<p>Yeah, I'd think something like that would work, although--as has been discussed to death in other threads--I think hockey deserves a spot with basketball and football. At some schools, hockey fandom is substantial. But I don't want to start that up again--I know there are differing opinions on this.</p>
<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>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right there, you've just encapsulated the other objection I had with your logic. You said it yourself - some (in fact, most) of the sports don't exactly generate a lot of profits, and in fact are almost certainly loss generators, after you've factored in the costs of the sports (i.e. the scholarships, the facilities, etc.) So then according to your logic, maybe schools should drop field hockey and golf or any other sport that doesn't actually generate profits, right? Or at least not offer athletic scholarships in those sports (i.e. be like the Ivy League). But you don't see schools doing that. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. Stanford offers 12 field hockey scholarship 'equivalencies' that can be parcelled out as partials among the team. That's about half-a-million dollars in total scholarship value alone (tuition, room, board) every year. Add in the costs of coaches, facilities, game travel, equipment, and whatnot, and we're probably looking at $750k a year just for the field hockey team. I highly highly doubt that the team is bringing in anything even close to that amount in ticket sales or any other sort of revenue. In fact, tickets may actually be free (although I admit I don't know, as I've never actually been to a field hockey game.} But the point is, it's very hard for me to see how the field hockey team actually generates significant profit, and certainly not millions. So does that mean that the field hockey program should be dropped? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Baseball and hockey? Really? </p>
<p>I think the issue is not whether people attend but, like you said, how much profit they generate. For example, Cal's had a relatively decent baseball team. Yet Cal baseball games are almost exclusively attended by Cal students, and those student tickets are free. The number of paying customers is miniscule. </p>
<p>Let's face it. The real revenue streams for college sports does not come from attendance. It comes from TV broadcasting rights fees, or possible conference revenue-sharing, which is itself a function of TV rights fees. But college baseball and hockey aren't exactly big TV draws and certainly don't have the huge rights fees that football and basketball do. Hence, I would very strongly suspect that most college baseball and hockey teams are also money losers, or at least, aren't exactly big money makers.</p>
<p>I think many of us and obviously most schools see value in having athletic programs. It is true that most athletic programs lose money but that's precisely why you need to work hard to have solid basketball and football programs. The revenue those programs bring in can then be used to mitigate the costs of running a women's basketball or a men's golf program.</p>
<p>Wisconsin generally puts about 13,000 - 15,000 people in the stands for every home hockey game. It has also sold out every football game (79,000 +) and every basketball game (17,000 +) for years.</p>
<p>Wisconsin's national prowess in football, basketball, hockey and many other sports (e.g. track and field, rowing, cross country, and by the way, last week the Wisconsin team won the national collegiate open title in Ultimate frisbee, too, beating top ranked Florida in the final), combined with its fantastic academic standing, puts it squarely in the mix for best combination of athletics and academics.</p>
<p>As both Sports Illustrated and ESPN have noted, Madison, Wisconsin is the nation's BEST college sports town!</p>
<p>I think those scoffing at Duke's men's basketball aren't appreciating what they accomplished last year.</p>
<p>They beat U North Carolina, champion of the ACC. They beat U Wisconsin, champion of the Big Ten. They beat Davidson, champion of the Southern conference. They beat Belmont, champion of the Atlantic Sun conference. They beat New Mexico State, co-champion of the WAC. They beat Cornell, champion of the Ivy conference. </p>
<p>The problem for Duke is that the bar has been raised so high. If they don't go deep in the NCAA tournament, then they're derided as overrated. I think that the record says otherwise.</p>
