<p>What big time football fans around the country might perceive</p>
<p>**USNWR Major Research University Rankings <a href="Div.%20IA%20Football">/B</a></p>
<p>Schools that you always knew were academic
4. Stanford
10. Duke
12. Northwestern
17. Rice
17. Vanderbilt
21. UC Berkeley
24. Virginia
27. Michigan
28. UNC
47. Texas
50. Tulane</p>
<p>Surprised at this high an academic ranking because of success in sports (the football or basketball factories)
20. Notre Dame
24. UCLA
26. USC
28. Wake Forest
34. Boston College
35. Georgia Tech
39. Illinois
39. Wisconsin
42. Univ. of Washington
47. Penn State
47. Florida</p>
<p>The problem with ranking the current competitiveness of football programs is that such produce very short-sighted that ignore longer-term trends. Washington went 0-12 in 2008, but is still the 22nd-winningest program in college football. Northwestern has not won a bowl game since the 1949 Rose Bowl, and has only one appearance (1996) in Pasadena since then, plus they are a traditionally LOSING program (all-time record 458–600–44, or .436 winning percentage). Wake Forest is usually awful (411–593–33, or .412 percentage), and Illinois is not that great either (563–513–51, or .522).</p>
<p>It should be more like this:</p>
<p>Traditionally Awesome in Football
20. Notre Dame
26. USC
27. Michigan
47. Penn State
47. Florida
47. Texas</p>
<p>Traditionally Competitive in Football
4. Stanford
21. UC Berkeley
24. UCLA
24. Virginia
28. UNC
34. Boston College
35. Georgia Tech
39. Illinois
39. Wisconsin
42. Washington</p>
<p>Traditionally Suck in Football
10. Duke
12. Northwestern
17. Rice
17. Vanderbilt
28. Wake Forest
50. Tulane</p>
<p>My ranking system was pretty impromptu and basically centered around a programs historical prestige (traditional football powers), recent success (past 2-3 years), and past decade for unsuccessful programs. Your ranking system is probably better though.</p>
<p>Notre Dame does not compromise their admissions or academic standards for athletics. Just look at numerous quotes from coaches across multiple sports at why they have been unsuccessful at Notre Dame in the past years. It almost always contains a quote about not being able to recruit top notch athletes because they couldn’t get admitted to the school.</p>
<p>I am surprised that Notre Dame is at # 20 though, it seems too high.</p>
<p>Florida is very difficult to get admitted to. I am surprised it is as low as 47. Being from Florida I constantly hear about local students with 1300 SAT scores and 4.0+ GPA’s that are getting denied from the school.</p>
<p>And Wake Forest should not be on the “traditionally suck in football” list. They have been competitive for at least 5-6 years now. How many years do they have to be competitive before they are removed from the list? Keep in mind, they are the SMALLEST Division 1 school with a football program in the country in terms of undergraduate enrollment.</p>
<p>Notre Dame is a fine university but it certainly has significantly lower academic standards for its football athletes than for its students in general. Among the better academic colleges that play “big-time football”, I believe that Stanford maintains the highest academic standards for its players. Yes, the ND coaches complain about not being able to get athletes admitted, but that doesn’t mean that the school has the highest standards for athletes. Let’s say, making up a scale to indicate student quality, that the standard for ND students is a 95 or higher, or 95th percentile among all US college students. The standard for ND football players might be a 75 or higher, still smart students, but significantly below the standard for non-athletes. The coaches are complaining because they can’t get a 60 in while Alabama, Penn State, and other traditional powers against whom they compete would welcome such a student. You get the idea.With the changing landscape in Div-1 FBS football, Notre Dame’s best days as a football powerhouse are in the rear view mirror. It has lost many of the advantages it once had over other programs, such as the distinction of “you’ll be on television every week” . Now, every school is on television every week.</p>
<p>As far as Wake Forest goes, as Strykur notes, the school has a woeful lifetime record and stands at #117 of 120 colleges in the division. Wake has been better of late and even went to a few bowl games in the last decade. Perhaps it will settle in to the mediocre category–dependent, somewhat, on its ability to schedule OOC games against weak opponents</p>
<p>Do you have statistics to show what you are saying about Stanford and Notre Dame? I don’t think it is accurate. The NCAA releases graduation rates for schools by sports and their latest release was that Notre Dame graduates 96% of it’s football players while Stanford graduates 89%. This is definitely different then admission rates, but I think it helps justify the argument that Notre Dame’s admitted student base is a higher quality then most.</p>
1959…we’ve also won most of our bowl games in recent history. When was the last time Northwestern won a bowl game? Hint: same year they played Cal in the Rose Bowl…10 years before Cal’s last trip to the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>The same question could be asked about why Rich Rodriguez was brought into the conversation, because he has shown his entire career that he doesn’t care about academic excellence within his programs.</p>
<p>As a Wake alumnus, I share the concern of many of my fellow alumni that the public perception of the Demon Deacon program is approaching that of mediocrity and we are at risk of losing our historic and hard-earned reputation for “suckiness.” Indeed, the traditional non-competitiveness of Wake Forest football has for generations bolstered the school’s academic reputation as a peer of Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Rice - other highly academic institutions that are out of their leagues within their leagues. In defense of our claim of suckiness, allow me to point out that the entire recent degree of Deacon competitiveness has been during the uncommonly long tenure of Coach Grobe, and that once he is paid millions of dollars to take his coaching acumen to a traditionally powerful program, we shall once again return to our rightful spot at # 117.</p>