Tigersharktwo, well said! I agree with you completely on this statement.

They are not done by reporters. These are experts. You do not look at the methodology^. Presidents and administrators do have an understanding of the academic accolades




The AP poll is the sportswriters. The USA Today-ESPN Poll is the Coaches Poll. Sportswriters rank teams as much as the coaches. But coaches don't measure a team's market. That's not their job. This would be a job for the Nielsen rankings, demographers, and market researchers. In order to get a complete picture of a teams market and appeal, surveys would need to be done, to see what percentage of a state's population follows a team. But, the type of institution does reflect the market it has. If its a statewide flagship, there is a strong tendancy that its an entire state is the market for that team, because that institution has more identity statewide. If its a commuter campus, metropolitan-focused or a regional-focused university, then its market is smaller. The US News and World Report rankings consistently reveal that all state flagship universities in the United States are at least a 3rd Tier National Universities, and most are 2nd Tier or above. This means if you can get a state flagship, you will get a statewide market. The only state flagships that aren't at least 4th Tier are North Dakota State, Montana State, and the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, and none of them play Division 1-A football. So to get a state flagship means you can get a statewide following and define its market in that manner. Most, if not all Urban Grants and Historic Normals are at the best 3rd Tier and most are 4th Tier. There markets are focused on the metro location and/or region and they most likely compete with the state flagships in that region. These relate to rankings.




Do you have proof?




A dean of education doesn't rank an engineering school. Where did you get this from?




Do you have any basis for this.




What is a wrong thing to you? Broadbased education is very important to a undergraduate education. A person can't learn a high tech concept and go out into the field without the ability to write and communicate and have a broadbased knowledge that they are entering into. This is why Georgia Tech and MIT teach liberal arts. If they didn't, they would be the DeVry Institute of Technology, or an ITT Tech. This is why you take both a Verbal and Math tests on a SAT, and why the ACT has English, Social Sciences, Math and Sciences.




How do you define useful learning? By what are the hot career fields?

Look University of North Carolina is a Liberal Arts based university:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/

Does this make them inferior to you?

They don't even have an engineering college. That's at NC State. You're too fixated college as a job-training mechanism. It prepares people for careers, but it is much more broader than that. Otherwise, all career fields wouldn't require liberal arts in their curricullum. All engineering majors have to take a humanities course(s), social science, english and/or literature, as well as their broad based sciences and their engineering courses. If they didn't, it would be DeVry Tech. (No offense if anyone went to DeVry).

Sportsgeog, in my mind, the Big East's BCS standing is in jeopardy because the BCS has a rule that a conferences standing will be reviewed if the conference champion does not achieve an average rank of 12 over a four year period - the so-called "Big East rule." The Big East has been able to meet this criterion almost entirely by the achievements of Miami & Virginia Tech. Now that both are gone, the question must be raised: Who will step up & be a top 12 team?

If the Big East fails to produce a champion in the top 12, there will be tremendous pressure from other leagues who may be producing champions that rank higher than the Big East champion. How will the BCS justify taking the Big East champion to a high revenue bowl will passing over a better team(s) rom non-BCS conferences.

Ultimately the position of the Big East will become untenable as a BCS member if it cannot produce on the field at a high level. Everyone can sympathize with the position in whcih the Big East was placed by the ACC raids. Everyone has agreed to cut the conference some slack & give it time to regroup, but I don't think that they will be so understanding 4 or 5 years down the road if no team(s) have emerged to justify inclusion of the conference champion in the BCS bowl picture.

^FriarFan,

The committee made up of BCS conferences and BCS Coalition Conference are currently meeting and the #12 ranking may not be the only requirement to retain BCS status. It also may include perfomance, attendance, and market for all the teams in the conference, top to bottom. So, thus, there may be a risk to taking a team, and could bring down their rankings. Here, read this article that was posted in another thread that explains this:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/college_football/20040831-9999-1s31colfoot.html

All conferences have to earn their ranking over a 4 year period.

If this follows through, the incentive to expand, thinking we can always get at least one team with a number 12 ranking isn't the issue anymore. Its the performance of all the teams, hence, a potential risk if you expand.

Sportsgeog, let me chime in. USNWR rankings have a certain usefulness, but their value has to be seen as limited. They rank schools based on measures which can be reduced to statistics. They do nothing to address the value of the educational experience - unless you consider measures like faculty-student ratios or percent of faculty with PhDs to be such measures. They also do nothing to address the quality of the curriculum. they do nothing to address the nature of the climate for learning. As TS2 says, they do nothing to address the nature of research nor productive learning eminating from the institution. Their survey of university presidents re reputation is simply that - an opinionaire re perceived reputation, not a serious inquiry into the quality of teaching & learning. There have also been anecdotal reports that such surveys are not taken seriously - at leat at some institutions.

