menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Which came first, chicken or the egg?
Page: 1 of 2
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/14/2014 8:26 PM
settings_applications edit_note
In trying to understand more about the relationship between academics and football (as in, does football help or hurt academic reputation, or have no effect), I decided to look at the US News and World Reports Top Universities, and see how the various conferences stack up academically. Any school not ranked in the top 200 I gave an arbitrary rating of 250. Here are the average ranks for some Conferences:

Ivy League - 7

AQ Conferences
ACC - 54
Big Ten - 57 (But, of course, they still can't count correctly to ten)
Pac Twelve - 81
SEC - 97
Big Twelve - 112

Middle Ground
AAC - 144

Non-AQ Conferences
MAC East - 132
CUSA - 196
MWC - 209
Mac West - 211
Sunbelt - 250

Interestingly I found that all the AQ conferences were ranked higher in academics than any non-AQ Conference. I also found that there was not one single AQ school not listed in the Top 200. The lowest ranked AQ schools were West Virginia (#170), Louisville (#161), and Texas Tech (#161). Of these three, two of them just made the move to being in an AQ conference.

I also found that most non-AQ FBS conferences were ranked >200 or so. The AAC, as a step between the AQ and non-AQ conferences was ranked, interestingly enough, mid-way between them. The one conference that doesn't really fit in this pattern is the MAC East, which has several highly ranked schools (Miami #75, UMass #91, SUNY-Buffalo #109, Ohio #135). There were a couple other highly ranked non-AQ schools in CUSA as well (Rice #18, Tulane #52, Tulsa#86), but not enough to make up for the other schools.

So, which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Did football thrive primarily is strong academic universities? Did fan allegiance grow for strong academic universities because people wanted to be associated with them? Did strong academic universities have money to throw at sports when the sports were in a formative state, so that they were able to take early, dominant positions, which they still hold? Or, do sports help to promote awareness of Universities, enabling them to grow stronger academically in the long run?

Does anyone have a link to an old USNWR ranking from 10-20 years ago, so that I can look to see how these rankings have changed over time? That might help to answer the chicken and egg question.
Last Edited: 2/15/2014 10:15:19 AM by L.C.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 2/14/2014 10:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It seems to me that the vast majority of the football powers are the larger state schools and a few larger, wealthier private schools that have well established, mostly large student-alumni bases, and are perceived to represent the population of the state. They have the state financing, the large endowments, and established non-alumni fan bases. They have the political power to capture the largest precentage of nationally available research monies. As in most areas the rich get richer while the smaller or newer schools bring up the rear.

While the Ivys and the University of Chicago are rich, old schools that don't play at the highest levels of football anymore , the major players today include many of the same players from 30-40 years ago. Further back, some of the major teams like Army and Navy have dropped down, but the TV money available today has exacerbated the differences between the haves and the have nots.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the old, large, rich universities have the alumni and supporters, resources and history that makes them the highly ranked educational institutions and football has almost nothing to do with any if that status. But I'll think some more about your question.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/14/2014 10:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I read you as giving two separate answers. The first is that the big state schools got into sports early, and took a dominant position, and for the most part they have been able to hold that position. Your second answer seems to be that while there is no causation in either direction, the same factors (state name, access to resources) made them both successful in sports, and successful in academics.

I would agree that being state schools they have more ability to pull strings to get awarded grants, which in turn funds research, and improves the overall University. I would dispute one thing, that being endowments. Some state schools have large endowments, while others do not. A large endowment is not automatic for state schools.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 2/14/2014 11:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
I read you as giving two separate answers. The first is that the big state schools got into sports early, and took a dominant position, and for the most part they have been able to hold that position. Your second answer seems to be that while there is no causation in either direction, the same factors (state name, access to resources) made them both successful in sports, and successful in academics.

