Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[IronBuckI]

I think the methodology that this site uses is pretty flawed. I'm sorry, but Cincinnati and the University of Miami are not better schools academically than Notre Dame and Boston College. Doesn't even have Miami University listed in the top 500.

Here is a much more respected look of how schools rank academically.

National Universities Rankings - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report

I'm a little confused as to how the post that you quoted is related to your response.

 

[mross34]

I think the methodology that this site uses is pretty flawed. I'm sorry, but Cincinnati and the University of Miami are not better schools academically than Notre Dame and Boston College. Doesn't even have Miami University listed in the top 500.

Here is a much more respected look of how schools rank academically.

National Universities Rankings - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report

Your link is ranking purely undergrad. The other link is ranking significantly more than that.

 

[bigdog3300]

Here's an interesting theory.

The Big Ten gives the Big East a year to cut all ties with ND. If The Big East doesn't kick ND to the curb, the Big Ten raids the Big East of their best programs. How about a 14-team league with the addition of Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers. Essentially a death warrant for the Big East as we know it. ND has nowhere to turn for bowl games and non-football sports, so they come crawling back to the Big Ten.

I would die laughing out of pure happiness if that happened, which would be quite unfortunate considering I'd love to see that come to fruition. Talk about a huge market gain with that kind of move.

And +1 to whoever bashed Dennis Dodd!

 

[morbitzerker]

Any idea on what the Conference would be called?

I can't see it still being called the B10 once this goes down.

The Big Twen.

 

[JXC]

Your link is ranking purely undergrad. The other link is ranking significantly more than that.

This is true. But then again, the football players are all undergrads.

Undergrad is the best way to compare schools, because every school has it. You could compare individual grad programs. But just because one school has a graduate program, and the other doesn't, doesn't mean it's better.

The other link measures how many nobel prize winners the university has hired to teach there. That's like 20% of the ranking. There is a lot more to a school than what it used in its methodology. US News does a better job in my opinion. They have Grad program rankings, too, if you want to check them out. But they do is separately, which I feel is necessary.

Again, if you are going to say overall that Cincinnati is a better school than Notre Dame, Syracuse and Boston College, you've got to be smoking something that you need to let me try.

 

[mross34]

This is true. But then again, the football players are all undergrads.

The argument about academics being a factor is completely separate from athletics as a whole, much less just football, so this is 100% irrelevant.

Undergrad is the best way to compare schools, because every school has it. You could compare individual grad programs. But just because one school has a graduate program, and the other doesn't, doesn't mean it's better.

Yes, but just because one school doesn't have a medical school doesn't mean that another school should not get credit for having one of the best medical schools in the country. In fact, I'm willing to say that the Big 10 isn't nearly as interested in a school's undergraduate programs. Maybe you didn't go to Ohio State or maybe you did and had a liberal arts-type major, but I can tell you that as an undergrad, my classmates and I were not the faculty's primary concern in very many of my classes. And from friends that went to other Big 10 schools, I know Ohio State is not alone. Such is the nature of going to a research institution like OSU.

The other link measures how many nobel prize winners the university has hired to teach there. That's like 20% of the ranking.

What they are measuring is how many staff members have won Nobel Prizes (given to the top researcher in one's respective field) and Fields medals while conducting research at that institution. I think that makes perfect sense to be a large factor, as that means for that year in that field, your school had the best thing going.

Remember, this is a ranking of the world's best institutions. Judging by these rankings less than 150 institutions can currently claim to employ even one of these people. And if you're going to rank the world's best anything, you're going to need to separate the people at the top, particularly when they're not going head-to-head in some sort of direct competition. You could even make the argument that the prize winners are the result of them winning any competition that might be taking place.

There is a lot more to a school than what it used in its methodology. US News does a better job in my opinion. They have Grad program rankings, too, if you want to check them out. But they do is separately, which I feel is necessary.

To rank them separately is fine, but these rankings are measuring a school's overall academic output, something the US News rankings don't even attempt to do. They serve an entirely different purpose, as they speak to the quality of an education at that school.

Again, if you are going to say overall that Cincinnati is a better school than Notre Dame, Syracuse and Boston College, you've got to be smoking something that you need to let me try.

Those three schools are tiny compared to UC. I don't know a ton about Notre Dame, but I know Syracuse does not have a med school and their law school is ranked as one of the 5 worst in the state of NY. All three are fine undergraduate institutions, and even have several top notch graduate schools. Unfortunately this is not the Big 10's M.O. Research is king.

