College sports and top academic US universities

Parents Forum
222

You are correct about the pre-reads. My son sent the coach his transcript through mid-Junior year.

223

What’s misleading about this past Fall? Same bunch of colleges are typically at or near the top. I didn’t choose 2020-2021 because seasons were cancelled.

I’d argue that we’re now in a different era with the pandemic/endemic and 2019-2020 is now the anomaly. :wink:

224

It’s not that simple.

Largest Endowment per Student

Largest Overall Endowments

225
226

“NESCAC recruits tend to “commit” to the admissions process for via the early decision (round 1) (ED 1) process starting in the summer and right up until a few days before the deadlines for applications. A smaller number of NESCAC recruits are admitted through the early decision (round 2) (ED 2) process, which has slightly later deadlines. Generally speaking, applications for NESCAC recruits will have been informally pre-cleared through the admissions process so admission is close to guaranteed for those applicants who have committed to a particular school, with the support of the coach. This process is called a “pre-read” and, by agreement among the NESCAC schools, cannot begin until July 1 of the year in which the athlete plans to apply to a NESCAC school. The pre-read is the process by which NESCAC coaches determine how to dole out their “slots” through the “tipping” system to incoming hockey players (and other athletes).”

227

I agree with your point. However, there is an important caveat. Most recruited athletes (in the non-revenue sports) experience their college rejections in junior/senior year NOT because they don’t meet the academic standards (for recruited athletes) at the school, it’s because the college coach isn’t sufficiently interested in their ATHLETIC performance and potential because he/she has already found better players.

1 Like
228

Because there are SOOO few good looking people who attended Ivies, right?

Well, except for Brooke Shields (Princeton), John Legend (UPenn), Casey Affleck (Columbia), Angela Basset (Yale), Elizabeth Banks (Harvard), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Columbia), John Krasinski (Brown), Emma Watson (Brown), Natalie Portman (Harvard), Anderson Cooper (Yale), David Duchovny Princeton), Edward Norton (Yale), Wentworth Miller (Princeton), Tommy Lee Jones (Harvard), and dozens more movie and TV stars, models and athletes.

Let’s look at a few from some other “selective Schools”:

Blaire Underwood (CMU), Cynthia Nixon (Barnard), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Northwestern), Leslie Odum Jr. (CMU), Zack Braff (Northwestern), Lilly Collins (USC), Cole Sprouse (NYU), Chris Pine (Berkeley), Meghan Markle (Northwestern), Bradley Cooper (Georgetown), etc, etc, etc.

But they need to recruit high school athletes for their “good looks”, right?

229

Japanese universities have been studying the NCAA for the past several years to determine if athletic competition beyond club participation would benefit their campuses.

Japan’s top athletes have always been developed separately from elite sports, so attempting to combine competitive athletics with scholarly pursuits is a new strategy based largely on what the Ivy League and other top universities have done.

Some positives mentioned are: improved branding, increased camaraderie amongst students, reduction of academic stress on campuses, and a means to reach a yet untapped source of students at a time when the population for higher education is projected to decrease.

School logos, mascots, colors, hats, and sweatshirts have not played any part in Japan’s university culture, and visitors studying the US believe athletic rivalries and competitions promote universities internationally as well as nationally.

Aside from publicity, I suspect Japan might be looking for ways to combat the intense academic stress and student isolation that studies have identified as detrimental to mental health.

So far, the plan has been to customize such a league based on the NCAA but altered to suit Japan’s aims. I believe the government is to directly authorize and administer it.

Athletes on campus not only provide vitality, entertainment, bonding opportunities, and diversity to intense academic environments, but the nature of teams and intercollegiate competition reinforce identity and loyalty.

I mentioned in a previous thread that if other extracurricular could likewise compete on an intercollegiate basis, they might become greater priorities too.

2 Likes
230

Was this the article you were referring to?