I would agree that being state schools they have more ability to pull strings to get awarded grants, which in turn funds research, and improves the overall University. I would dispute one thing, that being endowments. Some state schools have large endowments, while others do not. A large endowment is not automatic for state schools.
I think that, in general, the schools that I'm talking about have larger endowments that most of the have nots in sports. But as with anything, there are going to be lots of exceptions based on demographics and the randomness of giving by individuals. I'm guessing schools that have law schools and medical schools have a good start on big endowments, but I haven't done any study of that. A few Bill Gates, Phil Knight or Boone Pickens type donors can make a difference, sort of like Russ at Ohio in a lesser way.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 2/14/2014 11:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FWIW, Of the 36 teams that play FBS football and have endowments over 1 billion, 33 are in AQ conferences, and 3-NYU, Rice and SMU are NQ.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 12:03 AM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
FWIW, Of the 36 teams that play FBS football and have endowments over 1 billion, 33 are in AQ conferences, and 3-NYU, Rice and SMU are NQ.


Don't you mean our conference mate, The SUNY-Buffalo and NAQ? 
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 12:10 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=colobobcat66]FWIW, Of the 36 teams that play FBS football and have endowments over 1 billion, 33 are in AQ conferences, and 3-NYU, Rice and SMU are NQ.


Don't you mean our conference mate, The SUNY-Buffalo and NAQ?

No it isn't-Sorry that is NYU and doesn't include Buffalo as far as I can tell.

The numbers are system wide for some of the schools so it's overstated for just the football entities, but it's a good place to start.
Last Edited: 2/15/2014 12:19:17 AM by colobobcat66
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 9:51 AM
settings_applications edit_note
NYU doesn't play FBS football on any campus that I'm aware of.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 10:14 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
NYU doesn't play FBS football on any campus that I'm aware of.

Right, I made the initial mistake of saying NYU included Buffalo, of course it doesn't. Totally different, so only 2 NAQ schools in the FBS, large endowment group.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 3:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
NYU doesn't play FBS football on any campus that I'm aware of.

Right, I made the initial mistake of saying NYU included Buffalo, of course it doesn't. Totally different, so only 2 NAQ schools in the FBS, large endowment group.


This seems to be a common mistake. New York has SUNY, CUNY and NYU.  And, to top it off NYU is private.  I'm surprised though that SUNY at Buffalo doesn't have a pretty large endowment all its own.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 5:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OK, I tried to address the questions raised by Colorado, and I looked only at schools bearing the names like "Ohio" or "Ohio State", bearing the state name as the name of the University. I did include some that are the state university, but aren't named that way, such as "SUNY-Buffalo" for New York, and Rutgers for New Jersey. I did not include New York University since it is not a public University. The data gets messed up where you have universites with 23 campuses, or something, in which case I typically took the largest. Here is what I found:

               # in Sample    Avg USNWR Rank     Avg Endowment
Ivy League          1              7                7.74
AQ School          43             90                1.84
Non-AQ FBS School  15            182                 .28
Non-FBS            18            178                 .20

So, again you get the chicken and egg question. The state schools with the big endowments are AQ schools, and those with small endowments are not. Did one cause the other, or were they both caused by independent factors?

There does not seem to be much difference between non-AQ FBS schools and schools wtih no FBS football program. If you wanted to try to make a group between AQ and non-AQ by considering AAC schools to be intermediate, you do get an intermediate result, but the sample size of 1 (U.Conn) is too small to be significant.

To show how little overlap there is, the only non-AQ schools bearing a state name with the endowments over $450m are Delaware at $1.171b, SUNY-Buffalo at $762m, and New Mexico at $504m. Meanwhile the only AQ schools with a state name and endowments under $450m are Mississippi State at $344m and Kansas State at $347m.

By the way, the AQ schools that do not bear state names (places like Wake Forest, Vandy, Stanford, Northwestern) actually average a higher rank, and a higher endowment than the ones with state names, with an average rank of 54, and endowment of $3.87b.
Last Edited: 2/15/2014 5:41:48 PM by L.C.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 6:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
So, here are some alternate theories that could be tested:
1. Schools with big endowments were wealthy, so they got into sports early, and took positions of power, which they still hold today.
2. Schools lucky enough to have AQ status get more exposure, and thus more contributions, and thus tend to have larger endowments, which in the end means they become better as learning institutions.
3. Schools with the most political power tend to also be able to capture more research, making them better schools in the long run, which in turn has boosted their endowments, and they have also been able to use their political power to secure the desirable AQ status.

I'm sure there could be other theories as well.