<p>And let's not forget that Duke does this while playing in perhaps the most compelling athletic arena in the USA. Attending a game at Cameron is exciting, intimate, passionate, intense, wildly fun, and usually successful and all on a scale that other colleges can only dream of. </p>
<p>As for their football program and scene, well, that's a whole different story….</p>
<p>MilwDad,
I think that the athletic program at U Wisconsin is very underappreciated. For the sports of football, basketball, and hockey, U Wisconsin is the clear winner among the big 3 athletic powers of the Midwest.</p>
<p>Football RPI, Basketball RPI, Hockey RPI, Total, College</p>
<p>36, 11, 13 U Wisconsin</p>
<p>90, 27, 11 Notre Dame</p>
<p>21, 169, 2 U Michigan</p>
<p>I think most people agree that Duke was a very overrated #2 seed last year. Cornell, New Mexico State, and Belmont as your marquee wins? Come on. I actually gave Duke the benefit of the doubt in my bracket and had them winning 3 games (which a lot of people didn't). Shame on me.</p>
<p>Heck, during the regular season, Duke only lost to U Pittsburgh (by 1) in NYC, at Wake Forest, at U Miami (by 1) and U North Carolina (at home). Basketball RPI was 7th, so they were close to being a # 3 seed. Either way, still a pretty darn good year that most other colleges would love to have.</p>
<p>Hockey, football and basketball at Wisconsin all make a profit as does the entire athletic department. They gave about $2,000,000 to the academic side last year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Either way, still a pretty darn good year that most other colleges would love to have.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's like saying most schools would love to have an average SAT score of 2000. But, if Harvard enrolls a student body with an average SAT score of 2000, it'd be a down year for them.</p>
<p>Duke's team last year was not good by Duke's standards. The team was small, not athletic, and relied heavily on their shooting. Like the other shooter-heavy teams in the tourney (Cornell, Drake, etc.), Duke faired terribly. Just the fact that Cornell hung with Duke for 3/4's of their game tells you know small and unathletic the Duke team was. Cornell was essentially a poor man's Duke.</p>
<p>Cornell was no where near the level of Duke this year by any measure. I think the problem with our basketball team this year was that we peaked too early and we ran out of gas by the end of the season. I'm not making excuses but we were a young team this year with a lot of underclassmen and only ONE senior. We will fare much, much better next year with the added experience and the fact that we have a quasi-post presence now(Miles Plumlee).</p>
<p>**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>
<p>Athletes work just as hard as other students, although maybe not in the classroom. Do you have a similar bias against musicians and artists? Do you consider them to be not the brightest crayon, either? Are the 'brightest' crayons just the academic high achievers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL!!!</p>
<p>PLEASE - ND goes to BCS bowls b/c of the ND (favorable) bias.</p>
<p>In those BCS bowls, ND has gotten DESTROYED - and when was the last time ND has won a bowl game?</p>
<p>Yeah, playing the service academies and Duke and Stanford makes for a real difficult schedule.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem for Duke is that the bar has been raised so high. If they don't go deep in the NCAA tournament, then they're derided as overrated. I think that the record says otherwise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry - but as other have pointed out, Duke was slow and had no legitimate frontcourt threat.</p>
<p>When Duke's shooting goes cold (unlike in the regular season, it's difficult to not have an "off" nite, esp. w/ the ramped up D-play), the BD's were pretty much toast.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who cares! Duke and Stanford can just accept more 2400 scorers to compensate for their athletes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford, unlike Duke, has pretty tough requirements for its FB and BB recruits (followed by NU).</p>