The book "The Public Ivies" - now almost 20 years old - did represent a serious attempt to look beyond the numbers. The Carnegie Institute is quite clear about thae limits that its categories represent. My main criticism of USNWR is that it does not present similar limits re how its rankings should be understood. For the purpose of grabbing headlines & selling magazines, they purport to publish a list of the "best" colleges & universities. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is their biggest selling issue of the year. That is a fact. Make no mistake about it. Their rankings are all about making money for a publishing company.

Sportsgeog, so far it's all talk. It remains to be seen whether it will ever rise above this.

I agree with your conclusion, however, that there is serious risk for a conference like the Big East to add teams that do not enhance the conference's performance ratings. Personally, if I was conference commissioner, I would advise my university presidents not to do it.

For all the talk, the bottom line is that the conferences that command state wide attention in their regions will never do anything that will jeoparize the status of their members. The Big East is not one of these conferences. Only UConn & Rutgers are in a position to command state-wide attention. In 2000, the Big Ten conference champion failed to finish in the BCS top 15. I do not know how far down the list they did finish. This was preceeded by a season in which the conference champion finished 7th & followed by one in which the conference champion finished 8th. In 2002, Ohio State won the national championship. However, it was not beyond the realm of possibilities that 2002 may have brought a season in which the conference champion again finished outside the top 15. Two such seasons, balanced by finishes of 7 & 8, would not have to have been far outside the top 15 to have triggered a review of their BCS status. Two finishes averaging 17 would have done it. The Big Ten was saved from this by Ohio State's great season in 2002. But is there any doubt that a finish of 17 that year would have led to the Big Ten's expulsion from the BCS? No way.

The ACC -without football traditions as stong as the Big Ten & without states as large as those in the Big Ten - must have had similar concerns when it contemplated expansion in 2003. Their conference champions had just come off seasons in which they finished 14 & 10 - an average ranking of barely 12 for 2 seasons. No cause for immediate concern since Florida State had finished 1st & 2nd the 2 previous seasons. But with an aging Bobby Bowden at Florida State, it was clear that the Seminoles dynasty was fading - & there was no heir apparent! With 2 more lackluster seasons, the Big East rule could have kicked in for the ACC. But would the BCS ever have expelled a conference with the state universities of North Carolina, Virginia, & Maryland - 3 sizable states? Not to mention the states of Florida & Georgia where ACC members have state-side appeal. Well, probably not.

But only if the BCS were willing to expel such member conferences would reform be meaningful. They are certainly not going to allow an unlimited influx of new participants. Nor would they be willing to surrender the entrenched power that their members now hold.

A footnote to this is the fact that the Pac Ten champ also failed to finish in the top 15 in 1999, so the Big Ten experience was not an isolated one. It will be interesting to see what would happen if one of the traditional power conferences -other than the Big East - failed to achieve that average ranking of 12.

Friarfan, you do make some very good points and agreed the ACC was heading for the "BCS Big East rule". We will never know if the ACC would have in fact dropped below 12 ranking average and if the BCS would have inforced the rule on the ACC.

The commissioner of the Big 12 and new BCS coordinator may have just hit the nail on the head with comments of having 7 BCS conferences or possibly 4.

Now which conference other than the Big East was he referring to that could possibly lose BCS membership.

Was he thinking the Big 12 would simply be merged into the Big 10 and SEC as super conferences. Talk about monopoly in college sports. Cant see Big 10, ACC, SEC, or Pac 10 going away - unless?.

Was he thinking the Pac 10 and Big 10 would split a go seperate ways with Rose bowl as their championship game.

I think the 7 BCS conference is valid for a couple of reasons. Taking in the MWC would vertually end US Congress concerns as most states supporting a division 1A football would have at least one school in a BCS conference. Most BCS schools are the primary or flag ship school of those states.

There would be room for the deserving non BCS members to step up a join the conferences that are not maxed out with 12 football members.

Major conferences keep the control of college football and allow the BCS to grow revenue by keeping the Big 10 and Pac 10 in the fold.

If not all h@ll could break out in the BCS if conference other than the Big East finds their way into the "BCS Big East rule". Big 10 and Pac 10 could say to heck with the BCS and go back to Rose bowl partipation leaving the ACC, SEC, Big East, and Big 12 as BCS conference membership.

Again, my predictions are 7 BCS conference and all other conferences dropping to a new Div 1 status.

It just more simple to go this route.

