<p>^ UT-Austin? They were only good due to Vince Young.</p>
<p>You could say U Florida instead (Football and Basketball...simultaneous national champs in 2006). I would say U Florida is similar level to UT-Austin.</p>
<p>( I may be biased because I still despise Mack Brown... even though I have nothing against UT-Austin).</p>
<p>Alexandre,
Not sure how you came up with your list of top academics and top athletics as it relates to football and basketball. Looks to me like there are several omissions and a few overrankings (Georgetown and U Michigan). </p>
<p>Based on ranks that are combined rankings by Sagarin for football and basketball, </p>
<p>You omitted:</p>
<p>43 U Florida
44 U Wisconsin
74 UC Berkeley
79 Stanford
97 Vanderbilt
102 Wake Forest
120 U Illinois
128 Boston College
135 Georgia Tech
137 U Washington
140 U Virginia
141 Penn State</p>
<p>You included:</p>
<p>204 U Michigan
238 Georgetown</p>
<p>^ Hawkette, I think Alexandre was talking more in terms of historic football/basketball powers.</p>
<p>It should also be noted, since I haven't witnessed it yet, that there are huge inter-conference differences. Cornell being the best Ivy at football is great and all, but the Northwestern Wildcats would still probably thrash them.</p>
<p>uchchemegrad,
You're probably right and I"m sure he will come back to us and clarify, but if you are right, this is representative of the thinking that I like to challenge. </p>
<p>People build impressions off of historical records, but frequently the current performance bears little resemblance to historics (eg, Notre Dame football today, Georgetown basketball 2 years ago, etc.). This ignores or underrates some important, emerging powers that play important, even dominant, roles in current day college athletics, eg, U Florida, and underrates some of those outstanding colleges that do it well across a great variety of athletic fields, eg, Stanford, UC Berkeley, U Wisconsin, Duke, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. </p>
<p>The "prestige" factor clearly plays a role in media rankings for college athletics (please tell me how Ohio State is preseason # 2 for next year despite their consectutive drubbings in the last two national championship games), just as it does in the USNWR college rankings and particularly in the Peer Assessment rankings. It is because of the bias inherent in these subjective rankings that I prefer sources like Sagarin (MIT grad who uses a quantitative approach) and the objective data of USNWR. You can argue their conclusions, but there is some rooting in measurable data. </p>
<p>Anyway, this is probably more serious than this thread intended. Sorry for the digression....</p>
<p>Hawkette, I was referring to:</p>
<p>1) top 25 (or thereabout) universities. Schools like Penn State and Florida, although very respectable, don't quite make the cut. </p>
<p>2) programs, not one or two seasons. If a program is not consistantly ranked among the top 10 nationally, I do not consider it a "top program".</p>
<p>Looking at the last 20 seasons, Michigan's football program has been hard to match. </p>
<p>Total record: 185-54-4 (0.770 best record among Big 10 programs and probably in the nation)
Big 10 titles: Ten (10, again, more than any Big 10 program) 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004.