How would you test these? I already, in another thread, looked at changes in endowments over the last decade, and found that endowment growth was faster in AQ schools than non-AQ schools. Another thing you might look at was the relative academic status of these various AQ schools 30 years ago. Were they all highly ranked back then, or has their ranking been improving over the last 30 years?
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 7:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I read you as giving two separate answers. The first is that the big state schools got into sports early, and took a dominant position, and for the most part they have been able to hold that position. Your second answer seems to be that while there is no causation in either direction, the same factors (state name, access to resources) made them both successful in sports, and successful in academics.

I would agree that being state schools they have more ability to pull strings to get awarded grants, which in turn funds research, and improves the overall University. I would dispute one thing, that being endowments. Some state schools have large endowments, while others do not. A large endowment is not automatic for state schools.
I think that, in general, the schools that I'm talking about have larger endowments that most of the have nots in sports. But as with anything, there are going to be lots of exceptions based on demographics and the randomness of giving by individuals. I'm guessing schools that have law schools and medical schools have a good start on big endowments, but I haven't done any study of that. A few Bill Gates, Phil Knight or Boone Pickens type donors can make a difference, sort of like Russ at Ohio in a lesser way.

As you were saying earlier the endowment game is largely a function of age because older schools have alumni from different eras that come out of wood work for large gifts. Ohio is a perfect example of this with a 115 million dollar gift to the engineering school from someone who graduated in the 1940's. His fortune was largely the result of being at the ground floor of R&D companies back in the 1950's so point here is that it takes some historical right place at the right time situation to have that kind of money sitting around. Wright State was started in the 1960's and nobody from that engineering school ever had the same magnitude of opportunity. The question is who is our modern day Russ? I had no idea but Bobcat Matt Lauer who we all know is on the Today Show makes 25 million dollars a year. He's the highest paid media celebrity and makes 2 times more a year than Anderson Cooper. Its time to get the Lauer Center for Performing Arts on line ASAP. Glidden tried to raise money for it but he thought the 10 million dollar private donation was out of reach. He said Memorial Auditorium was alright for some performances but didn't work for others. Since he was PhD in Music I'll largely take his word on the inadequacy.

 
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 2/15/2014 8:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
So, which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Did football thrive primarily is strong academic universities? Did fan allegiance grow for strong academic universities because people wanted to be associated with them? Did strong academic universities have money to throw at sports when the sports were in a formative state, so that they were able to take early, dominant positions, which they still hold? Or, do sports help to promote awareness of Universities, enabling them to grow stronger academically in the long run?

Does anyone have a link to an old USNWR ranking from 10-20 years ago, so that I can look to see how these rankings have changed over time? That might help to answer the chicken and egg question.

I don't have a link but I can tell you that 20 years ago Ohio was much higher in the USNWR rankings and right around where Michigan State and Virginia Tech in those days. The school has gradually slipped backwards in the rankings every year after before listed as a Top 100 school. This is at the same that athletics at Ohio began to be ran as a serious Division 1 institution with proper branding and commitment levels. The schools that have gone up the most in those rankings have benefited from high growth states which causes a sharp uptick in the student profile. The population in Ohio has been stagnant with high tuition costs for instate residents. What's happened is that Ohio has held steady in student profile since the 90's but they've increased the freshman class from 3200 to 4000 at that time which has hurt some of the other schools in the state nailed with falling demand. There have been huge cutbacks at schools like Bowling Green and Akron with a very low percentage of full time faculty.The driver in Ohio is cost pressure not football. First it hit the private schools in the 80's and then the publics in the 2000's forcing Ohio to expand to keep the budget upright. Kent State also survived by growth and absorbed a students that were heading to BG or Akron before.