2 Likes
231

Only a small minority of Div I sports complete their season in the fall Larger numbers of sports complete their season in both the winter and the spring than the fall. I believe the only the following 5 sports are considered for Director’s Cup in the fall – cross country, women’s field hockey, football, soccer, and women’s volleyball. If you only look at these few sports, it can present a misleading image. For example, a college that only ranks well in women’s field hockey and no other sports might appear to be a top sports college in fall Director’s Cup standings, but would not be ranked well if you look at the full year.

This past fall we were seeing the new (at the time) Omicron variant of COVID appear. Some colleges switched to remote. A few colleges closed. Some sporting events and practices were cancelled. Financing, recruiting, ticket sales, travel, and many other aspects of college athletics continue to be influenced by COVID. This is not the new normal. This is unique year for which COVID is still having a noteworthy impact on athletics.

232

I completely disagree. The Fall “could” present a misleading image, but it doesn’t here IMO. Five of 20 sports is a representaive sample for the Director’s Cup, and a complete 100% sample isn’t required. The results are pretty much alike anyway, the same colleges are represented at the top, such as Michigan, Stanford, Florida, Texas, USC, UCLA, etc.

Generally speaking, in order to do well in the Director’s Cup final overall rankings, requires an athletic department to do very well across as many of the 20 sports as possible and not just one season’s worth of sports.

Completely disagree again. The Omicron spike came in December/January. A few colleges closed? Like Alabama, Georgia, Michigan and Cincinnati, just to pick 4 examples. Did these closures affect the Director’s Cup rankings? Of course not.

As an example, I attended the Michigan-Indiana football game with about 108,000 other spectators in attendance. The overwhelming majority of Fall sports took place and had spectators. Financing, recruiting, ticket sales, travel, etc. didn’t change enough to make a difference in the Director’s Cup rankings. And any changes that MAY have taken place will continue in the future with any new Covid variants.

Yes, it is the new normal. None of what you mentioned was affected to any large extent. I watched the women’s V-ball Final Four in Columbus, OH, on TV, and the arena was sold out.

I watched the women’s College Cup (soccer) in person in Santa Clara. IIRC, there were about 2,000 people there with me.

The B1G Championship played in Indianapolis was sold out. The Orange and Cotton Bowls were at capacity as was the National D1 Football Championship between Georgia and Alabama.

As far as I’m concerned, the Fall season went off without much of a hitch. But the Director’s Cup conversation is a TANGENT and I’m not going to go down that “rabbit hole.”

233

Yes, that was one of them. There was another behind a pay wall too.

I imagine as more countries compete for international university students, brand recognition is going to become increasingly important.

Even those that have established reputations are tweaking them. University of Durham, for example, changed its name to Durham University with some fanfare a few years back. It decided that a monicker in keeping with Oxford and Cambridge Universities would be advantageous. DU is one of the sportier universities and it offers American lacrosse and football (American style
not soccer) players generous scholarships. Such participation is not bound by the NCAA’s four year rule, so Americans often study for graduate taught degrees while there.

I realize this thread is concerned with US universities, but understanding why athletics are becoming important elsewhere may highlight the intrinsic values that made them popular here in the first place
and why they persist.

1 Like
234

A partial list of the top ranked schools in the two lists is below. You think these are “pretty much alike.”? There are huge differences
 both due to looking at only fall and looking at pre-COVID vs post-COVID. In contrast, if you look at full year from one year to another year, the results usually do look very similar. For example Stanford was always ranked first for 25+ years in Div I, with many of the same names appearing in the top few below Stanford from one year to the next such as Florida, USC, and UCLA. And Williams was ranked first for 20 out of previous 21 years in Div III (Middlebury won in 2011-12, breaking Wiliams’ streak), with many of the same names appearing in the top few below Williams.

Full year pre-COVID:

  1. Stanford
  2. Michigan
  3. Florida
  4. Texas
  5. USC
  6. UCLA
  7. Florida State
  8. Virginia

Fall 2021 (not full year)

  1. BYU
  2. Notre Dame
  3. Michigan
  4. Wisconsin
  5. Penn State
  6. North Carolina
  7. Washington
  8. Arkansas

The national championships for fall Div I NCAA sports are generally held in December/January (exceptions are cross country and field hockey). You don’t think a spike in COVID during the national championships might influence anything about the Director’s Cup rankings?

