<p>It’s true that everybody nationwide knows about Texas and Michigan, but what they know about them differs. Sorry to say, what they know about Texas is mostly beer and “hook 'em, horns!” Academic excellence, not so much. But hey, rep is rep.</p>
<p>Sure, if you say so ;-)</p>
<p>
How so by agreeing that I think UT is better than UCLA is that bashing UCLA?</p>
<p>SuperPippo, Cal, Michigan, UIUC, UT-Austin, UVa, William and Mary and Wisconsin were all academic powerhouses since 1900. They got their reputation due to their academic prowess and not their athletic prowess. You have convinced me that you actually do not know what you are talking about. How do you figure that Cal and Michigan, both of which were considered among the nation’s elite universities before College Football or College Basketball even excited, owe their global reputation as top 20 universities on Earth to their athletic tradition rather than on their academic superiority? Can you please offer actual proof to support your claims?</p>
<p>You are the one claiming that Illinois and Purdue are not big time athletics schools: you are OBVIOUSLY the one that does not know what he is talking about.</p>
<p>^ Alex is a Michigan guy, of course he’s going to say that… :)</p>
<p>Michigan is actually pretty lousy when it comes to football. :-)</p>
<p>“Alex is a Michigan guy, of course he’s going to say that…”</p>
<p>UCB, Michigan does not have a rivalry with UIUC or Purdue. Our rivalry is against OSU and MSU. </p>
<p>“You are the one claiming that Illinois and Purdue are not big time athletics schools: you are OBVIOUSLY the one that does not know what he is talking about.”</p>
<p>SuperPippo, UIUC has won 4 Big 10 championships in Football in the last 50 years. Purdue has won 2. Northwestern has won 3 conference titles in football in the last 50 years. Those are the bottom dwellers.</p>
<p>Big 10 championships since 1959:
Michigan (22 Big 10 Titles…yeah, we are lousy!)
Ohio State (20 Big 10 titles)
Iowa (5)
Michigan State (5)
Wisconsin (5)
Penn State (4 in 14 years)
UIUC (4)
Northwestern (3)
Minnesota (2)
Purdue (2)
Indiana (1)</p>
<p>Basketball is pretty even across the top, although Purdue and UIUC admittedly have solid traditions. In most other sports, neither university is that strong. </p>
<p>In terms of athletic tradition, UIUC and Purdue are definitely not powerhouses. They don’t come close to the likes of Alabama, Duke, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Stanford, Texas, UCLA, UNC etc…</p>
<p>At any rate SuperPippo, Cal and Michigan were academic powerhouses (considered top 5 or 6 universities in the US)by 1880. College athletics did not emerge in popularity until after World War I (1920 onwards).</p>
<p>Infact they are hardly as recognized as ony of those schools.</p>
<p>Oh please, Alex. Yes, Michigan’s true rivals are OSU and MSU. But to say UIUC and Purdue do not have big time college sports is wrong…you guys play in the same league. Perhaps you didn’t notice… :p</p>
<p>^Thank you. Let just admit that when you are talking about public schools, athletics has a lot to do with their brand recognition nationwide.</p>
<p>Also, they did a study that shows that top high school students are looking for schools that will offer the combination of great academics and athletics to be able to live the true college experience (unless the exception of being major nerds as it was the case for a couple of people on this thread, one of them who was saying that he didn’t know Michigan had a football team, I almost spilled my entire coffee when I read it)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as Cal goes, it wasn’t quite that quick. Cal wasn’t even founded until 1868 and was still trying to establish itself 12 years later in 1880. It was more like around 1930 that Cal really began to hit its stride.</p>
<p><a href=“http://files.acad.usf.edu/News/Archive/2009-05-10-SPT-USF-Becomes-Go-To-Choice-High-School-Seniors.pdf[/url]”>http://files.acad.usf.edu/News/Archive/2009-05-10-SPT-USF-Becomes-Go-To-Choice-High-School-Seniors.pdf</a></p>
<p>“Researchers have studied what’s known as the “Flutie factor” — whether athletic success (like Doug Flutie throwing his
heroic Hail Mary touchdown to win for Boston College) translates into recruiting power. Study after study has found
scant long-term evidence that winning teams turbocharge the academic profile of students applying to a university.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_effect[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_effect</a></p>
<p>^ Sakky, Cal was a founding member of AAU - in 1900.</p>
<p>UCB, you are wrong here. Purdue and UIUC do not have big time sports. They are middle of the road, no better than Boston College or Northwestern. Illinois’ Football record vs NU is 52-45-5. That’s barely over 0.500. Are you saying that NU is an athletic powerhouse?</p>
<p>In terms of National Championships in sports, Purdue was won just 2 (two) and UIUC has won 18 (most in Gymnastics and Track and Field). I am sorry, but those are not “big time” athletic traditions. They have solid traditions to be sure, but they are not “Big time”. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State each have roughly 35-40 national championships each. </p>
<p>SuperPippo, elite public universities’ brand recognition is no more derived from athletics than schools such as Stanford. All of those schools were academic powerhouses long before college sports became popular.</p>
<p>Alex, this is your answer to the original question:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Purdue and Illinois participate in Div 1-A NCAA athletics across all sports, correct? They may not have a high winning percentage, but they play to compete and do compete amongst the big boys.</p>
<p>You’re correct with UCSD and W&M.</p>
<p>UCB, the insinuation was that those public universities achieved fame thanks to their “big time” athletic traditions. I disagree. UIUC and Purdue achieved their status thanks to their athletic tradition. I attribute their reputation to their strengths in the Sciences and Engineering. I also do not attribute Cal and Michigan’s gloal reputation to their athletic traditions, but to their world-class academics.</p>
<p>^^^Ahah well somebody is in denial???</p>
<p>I reitererate how UCSD and W&M are not well known outside of their state, and that has a lot to do with their athletics.</p>
<p>By the way, W&M is not upathetic at all about athletics. It’s just its enrollment number that keeps it from competing with the big schools.</p>
<p>[The</a> College of William & Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“College of William & Mary - Wikipedia”>College of William & Mary - Wikipedia)</p>