National Championsips: 1 (1997)
Record vs Ohio State: 11-8-1
Record vs Penn State: 10-3
Bowl Record: 11-9 (not as easy as you think, considering the level of competition. Most programs have sub .500 Bowl records)
Rose Bowl Record: 4-5
Orange Bowl: 1-0
Citrus (Capital One) Bowl: 3-1</p>
<p>Overall, you won't be able to name 2 or 3 programs that have done more than Michigan over the last 20 years. In the Big 10, not program has had a winning record over Michigan in that period, or won more games or Big 10 titles. Ohio State has gone 184-59-4 (0.755) and has won 7 conference titles. They also went 7-12 in Bowl games. Penn State and Wisconsin did not do better.</p>
<p>Uconn.</p>
<p>Perennial top 5 in womens basketball (most recent championship 2004), mens soccer (most recent championship 2000), and field hockey</p>
<p>Perennial top 20 in mens basketball (most recent championship 2004) and womens soccer (one of only two schools, UNC, to appear in every single NCAA tournament)</p>
<p>Football- 2nd fastest team ever to attain a top 25 ranking after moving to D-1A.</p>
<p>extremely well attended games in nearly all sports, mens and womens.</p>
<p>also #1 public school in new england and quickly rising in national reputation.</p>
<p>Hawkette,</p>
<p>You raised some good points. You're right about historic powers in college sports and a perceived bias.</p>
<p>I would say though that college sports teams can change at a much more rapid pace than academic reputation. Team dynamics and reputation ebb and flow with coaches and players...a school can quickly bring in a top-rated coach and start turning the program around. This athlete and coach turnover happens in a period of ~4-10 years. It's the historic powers in sports that have garnered the alumni support, facilities and tradition that keeps a program near the top for a longer period.</p>
<p>Academic reputation moves at a slower pace...Profs are fully tenured, so turnover is less. Research money continues to funnel into the better science programs, etc. I have noted before that Peer Assessment, IMO, is more of a gauge of faculty quality. Faculty quality is measured by research output, Nobel Prizes, academy membership, etc. because these are the factors academics use to compare themselves. So, it makes sense when you ask academics to conduct a "peer assessment", they are going to rate schools on factors that are prestigious in their eyes.</p>
<p>I understand what you mean that you'd rather see a rating on how well the profs teach undergrads...and I agree with you that this would have more importance to a "college shopper". However, it seems like this would be tough to measure. How would you normalize the data for different majors? It seems like it would be a very complicated undertaking.</p>
<p><a href="please%20tell%20me%20how%20Ohio%20State%20is%20preseason%20#%202%20for%20next%20year%20despite%20their%20consectutive%20drubbings%20in%20the%20last%20two%20national%20championship%20games">quote</a>
[/quote]
Well, the "experts" look at incoming recruiting class and returning players...Coach Tressel is still an excellent coach and recruiter, and his team for next season might be stronger on paper than a lot of other teams. Fortunately, OSU plays USC early next year for a non-conference game...we'll see how good the teams stack up, playing quality opponents vs. cream puffs.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
1. You included U Texas in your listing. You know that I like the school, but I also consider it weaker than many of the ones that I listed and about on par with Penn State and U Florida. </p>
<ol>
<li>Congrats to U Michigan on its success in football, but it has not been matched in basketball and the OP was asking about both and so I evaluated both. As for U Michigan's football success, being in the Big Ten probably hasn't hurt a whole lot. Great, fawning media coverage and weak opponents with only 1-3 competitive games a year. What more could a coach or a fan want!</li>
</ol>
<p>^ Ouch! ;)</p>
<p>Hawkette, very few top universities (academically) have dominated both Football and Basketball. Feel free to point one out, but I cannot think of a top 25 university that has been dominant in both sports.</p>
<p>And I am not going to debate the strength of the Big 10 conference. But Michigan has done well against other conference. Let us look at how Michigan has done vs SEC teams shall we?</p>
<p>1990: Michigan 35, Mississippi 3 (Gator Bowl)
1996: Alabama 17, Michigan 14 (Outback Bowl)
1998: Michigan 45, Arkansas 31 (Citrus Bowl)
1999: Michigan 35, Alabama 34 (Orange Bowl)
2000: Michigan 31, Auburn 28 (Citrus Bowl)
2002: Tennesse 45, Michigan 17 (Citrus Bowl)
2003: Michigan 38, Florida 30 (Outback Bowl)
2006: Michigan 27, Vanderbilt 7 (regular season game)
2007: Michigan 41, Florida 35 (Capital One Bowl)</p>
<p>Michigan 7, SEC 2 (0.780). And with the exception of Vanderbilt, all of those games were vs top 5 SEC teams. Hell, I wish Michigan played in the SEC. We'd probably have a better record!</p>