That’s nice, but that’s not a good representation of all sports post COVID. Many colleges have different policies about spectators. For example, Stanford limits spectator attendance at indoor events to only the athlete’s immediate families. Some revenue generating sports games were cancelled this past season.

Perhaps more influential is the financial uncertainty. In the 2020-2021 season, many college’s athletics revenue was a small fraction of the preceding year. For example, Nebraska’s ticket sales dropped from >$30M in 2019-20, to <$1M in 2020-21. Utah dropped from $15M to ~$0. The change in revenue for 2020-21 and uncertainty in the current 2021-22 revenue caused some colleges to make large changes to their athletics financing during the 2021-22 season, particularly for the non-revenue sports, which primarily determine Director’s Cup ranking (rather than revenue sports).

Some colleges have dropped or proposed dropping some of their non-revenue generating sports altogether following the financial change with COVID. Continuing with the Stanford example, Stanford said it was going to drop 11 non-revenue sports , although they later reversed that decision. However, some other colleges have continued with dropping sports and have not yet reversed decisions. For example, I believe Brown has only reinstated has 5 of the 11 non-revenue sports they said they were going to drop from Div I to club.

1 Like
235

Proves nothing. Why only pick the Top 8? Why not extend the sample further? Do you know that there weren’t any anomalies in the 2019-2020 (pre-Covid) rankings? With the relaxing of the transfer portal rules and the new NIL rules, do you know that these changes, in the Top 8, would not have taken place regardless of Covid?

Did the Omicron spike change the outcome of any Fall championships? Clemson beat Washington in the Men’s College Cup, both schools have had very good men’s soccer teams over the years. Strong programs both. The Florida State women have always had a great soccer program, at least as long as I’ve been watching. They beat BYU in PK’s. BYU has always had a very good women’s program. Anyway, do we know if these results would be any different with or without Covid?

And that affected which Stanford sports and how? The talent was still there playing indoors, at least for the one sport that was held indoors this past Fall, women’s v-ball. The team was 19-11 and made the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament. Did Covid affect the results? Could Stanford women’s v-ball gone further in the NCAA tournament w/o Covid? Dunno.

Not buying any of it. How did any of this affect the Fall of 2021? How did revenue and “uncertainlty” affect any sports in the Fall of 2021?

Using your example of Utah, Utah was #79 in the Director’s Cup rankings pre-pandemic (2018-2019), but is #34 for this Fall. That revenue drop in 2020-2021 doesn’t appear to have affected them.

So far, they’re doing much better. Utah won the Pac-12 football title this past fall. The Utah football program has improved for sure though.

Yes they did change their minds. And how did that affect the Fall 2021 Director’s Cup rankings? It didn’t.

And Brown is still ranked at #118 in 2018-2019, pre-Covid and for the Fall of 2021. No disrespect to Brown, but when did Brown become the shining jewel or example of D1 college sports? They’ve always had a less-than-stellar reputation for sports.

Again, we’re off topic and I’ve gone down the “rabbit hole” with you. I’m moving on.

236

The full ranking list includes hundreds of colleges . It’s is not practical to list all hundreds in a post, so instead I only listed a portion. Links to both lists have been posted and you are welcome to compare all hundreds in those links if you like, and you will see that there are very large differences no matter how many you extend the top # to. They are most certainly not “pretty much alike.”

If you compare any 2 sequential years prior to COVID and use the full year, there are always much smaller changes than occurred in your list for only the few fall sports during COVID. The lists for the full year are usually are quite similar from one year to another. A comparison is below, continuing with top 8. Note that the top 6 colleges for the full year are the same 6 colleges in both years, but in a different order. I see no reason to assume this year would have been completely different from the preceding pattern that extends across multiple decades.

Full year pre-COVID:

  1. Stanford
  2. Michigan
  3. Florida
  4. Texas
  5. USC
  6. UCLA
  7. Florida State
  8. Virginia

Full year 1-year Before Above:

  1. Stanford
  2. UCLA
  3. Florida
  4. USC
  5. Texas
  6. Michigan
  7. Ohio State
  8. Georgia

It’s impossible to know how things would have been different without COVID, but what is clear is that COVID did influence athletics in the past fall.

