<p>is there men's hockey? if it's women ACC will crush everywhere since Duke, Wake Forest, and Maryland are top 3. Maryland women won 2 consecutive NCAA champs already.</p>
<p>Men's and women's ice hockey.</p>
<p>chaoses -
[quote]
The ACC is pretty balance in team sports (not individual sports). And they are always on the top. last year soccer in ncaa tourney the ACC sent a RECORD 8/9 teams to the backet. Football sends like 7,8 teams to bowls. And ACC is considered a top basketball conference.</p>
<p>Big 10 don't jump in because the ACC beats big 10 in both sports + academic
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, soccer is such a huuuge sport in the US.</p>
<p>And btw, the since 1995, the ACC (including the records of former Big East teams) has a .400 winning percentage (24 losses, 16 wins) against the B10 in football, and the average of the USNWR rankings of ACC schools is LOWER than that for the schools in the B10. (Your commentary would be more credible if it was based on some semblance of fact.)</p>
<p>chaoses,</p>
<p>track & field, volleyball, tennis (men & women) are all TEAM sports in the sense that the scoring is team based! In tennis, the TEAM game consists of 6 singles matches (6 points) and 3 double matches (1 point) and whichever school gets 4 points first wins. In T&F, your school doen't win the TEAM championship by just having a guy winning the 100-meter dash (using your example); points from all events are summed to determine final TEAM ranking. I should also add swimming, softball, and water polo...all these sports are dominated by Pac10. Some of them have individual championship games but don't confuse them with team championships.</p>
<p>Duke and Carolina do very well in the Sears Directors Cup-overall athletic performance. Stanford usually wins Sears award due to Olympic Sports.</p>
<p>The best thing is that if you look at each school, they have top ranked (top 20 programs)
Duke - just about every program, especially pre-med majors and politics
UVa - again, just about every program
GT/VT - engineering are both in top 20
the rest im not too sure about specific programs, but i know they exist</p>
<p>dajada07 wrote:<br>
"Big 10 Average: 48.2
Individual School Ranks: Northwestern (14), Michigan (24), Wisconsin (34), Illinois (41), Penn State (47), Ohio State (57), Iowa (64), Purdue (64), Minnesota (67), Indiana (70)"</p>
<p>You forgot Michigan State (70) tied w/ IU... I think the USN&WR is garbage and MSU is considerablly better than 70th best (heck, there's a poll that ranks it about 70th best... IN THE WORLD), but at least put MSU in the Big 10 dajada07,</p>
<p>... just shows to go you that MSU's the most overlooked and underrated public U in the nation, and only b/c it's next door to U-M in the same state... darn shame.</p>
<p>^^^^ I agree with you about MSU, it's very good public university. I'm surprised they are not ranked any higher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, soccer is such a huuuge sport in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>YES, it is, believe it or not!</p>
<p>You can list pretty much any team sport and the ACC wins over Big Ten. The ACC sends more teams to bowl than the Big 10 this year. The big 10 probably wins in football overall in history but look at basketball, soccer, hockey, lacrosse and many other team sports. is there any that Big Ten shines over the ACC? </p>
<p>
[quote]
track & field, volleyball, tennis (men & women) are all TEAM sports in the sense that the scoring is team based! In tennis, the TEAM game consists of 6 singles matches (6 points) and 3 double matches (1 point) and whichever school gets 4 points first wins. In T&F, your school doen't win the TEAM championship by just having a guy winning the 100-meter dash (using your example); points from all events are summed to determine final TEAM ranking. I should also add swimming, softball, and water polo...all these sports are dominated by Pac10. Some of them have individual championship games but don't confuse them with team championships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>while it is true that they have some team effort, it should not be put as much weight as major sports like football / basketball. Yes the pac-10 is the next sport + academic division :D</p>
<p>What about Clemson? I always thought it was a pretty good school, but it hasn't gotten much respect in this thread. Then again, I do not know a whole lot about it, so if you guys could enlighten me that would be great.</p>
<p>Also, what about Virginia Tech? Haven't they been improving?</p>
<p>chaoses,</p>
<p>Well, how much "weight" do you want to put to those sports than? Like 1%? :D And what's the logic behind? Because less people watch it? Because they generate less money? Wouldn't that be an insult to athletes like gymnasts and swimmers who train just as hard, if not harder, and actually represent the US in front of the world in Olympics?</p>