 

[JXC]

The argument about academics being a factor is completely separate from athletics as a whole, much less just football, so this is 100% irrelevant. Yes, but just because one school doesn't have a medical school doesn't mean that another school should not get credit for having one of the best medical schools in the country. In fact, I'm willing to say that the Big 10 isn't nearly as interested in a school's undergraduate programs. Maybe you didn't go to Ohio State or maybe you did and had a liberal arts-type major, but I can tell you that as an undergrad, my classmates and I were not the faculty's primary concern in very many of my classes. And from friends that went to other Big 10 schools, I know Ohio State is not alone. Such is the nature of going to a research institution like OSU.
What they are measuring is how many staff members have won Nobel Prizes (given to the top researcher in one's respective field) and Fields medals while conducting research at that institution. I think that makes perfect sense to be a large factor, as that means for that year in that field, your school had the best thing going.

Remember, this is a ranking of the world's best institutions. Judging by these rankings less than 150 institutions can currently claim to employ even one of these people. And if you're going to rank the world's best anything, you're going to need to separate the people at the top, particularly when they're not going head-to-head in some sort of direct competition. You could even make the argument that the prize winners are the result of them winning any competition that might be taking place.
To rank them separately is fine, but these rankings are measuring a school's overall academic output, something the US News rankings don't even attempt to do. They serve an entirely different purpose, as they speak to the quality of an education at that school.

Those three schools are tiny compared to UC. I don't know a ton about Notre Dame, but I know Syracuse does not have a med school and their law school is ranked as one of the 5 worst in the state of NY. All three are fine undergraduate institutions, and even have several top notch graduate schools. Unfortunately this is not the Big 10's M.O. Research is king.

Christ! Did you compile these rankings yourself? I feel like i've offended you by offering other rankings.

Oh, and the football players being undergrads was a joke. My fault for not adding the "wink face" next to it.

 

[mross34]

Christ! Did you compile these rankings yourself? I feel like i've offended you by offering other rankings.

Not offended in the least, just trying to show you that what you're looking at might not be anything like what the committee is looking at.

 

[JXC]

Not offended in the least, just trying to show you that what you're looking at might not be anything like what the committee is looking at.

Ahhhh...well fuck the committee.

I think this whole thing is crap anyway. Stay at 11 teams. Play everybody plus 2 non conference games. Start making those two non-conference games relevant for everybody. That's what I would like to see. Then, if you want more money, get the NCAA to add a 13th game that is special just for the Big Ten and the SEC, a Big Ten/SEC challenge.

Every year they go by last years standings, and #1 plays #1, #2 plays #2...and so on. That's how you make the sport better and generate more money. Have everybody play a 13th game against the SEC...not just 1 title game.

I hope we don't expand JUST to get a title game. It's highly overrated. Pac-10 does it best.

And I still find it funny that all these presidents are all of the championship games, but not for a playoff, even though championship games are pretty much like a playoff. Idiots. All these people running college football are idiots. I think the best thing for everybody to do is just CHANGE nothing. It works right now as it is, and even though it could get better, if they try and change it they are probably just going to fuck it up.

 

[Steve19]

Any league tables of universities needs to be considered in terms of its criteria for ranking. Universities worldwide place the most store in the QS World Rankings (formerly the Times Higher Education rankings from London, link). The Center for World-Class Universities of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China (link) has a ranking system that also is gaining some influence.

Reading these rankings can be sobering for Ohio State alumni and those of some other universities with fans posting on BP.

State government funding decisions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, even if intended to strengthen other schools, had the consequence of providing Ohio State with inadequate support. Many disciplines that were once world leading fell considerably. For instance, compare the rankings of Notre Dame and Ohio State MBA programs by Business Week (link) and overseas (link). Now consider that the "College of Administrative Science" at Ohio State was once held in such high esteem that the American Marketing Association used Ohio State's definition of marketing as its official definition in the 1960s.

I don't mean to reflect on anyone's posts in this thread, and it's fun to joke about other schools sometimes, but I hope that we can be balanced and avoid running down other universities based on the strength of their academic programs.

Ohio State is well-respected internationally as a research-led university with some incredible scholars and excellence in most departments. So is Notre Dame and Pitt. The three would stand a cut below TSUN and Wisconsin on many criteria. Most PhD graduates at leading universities, in many disciplines, would have private universities, such as Harvard, Duke, Emory, Chicago, Stanford, or Northwestern, much higher on their list of employment targets--and that affects the quality of what happens in the classroom.

The question then arises, "In which classrooms is quality affected?" Given that most universities use similar textbooks and teaching methods at the undergraduate level, I wonder if the differences are really all that significant at the undergrad level?

I guess my point is this. These comparisons to academics at other universities don't really matter in the context of college choice by most high school athletes. Also, we gain nothing by running down other schools and most of us probably can't make reliable and valid evaluations of other universities anyway.

Here is what I know.

I can measure the positive impact that Ohio State had on my life. I wouldn't trade having gone to Ohio State with any other university. I know where my heart lies.

 

[CHU]

Five-year Director's Cup Average

Just stupid numbers, but here's the average of some proposed schools in the NACDA Directors' Cup over the past five academic years.