When colleges reduces athletics budgets for a sport or eliminates a sport, it influences success in that sport. For example, I expect Stanford didn’t have a great recruiting season in the 11 sports that were eliminated for nearly a year, including being eliminated in period during which recruiting typically occurs. They probably also lost a few important existing players and/or staff during the ~1 year period for which the sports were eliminated. The many months of uncertain status also influences practices and ability. When I was a student, I walked on to the crew team at Stanford. Prior to winter break, the coach told us that he’s seen team members whose season was ruined due to getting out of shape via lack of practice in the few weeks of winter break. I can only imagine what happened to players who didn’t keep up with practices over the ~1 year period during which crew was eliminated. There are also many less direct influences, including in sports beyond the ones that were cut.

It’s a similar idea with Brown. The majority of Brown’s Director’s Cup points in 2018-19 came from fencing. Fencing was one of the sports that Brown temporarily eliminated. Brown later reversed the decision following lawsuits and other actions, but that does not mean there will be no impact this season. Yes, Brown wasn’t ranked well prior to COVID, but that does not mean that eliminating sports and budget cuts have no influence in Brown’s athletic success.

Again, you need to compare fall to fall. Comparing the >20 sports for the full year to the small number of fall sports can lead to misleading conclusions. In fall 2018-19, Utah only scored points in volleyball. And in fall 2020-21, Utah only scored points in football. Utah’s had a good football season this fall, and no particular success in any other fall sports. I’m not familiar enough to know why Utah had a better football season in 2021-22 than 2018-19 and why Utah did not have success in non-revenue sports this fall, but I’m sure there are many influential factors besides just COVID. The fact that they did have a good football season does not mean there was no negative influence from COVID.

For example, it’s possible that they had an average degree of negative influence compared to a greater degree of negative influence at various other Pac 12 colleges that they played against. Perhaps some of their competition had a greater rate of infections at the college and/or within team, more restrictive COVID policies for team/games (may play a role in why religious colleges are in top 2 spots in fall 2021, but never occurred pre-COVID), did not choose to risk their usual full budget following the preceding year’s large financial loss and uncertain potential revenue, were not as quick to adapt to changing times as Whittingham (COVID related transfers via transfer portal you mentioned is good example), etc.

238

I imagine increasing brand recognization isn’t the goal for the top 20 US national universities, especially those that don’t belong to the Power 5 conferences. If it were, their Athletics Offices would make it a priority to improve the competitiveness of their teams playing in revenue sports.

1 Like
240

Your questions have been excellent. This thread is timely. Our country is starting to have a conversation about all hooks, whereas in the past the only hook talked about was affirmative action. As we start to talk more about the various hooks, it is vitally important that we explore why certain hooks were created, and why they persist. We are also having a national conversation about college costs. This can’t be done without understanding college revenue and expenditures. Thank you for this nuanced thread.

241

Time to move on folks. If you aren’t getting the answer you want to hear, please don’t repeat the question. And if you’re saying the same thing repeatedly, please reconsider what you are about to post.

1 Like
242

I don’t think there’s any way of proving or disproving that assertion. One could argue, quite plausibly, that money is at the root of everything. Half the T20 universities were charter members of the NCAA (at least as many LACs were also founding members.) So, it’s going to be pretty difficult to separate the sports factor from their subsequent growth and prosperity.

246

Here is where I am at with all this.

Power 5 schools: Let’s say they disband non-revenue sports (but staying in line with Title IX) and say the athletic department now generates $20 million instead of breaking even or losing a little. Spreading that $20 million across 25,000 students only equates to $800 per student. $800 isn’t going to sway a student to attend a college these days.

Top 20 Elite Schools: First off they have so much money in endowments they will never have to worry about money any time in the near future. Having all these niche sports allows them plenty of discretion on who they admit. We all know for every kid admitted to Harvard there are 10 that didn’t get in and would have succeed just fine.

That is my theories.

3 Likes