How does this relate to football? All state legislatures want to have at least one nationally prominent research university, more if its a high population state. Ohio State was founded for that purpose and by having that stature it was what allowed the school to get into the Big Ten where Michigan was with an 82,000 seat stadium built in 1927. However, Ohio State had top tier football for 100 years yet until about 2 decades ago was an open admission school. Ohio and Miami had better student profiles historically but OSU cut down the freshman class size to 6,000 for a 57,000 student school (letting others transfer in) and it helps to be the only public school in the growing Columbus market. Over half of the student body is from Columbus so it has traditionally more an urban school even though its in the Big Ten. It doesn't hurt Columbus has been the fastest growing metro area Ohio for several decades, doubling in population since 1980. Highly successful and expanding business community has led to a huge endowment at that school. The endowment and football really didn't have anything to do with Ohio State's academic reputation which was perceived as poor outside of Columbus. At Ohio the endowment is more of a direct reflection of the long academic tradition at the school with a non-existent local business community and academic reputation is why its done so well in recruiting students despite location in the far corner of the state. Students read about the programs, they visit a campus ranked in the Top 10 nationally and that Ohio University brand. Ohio's endowment is pretty close after the latest fundraising drive to Maryland and Rutgers two schools entering the Big Ten with much larger enrollments. Maryland isn't synergyistic with the DC business community like OSU is in Columbus that's why the smaller endowment. In fact its an afterthought really and many people have never been there. I live as the crow flies 10 miles from campus and have never walked it. Why they are rated Top 50 in the USNWR report and Ohio is rated #135 I have no clue. USNWR uses a limited set of criteria that doesn't take into consider the state demographics or the selection process at a school. Its a very poor evaluation tool.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 1:57 AM
settings_applications edit_note
USNWR may be imperfect but it is pretty consistent and everyone is judged by the same criteria so it is at least fair.  Bottom line is OHIO is falling in the rankings.  You may not like it but that is the reality.  i am sure you could compare the numbers with ten years ago to see why OHIO is falling...be it alumni contributions, incoming frosh profile, grad rates or whatever.
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 2:41 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Here's a color coded look at the USNWR for all of the G5 schools I whipped up awhile ago. Ohio is tied with Cinci for 11th overall. I know we'll never move to CUSA but if anyone ever needs a reason why that would be a bad idea, this should do it.


AMERICAN | CUSA | MAC | MWC | SUN BELT

#018- Rice
#052- Tulane
#057- UConn
#060- SMU
#075- Miami
#086- Tulsa
#091- UMass

#109- Buffalo
#121- Temple
#121- Colorado State
#135- Ohio
#135- Cincinnati
#152- San Diego State
#152- UAB
#158- Hawaii
#161- Wyoming
#161- Idaho
#170- UCF
#170- USF
#177- Northern Illinois
#181- Ball State
#181- Bowling Green
#181- East Carolina
#181- New Mexico
#181- Nevada
#181- Western Michigan
#190- Central Michigan
#190- La Tech
#190- New Mexico State
#190- Houston
#190- Utah State
#201- Kent State
#201- Charlotte

RNP- Memphis
RNP- Florida Atlantic
RNP- Florida International
RNP- Middle Tennessee
RNP- North Texas
RNP- Old Dominion
RNP- Southern Mississippi
RNP- UTEP
RNP- UTSA
RNP- Akron
RNP- Toledo
RNP- UNLV
RNP- Georgia Southern
RNP- Georgia State
RNP- LA Lafayette
RNP- South Alabama

Not Ranked- Navy
Not Ranked- Marshall
Not Ranked- Western Kentucky
Not Ranked- Eastern Michigan
Not Ranked- Air Force
Not Ranked- Boise State
Not Ranked- Fresno State
Not Ranked- San Jose State
Not Ranked- Appalachian State
Not Ranked- Arkansas State
Not Ranked- Texas State
Not Ranked- Troy
Not Ranked- ULM
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 10:25 AM
settings_applications edit_note
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
... I know we'll never move to CUSA but if anyone ever needs a reason why that would be a bad idea, this should do it.

I agree, perimeter. IF sports has advantages in a college setting, one is opening communication channels and other associations with other institutions. The Big Ten has it right in that regards - join with other quality institutions. Sunbelt, CUSA, and MAC-West, for that matter, have little to offer. MWC isn't bad, but is too far away. That leaves AAC as the only viable possibility for a step up.
fiugoldenpanthers1
General User
F1
Member Since: 12/23/2013
Post Count: 28
person
mail
fiugoldenpanthers1
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 4:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
There is no chance that Ohio will move up from the Mac? If not, why would that be? As Ohio has been pretty successful in athletics. 

If there is a lot of information why Ohio will have no chance to move up, can you please point me in the right direction? As I would like to read up on that.