<p>The fact that Duke's BB team had an average SAT score in the mid-900s during the 1990's (HALF of the ACC schools had a higher avg.) is pretty embarrassing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right there, you've just encapsulated the other objection I had with your logic. You said it yourself - some (in fact, most) of the sports don't exactly generate a lot of profits, and in fact are almost certainly loss generators, after you've factored in the costs of the sports (i.e. the scholarships, the facilities, etc.) So then according to your logic, maybe schools should drop field hockey and golf or any other sport that doesn't actually generate profits, right? Or at least not offer athletic scholarships in those sports (i.e. be like the Ivy League). But you don't see schools doing that. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. Stanford offers 12 field hockey scholarship 'equivalencies' that can be parcelled out as partials among the team. That's about half-a-million dollars in total scholarship value alone (tuition, room, board) every year. Add in the costs of coaches, facilities, game travel, equipment, and whatnot, and we're probably looking at $750k a year just for the field hockey team. I highly highly doubt that the team is bringing in anything even close to that amount in ticket sales or any other sort of revenue. In fact, tickets may actually be free (although I admit I don't know, as I've never actually been to a field hockey game.} But the point is, it's very hard for me to see how the field hockey team actually generates significant profit, and certainly not millions. So does that mean that the field hockey program should be dropped?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you even know how athletic recruiting or sports marketing works? Joe Schmo with a 900 on his SAT isn't going to get into a school because he can play golf. He could get in if he's going to play basketball though. The rules are bent more for bigger sports. Also, I love how you say Cal baseball isn't a great revenue generator because they only have students come to their games. Surely you've taken into account merchandise, TV contracts, advertisements at the stadium, concessions into your account right? Oh wait, you didn't. Nice job. </p>
<p>In regards to ND football. Sure, they might have a SOS around 20, but only because they have 2 mini schedules. They play the academies every year which usually don't pose much of a threat (Don't give me the navy BS, it was 1 year). They also tend to play Michigan, Penn St, USC, and a slew of other heavy hitters. Not to mention they play many of these games on the road...something that the vaunted (and overrated) SEC is unwilling to do. </p>
<p>In regards to Stanford. It's not the best academic/athletic combo. Nobody cares about the 20 championships you have put up from your field hockey, golf, and volleyball teams. Football, Basketball, Baseball in California. Add in hockey in the midwest/NE. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In those BCS bowls, ND has gotten DESTROYED - and when was the last time ND has won a bowl game?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Name other teams that have been in BCS bowls on a consistent basis?? Bias my ass. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think those scoffing at Duke's men's basketball aren't appreciating what they accomplished last year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They were knocked out in the second round...that's what they accomplished. Nobody is saying Duke isn't a basketball powerhouse, just that they've underperformed the last couple of years. I'd still go to a Duke game over any other school...then again just having basketball doesn't make you a great combo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In regards to ND football. Sure, they might have a SOS around 20, but only because they have 2 mini schedules. They play the academies every year which usually don't pose much of a threat (Don't give me the navy BS, it was 1 year). They also tend to play Michigan, Penn St, USC, and a slew of other heavy hitters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, "heavy-hitters" like San Diego St., Navy, UNC, MSU, Stanford, UDub, Pitt and 'Cuse are on their schedule this year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Name other teams that have been in BCS bowls on a consistent basis?? Bias my ass.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you serious? LOL!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, "heavy-hitters" like San Diego St., Navy, UNC, MSU, Stanford, UDub, Pitt and 'Cuse are on their schedule this year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you watch football? MSU-ND is as good as a rivalry game. They also play BC, Michigan, USC. They play a conference that is as good as any in the SEC and, unlike the SEC, they aren't afraid to play good teams outside of their region (in particular, the cold). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you serious? LOL!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ya, lets name them. OSU, LSU, USC, FSU, Florida, Miami, Michigan</p>