Part of US News and WR has a peer rating among faculty. Granted, well known institutions with their respective departments will get named. However, can a Business School professor name all the institutions that offer a Business degree, much less put all of them in rank-order? Sure, most of them will be able to name, for example, the University of South Carolina's International Business program because it is well advertised. A smaller school, with a viable program of similar intent, may get overlooked.
Unlike accrediation agencies that may visit a campus every five to ten years, US News reporters do not. Even accrediation agencies, use a different team per school. Also, accrediation by most charged groups is done by regional format, and in some cases disciplinary.
At least with accrediation agencies, there are reviews, with pre-set critieria that examine strengths and weaknesses. These are academics or disciplinary types, not magazine editors. They are not comparing school A to school B to place one above the other.

US News can chart, often self-reported, and sometimes flawed data. Technicians, secretaries, or even Deans as respondents, may not interpret questionnaires and survey documents the same way. There is also a tendency to offer up data that puts the school in the best light. For example, a school can conveniently not include the SAT scores of their conditional admits or opportunity program students. Many students, including the non-traditional, are no even required to submit entrance scores. Approximately forty three percent of undergraduates nationwide are age twenty-five or older. Graduation rates? There is a lot of play and discrepancy there. Gender? A higher percentage of women in college today compared to men. Campuses vary in mission and viewed need not be skewed towards campuses that attract students from "money".

After complaints about bias against African-American institutions, US NEWS finally offers Claflin University in there for their latest issue. How does that compare to the much larger, more diverse, and greater resources South Carolina State University, their literal connecting neighbor, that does not get mentioned. Oh, Claflin is a better insitution than SC State? So says US News?

Exactly what are the variables that make one school better than another? Admissions Standards? Graduation Rates? Percentage of faculty with terminal degrees? Student-Professor ratio? Class Size? Endowments and Planned Giving? Library holdings? Tuition costs? Publications of faculty? Number of Buildings? Winning Percentage in Football? The variables can go on and on.

However, there is no consistent, designated and qualified group that visits each and every campus, at the same point in time, looking at the same variables to be determined, or have placed "values" on each varibable in terms of worth compared to all other variables.

The reason there is no global, academic organization or recognized academic publication that has undertaken such an assessment, is that whatever data gathered cannot result in proving a hypothesis that pure and uncontaminated distinctions can be made among and between each and every school resulting in a "stacking" of worth. There are basic principles to tests and measurements.

US News offers its data and has compiled profiles based on its lines of comparison. However, to treat it as the gospel on merit of each institution as it compares to every other institution is going too far. It is not a company that offers considerable detail on their methodology. Otherwise, their negative letters to the editor will become greatly enhanced and they will become more dimissed in forums by those who know better. Small schools that get mentioned are going to be pleased. It is something they will try to sell. Many need students, and more better prepared students.

That is like saying Minneapolis is better than Memphis who is better than Mobile who is better than Modesto, and so forth. What is being measured? Crime statistics? Weather? Unemployment Rates? Paved Roads? Sure, one variable can compared. But, which is a more impoortant variable as compared to each other: Unemployment Rates or Weather? Apples and Oranges?
Sure, Rand will give an opinion as to the best places to live. They say Savannah, Georgia is great. I agree, been there!

US News will classify schools by Major Research, Liberal Arts Colleges, etc. And, it will offer break-downs as to regions. But, it has not examined each and every department of each and every school, nor has it justified how one variable correlates with another.

They have sold many magazines with their ratings schemes of colleges. They have done the same with hospitals (which is strange from the angle that a very small percentage of the population has any choice as to where they can go for hospitalization - not everyone who has a cardiac arrest has the option to be life flighted to somewhere such as Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic). Hospitals, unlike colleges and universities, have more tangible measures. But then again, there are vulnerabilities to the hospital "stackings" as well.

Interesting interpretations Lash.

However, your solution would not be that simple. CUSA is an "equity" conference along with the BCS 6. MWC is not. The top future CUSA teams have been roughly as good on average as the NBE and future MWC teams (Marshall, Tulane, So. Miss).

As Friarfan says, it is all discussion right now. The implication of the article is that average conference strength will be a factor. However, that is from the SDSU president who has a bias as w/o average conference strength the MWC will have a tough time cracking the big bowls. The MAC has had more teams qualify than the MWC. And with polls playing a bigger factor, the MWC is likely to have a tougher time cracking the top 12.

Bullet, I dont mean disrespect to Conf USA fans, however, I look at things from an objective sense. Sometimes this brings concerns to BCS conferences such as the Big East.

First of all, I have said over and over again the Big East is currently not close to the other 5 BCS conferences in strenght and Conf USA is not close to the Big East in strenght.

