 19
UCLA: 25 + 2 = 27
Michigan: 25 + 4 = 29
Cal Berkeley: 21 + 9 = 30
North Carolina: 28 + 3 = 31
USC: 27 + 5 = 32
Virginia: 23 + 13 = 36
Notre Dame: 19 + 22 = 41
Northwestern: 14 + 30 = 44
Texas: 44 + 8 = 52</p>

<p>So, as you can see, for combined athletics and academic prowess, Stanford stands alone, followed not too closely by Duke.</p>

<p>P.S. I have ESPNU on and UCLA just won Championship #102 with the women's tennis team. They won Championship #101 about ten days ago with the women's water polo team.</p>

70

<p>

You would say that...my guess is because Notre Dame beat your boo hooo baby blue Bruins last year.</p>

71

<p>I swear. I've never seen anyone who plays defense for Notre Dame capable of running sub 4.6. They have the slowest players I've seen in my life. </p>

<p>I'll give you that Notre Dame schedules tough teams every year. The problem is, they lose to those same tough teams every year. So they go 8/9-3/4 and everyone get's hyped to watch them get run in a bowl game. And they do it all over again.</p>

72

<p>Not only has Notre Dame not won a Bowl Game since 1994, but they well beaten soundly (by at least 2 TDs) in 7 of those 9 Bowls they played in since 1994.</p>

73

<p>For those who think that the measurement of athletic program strength should be measured by performance of the two biggest college sports (football is clearcut # 1 and then men's basketball), then U Texas, UCLA, USC, U Wisconsin, and U Florida are your top five.</p>

<p>Here is the complete list for the 38 Division I colleges that are also ranked in the USNWR Top 50 national universities. </p>

<p>2007 Football NCAA RPI (242 teams ranked) , 2008 Basketball NCAA RPI (341 teams ranked) , Total Combined RPI , College</p>

<p>12 , 6 , 18 , U Texas
33 , 5 , 38 , UCLA
4 , 36 , 40 , USC
36 , 11 , 47 , U Wisconsin
10 , 57 , 67 , U Florida
54 , 15 , 69 , Vanderbilt
69 , 1 , 70 , U North Carolina
70 , 14 , 84 , Stanford
109 , 7 , 116 , Duke
90 , 27 , 117 , Notre Dame
29 , 93 , 122 , UC Berkeley
28 , 101 , 129 , Wake Forest
59 , 70 , 129 , Georgia Tech
30 , 102 , 132 , U Illinois UC
23 , 128 , 151 , Boston College
41 , 125 , 166 , U Virginia
26 , 155 , 181 , Penn State
21 , 169 , 190 , U Michigan
55 , 137 , 192 , U Washington
232 , 8 , 240 , Georgetown
190 , 68 , 258 , Cornell
180 , 106 , 286 , Brown
140 , 159 , 299 , W & M
141 , 160 , 301 , Tulane
121 , 183 , 304 , Yale
86 , 221 , 307 , Northwestern
171 , 243 , 414 , Lehigh
219 , 220 , 439 , Columbia
132 , 307 , 439 , Harvard
185 , 260 , 445 , U Penn
152 , 302 , 454 , Rice
195 , 298 , 493 , Dartmouth
193 , 331 , 524 , Princeton</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Athletes bring more than just their subpar (as you would say) scores, they bring millions of dollars which help to fund academic and other interests for the school. Until nerds who score 2400 on their SAT's can bring in millions of dollars year in and year out those "dumb" athletes seem pretty good to me. I'd say it's much easier to get a 2400 on the SAT as opposed to getting into a top 5 football program

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but the problem is, using that same logic, it's perfectly fine for schools to accept dumb and lazy students who just happen to come from rich families under the presumption that they (or more accurately, their parents) will also bring in millions of dollars in donations. Hence, you'd basically be rewarding people just for winning the 'genetic lottery'.</p>

75

<p>^ Hawkette, by your measure, in 2006, Florida would have had the "lowest" score possible, 2...;)</p>

76

<p>sakky, life isn't fair.</p>

77

<p>ucb,
U Florida had an unreal 2006 winning the double national championships in football and men's basketball. Lots of fun for the Gators! However, this past year was definitely a downer. Football underperformed and the SEC was just incredibly tough (I think U Florida was something like 4th-5th) and men's basketball did not make the NCAA tournament. Still, the major sports scene at U Florida has few peers, even in a down year. </p>

<p>BTW, it's not my measure, but I think that this is how a lot of folks look at it. I would personally include 3-5 sports, eg, at least one women's sport (women's basketball) and baseball and maybe one regional sport of choice for each college, eg, hockey, lacrosse, tennis, etc.</p>

78

<p>Well, for my money, I think the presence of good teams outside of the top revenue-producers DOES matter. All a sports fan needs to do is get off his or her butt and start attending them. </p>

<p>A lot of the non-revenue sports here at Michigan (and I am sure we are not at all unusual in this) have a cadre of near-rabid supporters. They go to all the meets or matches, design their own t-shirts, the whole shebang. No, it's not the same as screaming your lungs out in the Big House with 100,000 of your closest friends, or bringing the roof down in Yost, but these are meaningful sports experiences and they're available to anyone on campus who wants it. Strong winning teams make them that much more fun</p>

79

<p>^ Just think, Ohio State could have been at the top of the heap in 2006... Was Ohio State second that year with a rating of 4? Or did the Buckeyes fall further from grace at the hands of the Gators?</p>

80

<p>hoedown,
How would you measure the athletic strength of a college? </p>

<p>My thought was some kind of middle ground between the 20-sport measurement of the Directors Cup and the 2-sport measurement of football & men's basketball. I also think that some consideration should be given to the strength of fan support, both absolutely and relative to the size of the student body. With this, one could see both the accomplishment level, the breadth of success and the campus interest/impact. </p>

<p>I personally think that the "scene" can be almost as important as the wins and losses for a sport like football as the games are big events on many campuses, have a hugely positive impact on the social life of the college and are a great excuse for a whopping good time for students and alumni.</p>