<p>I'm sure all those teams suffer from a bias as well?</p>
<p>"MSU-ND is as good as a rivalry game."</p>
<p>Yeah, how often do you get to see one team you hate underachieve horribly underachieve and another team you hate have one of the biggest chokejobs ever in the same game? Freakin' awesome.</p>
<p>LaxAttack, Notre Dame does not make it to that many BCS bowls. In its 11-year History (the BCS started in 1997), Notre Dame made it to 3 BCS Bowl games. That's good to be sure, but not spectacular. Fourteen (14) other programs made it to 2 or more BCS Bowl games too, and all but one of those fourteen programs have managed a better record. </p>
<p>And whenever Notre Dame did make it to a BCS Bowl game, they were embarassed. It was never close. In two of the three occasions, they lost by 4 or more TDs. </p>
<p>2006 Sugar, LSU 41, Notre Dame 14
2005 Fiesta, Ohio State 34, Notre Dame 20
2000 Fiesta, Oregon State 41, Notre Dame 9 </p>
<p>Here are thirteen schools with better BCS Records than Notre Dame:</p>
<p>Florida State University (2-5)
1997 Sugar Bowl, FSU 31, Ohio State 14
1998 Fiesta Bowl, FSU 16, Tennessee 23
1999 Sugar Bowl, FSU 46, Virginia Tech 29
2000 Orange Bowl, FSU 2, Oklahoma 13
2002 Sugar Bowl, FSU 13, Georgia 26
2003 Orange Bowl, FSU 14, Miami 16
2005 Orange Bowl, FSU 23, Penn State 26</p>
<p>Louisiana State University (4-0)
2001 Sugar Bowl, LSU 47, Illinois 34
2003 Sugar Bowl, LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
2006 Sugar Bowl, LSU 41, Notre Dame 14
2007 BCS Championship Game, LSU 38, Ohio State 24</p>
<p>Ohio State University (4-3)
1997 Sugar Bowl, Ohio State 14, FSU 31
1998 Sugar Bowl, Ohio State 24, Texas A&M 14
2002 Fiesta Bowl, Ohio State 31, Miami 24
2003 Fiesta Bowl, Ohio State 35, Kansas State 28
2005 Fiesta Bowl, Ohio State 34, Notre Dame 20
2006 BCS Championship Game, Ohio State 14, Florida 41
2007 BCS Championship Game, Ohio State 24, LSU 38</p>
<p>University of Florida (3-1)
1998 Orange Bowl, Florida 31, Syracuse 10
2000 Sugar Bowl, Florida 20, Miami 37
2001 Orange Bowl, Florida 56, Maryland 23
2006 BCS Championship Game, Florida 41, Ohio State 14</p>
<p>University of Georgia (2-1)
2002 Sugar Bowl, Georgia 26, FSU 13
2005 Sugar Bowl, Georgia 35, West Virginia 38
2007 Sugar Bowl, Georgia 41, Hawaii 10</p>
<p>University of Miami (3-1)
2000 Sugar Bowl, Miami 37, Florida 20
2001 Rose Bowl, Miami 37, Nebraska 14
2002 Fiesta Bowl, Miami 24, Ohio State 31
2003 Orange Bowl, Miami 16, Florida State 14</p>
<p>University of Michigan (2-3)
1997 Rose Bowl, Michigan 21, Washington State 16
1999 Orange Bowl, Michigan 35, Alabama 34
2003 Rose Bowl, Michigan 14, USC 28
2004 Rose Bowl, Michigan 37, Texas 38
2006 Rose Bowl, Michigan 18, USC 32</p>
<p>University of Nebraska (2-1)
1997 Orange Bowl, Nebraska 42, Tennessee 17
1999 Fiesta Bowl, Nebraska 31, Tennessee 21
2001 Rose Bowl, Nebraska 14, Miami 37</p>
<p>University of Oklahoma (2-4)
2000 Orange Bowl, Oklahoma 13, Florida State 2
2002 Rose Bowl, Oklahoma 34, Washington State 14
2003 Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma 14, LSU 21
2004 Orange Bowl, Oklahoma 19, USC 55
2005 Fiesta Bowl, Oklahoma 42, Boise State 43
2006 Fiesta Bowl, Oklahoma 28, West Virginia 48</p>
<p>University of Southern California (5-1)
2002 Orange Bowl, USC 38, Iowa 17
2003 Rose Bowl, USC 28, Michigan 14
2004 Orange Bowl, USC 55, Oklahoma 19
2005 Rose Bowl, USC 38, Texas 41
2006 Rose Bowl, USC 32, Michigan 18
2007 Rose Bowl, USC 49, Illinois 17</p>
<p>University of Tennessee (1-2)
1997 Orange Bowl, Tennessee 17, Nebraska 42
1998 Fiesta Bowl, Tennessee 23, Florida State 16
1999 Fiesta Bowl, Tennessee 21, Nebraska 31</p>
<p>University of Texas (2-0)
2004 Rose Bowl, Texas 38, Michigan 37
2005 Rose Bowl, Texas 41, USC 38</p>
<p>West Virginia (2-0)
2005 Sugar Bowl, West Virginia 38, Georgia 35
2007 Fiesta Bowl, West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28</p>
<p>Virginia Tech has also gone 0-3 in BCS Bowls and I may be missing some others who have matched or bested Notre Dame's BCS record. In short, Notre Dame's BCS accomplishments are far from unique or special.</p>
<p>A true college football playoff system is being held hostage by the Rose Parade.</p>
<p>^ Gee, I sound like an SEC or Big XII partisan...not a Pac-10 guy when I said that... :p</p>
<p>No, you just sound like a Cal supporter. When was the last time Cal made it to the Rose Bowl? hehe!</p>