<p>Even in football/basketball, it's not really clear ACC is better than others. I give it a slight edge, just a slight one, on basketball. But in football, it's a wash. It may be better or worse than others, depending on which year you are talking about.</p>
<p>Another way to look to see why I think Pac10 > ACC in athletics is Stanford/UCLA both have a streak of winning at least one championship each year (probably USC also) while ACC as a whole may not win any in a given year.</p>
<p>fyi-On the number of schools in the analysis, I didn't forget Michigan State or the others. I deliberately limited the comparison to 10 schools as this is all that the Pac 10 has while the Big 10 has 11 and the ACC and the SEC each have 12. I didn't think that the larger conferences should be penalized for having more schools. </p>
<p>As for the statement about Michigan State's ranking, you may be right that USNWR has got it too low, but fans of every school on the list would probably have a similar complaint and a list as long as your arm about why their school was ranked too low. </p>
<p>I also created a thread on the athletic aspects of these conferences based on the final rankings for the Directors Cup. The results were exceedingly tight and show that no conference has a strong claim to athletic superiority. </p>
<p>ATHLETICS</p>
<p>Pac-10 Average: 25.3
Individual School Ranks: Stanford (1), UCLA (2), UC-Berkeley (7), USC (10), Arizona (11), Arizona State (13), Washington (18), Oregon State (57), Oregon (63), Washington State (71)</p>
<p>SEC Average: 26.2
Individual School Ranks: Florida (5), Georgia (9), Tennessee (14), LSU (20), Alabama (21), Auburn (25), Arkansas (28), Kentucky (33), South Carolina (43), Vanderbilt (64)</p>
<p>Big 10 Average: 27.7
Individual School Ranks: Ohio State (12), Penn State (15), Minnesota (16), Wisconsin (22), Michigan (24), Northwestern (29), Purdue (35), Indiana (38), Illinois (40), Michigan State (46)</p>
<p>ACC Average: 28.6
Individual School Ranks: North Carolina (4), Duke (8), Florida State (17), Virginia (26), Maryland (27), NC State (34), Clemson (39), Miami (42), Wake Forest (44), Virginia Tech (45)</p>
<p>Ivy Average: 60.2
Princeton (47), Cornell (66), Dartmouth (67), Harvard (69), Yale (80), Brown (84), Penn (88), Columbia (101)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I deliberately limited the comparison to 10 schools as this is all that the Pac 10 has while the Big 10 has 11 and the ACC and the SEC each have 12. I didn't think that the larger conferences should be penalized for having more schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are penalizing Pac10 and giving unfair advantage to others. You are looking at Pac-10 from top to bottom while for others, you are ignoring the worst ones. Hope you see your flaw.</p>
<p>it's not about 1 or 2 school winning every year, it's about the conference and the overall strength. It's not that winning less favorite sports aren't good, they just shouldn't be counted equally as other wellknown sports. But there's no way to calculate the weight for each sport. So let's have a ACC vs Pac10 match up for each sport and see. But again there's a location factor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about Clemson? I always thought it was a pretty good school, but it hasn't gotten much respect in this thread. Then again, I do not know a whole lot about it, so if you guys could enlighten me that would be great.</p>
<p>Also, what about Virginia Tech? Haven't they been improving?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Clemson and Vtech sports have been average or slightly below average in the conference. Clemson is one of the top choice for a B or B+ high school student.</p>
<p>that ranking is old? boston college is in the acc now</p>
<p>I'm sure boston college is not the worst sport school in acc, nor it's at the very bottom</p>
<p>In the final 2005-06 Directors Cup rankings, BC was 51st, placing it last in the ACC. Georgia Tech was 50th and 11th in the ACC.</p>
<p>So you can give a revised list? ;)</p>
<p>While I understand your objection, I still think that limiting to the number of schools in the smallest conference is the right choice and makes for an apples to apples competition. For example, if the entire ACC played the entire Pac 10 in basketball, the ACC would win two games by default. The Pac 10 probably would not like this so I decided to limit to the top 10 in each league. An alternative method in order to standardize the sizes would be to arbitrarily give the Pac 10 two more teams at the lowest possible score and the Big 10 one more team at the lowest possible score, but I think that this would be less fair than taking the top 10 from each league.</p>
<p>Why not cut off the Top 2?? Or one from each end.</p>