To state that Conf USA is a equal to the Big East is similiar to saying the Big East is equal to the new ACC.

Let alone the fact that the other 5 BCS conferences especially SEC and ACC want not part of Conf USA in the BCS. Many of those fans will be voting each week in the polls and will not cut Conf USA any slack. Conf USA will have to earn every vote.

Conf USA has a lot of issues to overcome including attendance. The BE is dropping Temple and Rutgers just had a sellout this past weekend. Louisville, WVU, UConn all had impressive attendance during the opening games.

Additionally Conf USA is basically a new conference with a lot of logistics to overcome including new rivals that will need to be inforced to create TV and fan attenance interest.

Maybe Conf USA will thrive and make a BCS game, however, the odds are really not in the conference favor.

The new comers to Conf USA are not close to the new comers to the Big East.

UTEP looked miserble against ASU.
Marshall lost to the Sun Belt.
Rice beat Houston and that actually did not help
SMU lost to Tech Tech
UCF lost to Wisconsin

By comparison to the NBE

Louisville hammered the SEC
Cincinnati played hard on the road against top 10 team

WVU is a wash with Memphis
Rutgers looks like a wash with Southern Miss

Tulane and Syracuse would probably play to a tie of 0-0

UConn versis UAB?

South Florida and Pitt did not play.

From week one of college football, I would hardly compare Conf USA to the new Big East.

Now if we look at basketball which is also part of the equation that often gets overlook by Conf USA fans and MWC fans when comparison to the new Big East and you can understand why the new Big East is BCS.

Agreed, Lash. CUSA will be the big loser when all is said and done, though there is little I could see them doing differently to have made things better. And while we're only one week into the season, things have already begun to look brighter for the Sun Belt's future as well. It'll be interesting based on these premises to see what becomes of the 1-A landscape in the next few years. Thus...

Now that you've heard at least a little feedback on your exploration of different BE scenario's, which one do you think has the most merit and/or appeal? While the talk of realignment will die down for some time, we'll now begin monitoring programs for their individual reactions to a) gain favor with another conference, or b) improve their own BCS appeal. If the concept of having confernces qualify for the BCS comes true (as discussed in the article mentioned earlier), I wonder what some of the hidden ramifications might be:

- BE definitely reserves expansion to limited number of candidates based upon more defined BCS value.

- Will the BCS standards become the default standard for 1-A membership? Not literally, mind you, but in that programs will know more clearly what is required of them to make the big time, which should make it easier to determine if your program should drop down, invest more or be content with "fodder" status.

- Could the MAC grow in status by actively slimming their conference? And if they do might Marshall be tempted back into the fold?

- Will more mid-majors look to stay away from the money games in hopes of improving their BCS status, and what might that do to the traditional powers?

The BE has the advantage in that not only will be eligible once such a system is implemented, but they'll also be in a position of strength to work to improve their status, both in terms of resources and stature. Still, it will be fun to see if the overall quality of 1-A rises or sinks with such a system.

Gunnerfan, I could not agree with you more on those comments.

With all the Big East resources, it will take some effort to keep up with the big BCS boys.

The issues with Conf USA and to some extent MWC is the ability to understand your limits. You may love football with a passion and really want to be part of the big boy network, however, many of those teams never were part of the network prior to the BCS.

Often the BCS gets blamed when all the BCS did was make public what was always determined behind smoke filled closed doors.

The problem with college football is lack of a very good middle division that makes money. The NCAA Div 1AA playoff is not what it takes to make money.

If you look at Florida Atlantic win this weekend at Hawaii, the Sun Belt has a good future. Is that future part of the BCS? most likely no.

What should happen is the Sun Belt, MAC, Conf USA, WAC join up a create a BCS type scenerio and work with the TV networks to gain acceptance. There could be more money made in this scenerio than waiting for that BCS bid to come down the pike.

This will probably not happen because the BCS now has dangled a carriot that is so far out of reach and everyone of these big boy wannbee conferences really think they belong and are part of the BCS network.

Kink of sad and a reality check all at the same time.

Lash, Gunnerfan, I believe it was Friarfan who came up with the results of the top teams in each of the conferences a few months back. The results were that the MWC, NBE and CUSA were basically equal at the top. There was very little gap between the 3. There was a big drop to the MAC and big gap up to the top 5.

Average conference strength may be a bigger difference, but the NBE has had Rutgers and UConn, so I'm not so sure about average strength. And Louisville, Cincy and USF averaged right in the middle of CUSA last year. Contrary to popular myth, the CUSA was going to be stronger (I'm not talking potential, only recent historical results) in fb until TCU left.
Marshall-Louisville small +
Rice-Cincinnati small + (look at the actual records- not popular misconception)
UCF-USF small + because USF only spent 1
year in CUSA and had only been in
I-A 3 years. So UCF is an addition.
SMU-Army small +
Tulsa small decline as they have been
below average, although they won
8 last year.