<p>As for UT-Austin, I consider it better than PSU and Florida. Texas has top 10 BBA and Engineering programs and excellent Science departments. It has a huge endowment (over $6 billion), solid placement into top graduate schools and exclusive firms around the nation, some of the best academic facilities and labs found anywhere and highly regarded professional schools. Penn State and Florida are very solid, but Texas edges them out.</p>
<p>^ No doubt...I agree with you. It's just that UF has achieved something no other school has yet in terms of sports...the point of the thread.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
U Michigan has a good football history, but the weakness of the Big Ten is a big reason why. Granted, Lloyd Carr did go 6-2 vs the SEC, but only one of those wins (Alabama in 2000) was against a team ranked in the Top 10. Not exactly the best of the SEC. It does matter when you play 'em, eg, Ohio State's demolition by Florida last year and LSU this year. </p>
<p>As for U Michigan in the Big Ten, its record under Carr against opponents not named Ohio State was 69-15 (82%). His record against Ohio State was 6-6. </p>
<p>I would suggest that Michigan stay in the Big Ten.</p>
<p>Hawkette, UF was ranked #9 in the AP poll before the 2008 Capital One Bowl...#12 in BCS standings. Michigan wasn't ranked...pretty big upset.</p>
<p>
[quote]
U Michigan has a good football history, but the weakness of the Big Ten is a big reason why.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Big 10 has only been perceived "weak" within the last several years.</p>
<p>ucbechemegrad,
Because of the football thread that I was doing here on CC, I followed college football's results pretty closely this past season. While they still probably have the best tailgating scene in the country (which is what really matters, right? :)), U Florida was not a great football team this year. They beat Sunbelt champ Troy, caught Tennessee early at home in Gainesville and had a nice win at Kentucky, but that was about it. Over the course of the season, they were probably the 5th or 6th best team in the SEC this year after</p>
<ol>
<li>LSU (UF lost 28-24)</li>
<li>Georgia (UF lost 42-30)</li>
<li>Tennessee (UF won 59-20)</li>
<li>Auburn (UF lost 20-17)</li>
</ol>
<p>I would put them about even with or just ahead of Kentucky and, given how Arkansas finished its regular season and how Mississippi State improved, Florida is probably happy not to have played them this year or they might have lost a couple more games. </p>
<p>As for your comment on the Big Ten's newly discovered weak reputation, I don't agree. Folks in other parts of the country have seen it for years, but the media hype for the Big Ten is never-ending (eg, Ohio State's # 2 ranking for next year). Football in the Big Ten has been essentially two colleges and everyone else for about forever. Occasionally, a Wisconsin or an Illinois or even a Northwestern will sneak in for a few years and do very well, but the others are just not very good. Several other conferences, and especially the PAC 10 and the SEC, are deeper and stronger. </p>
<p>Now, as far as atmospheres go, which may be part of what the OP was asking about, the Big Ten has a lot to offer. The stadiums are large, the fans are energized and loud and the games are FUN!! Many of the rivalries reach back several decades and this adds to the intensity of the environment. I'm certainly not knocking the color or the pageantry of the event because it is big-time football and a very different experience than the Harvard-Yale, Princeton-Dartmouth, etc. brouhahas.</p>
<p>In 2007 Wisconsin upset a heavily favored Arkansas team. In 2006 we did the same to Auburn. Other games were all close. Overall 2-3 vs SEC since 2000. The overall Big 10 record v the SEC in the last 15 years or so is right around .500</p>
<p>Hawkette, Tebow won the Heisman. I think you're underestimating the team...it was a great win for Michigan, and probably the most exciting bowl game of the season. What bowl games did Auburn and Tennesee go to?</p>
<p>"While Big 10 bashing is always in vogue, it seems to be at an all-time high since Ohio State ascended to number 1 in the rankings. There the SEC sits, as usual, with all its highly ranked teams. The pollsters love the SEC, no doubt about it. And there's the Big 10, hearing about how "overrated" it is, as usual. Since these two behemoths frequently meet during bowl time due to tie-in's there are usually always 2-3 matchups per year. So what usually happens?</p>
<p>Since SEC fans don't like it when you go too far back into history (because they don't have much), I'll stick to the last 5 years.</p>
<p>2006 2005 2004
PSU 20 Tenn 10 Wisc 24 Aub 10 Iowa 30 LSU 25
Wisc 17 Ark 14 UF 31 Iowa 24 Minn 20 Bama 16
UF 41 OSU 14 Split 1-1 UGA 24 Wisc 21
B10 2-1 B10 2-1</p>
<p>2003 2002
Iowa 37 UF 17 Mich 38 Fla 30
UGA 34 Pur 27 Aub 13 PSU 9
Aub 28 Wis 14 Minn 29 Ark 14
SEC 2-1 (a rarity) B10 2-1
"</p>