Five-Year Average
17. Notre Dame
43. Missouri
58. Vanderbilt
69. Iowa State
83. Rutgers
87. Pittsburgh

Syracuse did not qualify or stand in the Top 100 in the 2004-05 or 2005-06 seasons (did not appear in standings).

Again, just dumb numbers.

 

[cincibuck]

Some Texas faculty upset with $2 million raise for Mack Brown - ESPN

Just a note re: Texas academics.

I wondered when this would happen. It would be a problem with the faculty at most schools, but the Austin community, like Madison, Ann Arbor and Bezerkeley will support the faculty and not the coach.

Me thinks this one of the big advantages in coaching hunts enjoyed by SEC schools at all schools except Vandy and Florida. I think it's a big part of why Les Myles is still in Baton Rouge and not in AA.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Here's an interesting theory.

The Big Ten gives the Big East a year to cut all ties with ND. If The Big East doesn't kick ND to the curb, the Big Ten raids the Big East of their best programs. How about a 14-team league with the addition of Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers. Essentially a death warrant for the Big East as we know it. ND has nowhere to turn for bowl games and non-football sports, so they come crawling back to the Big Ten.

I was thinking the very same thing last night. In fact, if the Big Ten takes even one of those schools, then the Big East will fall apart, as it's barely a viable conference now with only eight teams and no marquee programs. So, if the Big Ten targets one Big East school, then they might as well target three. In that case, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, and South Florida would be scrambling around trying to land a spot in the ACC or SEC, while UConn would probably go back to FCS and remain in the basketball Big East. Who knows what Notre Dame would do, other than continue to be irrelevant in the world of college football.

The same thing happened when Texas left the old Southwest Conference - the Big Eight also took Texas A+M, Texas Tech, and Baylor; Arkansas got lucky and hooked up with the SEC; but Houston, Texas Christian, Southern Methodist, and Rice were left out in the cold ... and Houston and Texas Christian really should be in a BCS conference right now. So, programs like Cincinnati and West Virginia better hope that the Big Ten doesn't raid the Big East, or they might get screwed like some of those old SWC teams.

Here's how a Big Ten plus Rutgers, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse would look:

Eastern Division
1. Ohio State
2. Penn State
3. Pittsburgh
4. Syracuse
5. Rutgers
6. Indiana
7. Purdue

Western Division
1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Illinois
4. Northwestern
5. Wisconsin
6. Minnesota
7. Iowa

 

[cincibuck]

What makes sense to me is Texas to the Big Ten, then the dominoes fall into place.

TCU takes Texas' spot in the B12.

That drops the MWC down to 8. They pick up Houston and the three best WAC programs (Boise, Nevada and Fresno) and become a 12 member AQ conference.

All conferences are a compromise athletically. You know the SEC will ultimately be dominated by Alabama and Tennessee. The Big 12 by Texas and Oklahoma, the Pac 10 by USC and Cinderella, the Big 10 by Ohio State and Michigan.

Putting TCU into Texas' slot is simply putting a Northwestern (without the academic rep) into the Big 12. That's a double loss because TCU ain't going to have any 13 and 0 seasons in the Big 12 w/wo Texas. The Big 12 loses it's strongest academic institution, a 100K stadium and a huge draw for away games.

While I can believe that Texas' academicians are hot for the deal, I can't imagine the AD being too excited over flying to Chicago to play Northwestern in 35K Dyke Stadium (Hey, maybe there's the first big clue), a place that still has empty seats for games with OSU, PSU and UM.

UNLESS, they can once more drag the Aggies along in which case the Big 10 bags 2 100K stadiums, a hot rivalry, and one of the finest vet schools in the nation.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Eastern Division
1. Ohio State
2. Penn State
3. Pittsburgh
4. Syracuse
5. Rutgers
6. Indiana
7. Purdue

Western Division
1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Illinois
4. Northwestern
5. Wisconsin
6. Minnesota
7. Iowa

I realize this is all hypothetical but looking at this has gotten me thinking about something.

If you have a 7 team division that locks you into 6 games, plus 4 OOC games leaves you with only 2 games a year vs the other division. Now lets say they decided to split up OSU and scUM (I'd be 100% against it but lets just say) you now use 1 of the 2 slots for The Game every year.

So if you had this exact format;
1) There could always be the chance for a rematch 1 week after The Game if both teams won their divisions.
2) We would only play MSU, Illinois, NU, Wisky, Iowa and Minny once every 6 years in the regular season. No big deal on each of those teams for us but given all the rivalry games in the B10 it would be something to consider when breaking up divisions.

EDIT
Also, if we assume this happens look at how bad our SOS will be for the foreseeable future.

3 OOC cupcakes
1 OOC BCS program
PSU
Pitt
The Cuse
Rutgers
IU
Purdue
1 of the western teams
scUM
B10 CCG

I know we lost to Purdue this year but it was a fluke. The bolded teams are actual BE or BE level teams. Unless SU, Rutgers and Pitt got a whole lot better in a short period of time our SOS could actually get worse.