The opportunity for the BE to increase the gap, IMO, comes from bb. The strength of CUSA bb has helped them in fb (most of the programs are much stronger than they were in 1996-probably everyone but Army and Houston). The BE may be the strongest bb conference and that perception and TV coverage of the institutions will spread a little to fb. The bb $ will also help. All the uncertainty has hurt their recruiting and so their BCS inclusion will take a while to show on the field. And things may change again before they get that benefit.

The CUSA IMO will come out much better in fb as they are more compact and are together in all sports. However, they took a huge hit in basketball. They need some schools to step up or they will be looked at as a "mid-major" and be looking up at the MVC, WAC and MWC in bb.

Bullet, you can show me all the statistics you want, however, as a supporter of a playoff it shows on the field. Likewise conference comparison is proven on the field.

The problem with 12 team conferences that are sub par, you have 5 to 6 Temple's. Conf USA is very similiar to the MAC in this respect. Some good teams at the top and a lot of very bad teams at the bottom.

Conferences are judged from top to bottom.

Conf USA at the top looks pretty good this year with Memphis, TCU, Louisville, and yet to be seen Southern Miss play a BCS team. Its the bottom dwellers that are hurting this conference and will get worse next year with more coming on board.

This is my issue with your conference, you should have stopped at 8 or 9 or even 10 members. Your SOS next year is going south for the winter. A championship game was just not worth it.

In contrast, the new Big East is getting better by staying smaller.

This is also a big point that Friarfan has made on several post.

With Temple gone and Rutgers improving, the new Big East is actually stronger from top to bottom than with Miami and Temple. The top takes a hit, however, the overall conference is getting stronger.

I dont see how taking on SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP is helping the image of your conference at all. With East Carolina crashing, Marshall on the decline, Tulane one step from dropping football, the bottom half of the new Conf USA is going to pull the top half down.

Remember to get a BCS bid, SOS is included in the computer rankings. The computer rankings are one third of the overall BCS rankings.

The computer rankings would have been a place to gain some BCS ground for Conf USA. The polls are not going to show any love to this conference.

Just for argument sake, less say the Big East is currently equal to Conf USA, the next few years you are going to see both conferences going in seperate directions and its has nothing to do with BCS and everything to do with taking on 12 teams when half aren't close to BCS material.

You guys have hit on a fundamental problem. The top 2 or 3 teams in most of the non-BCS conferences are as good as some of the BCS conference teams inclusive of an appreciable number of those on the positive side of won-loss percentages. And, each of the BCS conferences, will have one or two teams that may be at best, performing at the level of mid-pack of non-BCS conferences.

I speculate as what it would be like to diminish conference affiliation as a factor in BCS selection. However, that opens it up to more to politics and popular favorites rather than the most deserving.

The speculation should not be whether the MWC or any other non-BCS needs to replace the BE as BCS participants. In the system established, whomever the conferences are, some are going to argue in favor as what as viewed as the best non-BCS conference replacing what may be viewed as the most vulnerable BCS conference. Maybe, in part, the ACC was looking for some insurance of their BCS standing by expanding. Remember, it was the ACC most talked about, not the BE, a couple or so years back as to their representative being BCS worthy. Even though FSU was winning consistently the ACC, they had a season or two with couple or three loses that caused some to question their automatic selection as deserving. So, if FSU suddenly went on a skid, would they have another to come to the forefront that would not get questioned in terms of the BCS?

Criticism of the new BE in terms of getting future BCS selections will not end up based on their current composition or the new teams they added. Though the BE lost three "of" its best ("not" saying the three best), they did add three decent programs. They also dropped Temple whose progress was not showing fast enough or maybe not at all.

As a whole, the new BE looks good and has respectable balance. On the other hand, if they hold at "eight" for the long-term in fb, they could be vulnerable to criticism, based on their numbers. This could get accelerated if no year to year dominant team emerges, or that a 8-3 team wins consistently. In a way, several highly competitive teams could compromise the representative's record and BCS placement spot.

I do not think the new BE is ready for a 12 team format. Nor should this be their immediate goal. I do think a number "9", and a good "9", would be a plus to the new BE in strengthening a future case. They can afford to wait a bit on this. However, the 4 away and 4 home conference games, consistent with eight all, will make them more consistent with their BCS brethern, and thus less open any angle of speculation that they are getting by with having to confront fewer obstacles.