 
Last Edited: 2/16/2014 4:29:19 PM by fiugoldenpanthers1
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 5:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
fiugoldenpanthers1 wrote:expand_more
There is no chance that Ohio will move up from the Mac? If not, why would that be? As Ohio has been pretty successful in athletics. 

If there is a lot of information why Ohio will have no chance to move up, can you please point me in the right direction? As I would like to read up on that.

 

I guess the main reason for thinking that is that the only schools ever to leave the MAC are ones that enter on what is pretty well known to be a temporary basis anyway.
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 6:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
it depends on how you define "a step up". AAC could be argued as a step up from the MAC but the benefits are negligible.

if you mean "a step up" as going from a G5 to a P5 conference then there's several reasons why that would be a challenge. Of the 5 options PAC12 and SEC can be eliminated immediately. B1G would theoretically be the best fit but there's no way OSU would ever allow it. So that leaves ACC and B12. Planting a flag in the fertile ground of B1G country could be a good move for either of those conferences but one would assume that Cinci would have a leg up on the Bobcats as an option.

so although not impossible, highly, highly improbable.

I dream of a world where 10-12 MAC schools get their collective stuff together and maximize the advantages of our shared history and small footprint to create a competitive league with traveling fans that sell out every stadium. but I digress.
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 9:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
fiugoldenpanthers1 wrote:expand_more
There is no chance that Ohio will move up from the Mac? If not, why would that be? As Ohio has been pretty successful in athletics. 

If there is a lot of information why Ohio will have no chance to move up, can you please point me in the right direction? As I would like to read up on that.

Sure we can move up. The problem here is finding large sum of money to expand the stadium to 40,000 seats. The donors for the athletic department just aren't there. The athletic department is banking the future on marketing income. The want to build an academic performance center which retail at about 4 million and are selling the naming rights of the football and basketball stadiums to pay for it. Marketing income is also unrestricted unlike donor income. The Walter family gave 10 million towards an Indoor Practice Facility but that is payable over 20 years. I'm pretty sure we lead the MAC in marketing income and with a couple of BCS runs the media deal with IMG could skyrocket. The donor relationship here is also backwards compared to other schools even some in the MAC. Normally an athletic donor is someone in the community (usually not an alum) who from liking the product on the field, decides to up the seat donation and if they have the money a good sized donation to the program. At Ohio its more an alum who loves the school and is giving to the college decides to give homecoming a shot. Then once they go for a few homecoming games and realize they can get better seats with season tickets they do that. They don't start giving huge contributions to the athletic department because of sending money to the school already. Instead of athletics leading to more university donations, university donations are leading to more support of athletics. The local business community is buying ad space to support the program over direct contributions. Toledo and Marshall have larger communities where dedicated non-alumni fans who just care about athletics will lay out money for the department. Ohio has the Bobcat Club and if you donate 10,000 you can join the team on an away game but I don't know if anybody is doing it. Donor levels are near the bottom of the MAC while attendance is at the top.

http://issuu.com/dossakow/docs/ohiobobcatclubbrochure?e=4... style="font-size: 12px;">

Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 9:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
USNWR may be imperfect but it is pretty consistent and everyone is judged by the same criteria so it is at least fair.  Bottom line is OHIO is falling in the rankings.  You may not like it but that is the reality.  i am sure you could compare the numbers with ten years ago to see why OHIO is falling...be it alumni contributions, incoming frosh profile, grad rates or whatever.

Its not that Ohio's stats are dipping. The class profile is as strong as ever. What's happened is these SEC schools raised a ton of money over the last decade for scholarships and are buying up students left and right. So far Ohio's put its endowment into operations and buildings over scholarships. They are trying to make sure the campus is renovated first. With all the 441 million raised in the last 2 years 79% of that money  to go to academics and scholarships so I expect to see the class profile leap forward over the next couple of years. 

http://www.ohio.edu/campaign/about/index.cfm>
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 11:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The way I see it, this is our chicken or the egg. To afford to expand the stadium to 40,000 seats we are going to have to greatly increase our marketing revenue. To increase our marketing revenue we are going to have to make a BCS bowl. To make a BCS bowl we are required to win a MAC Championship. To win a MAC Championship we must win the MAC recruiting battles. To win the MAC recruiting battles we must participate in the MAC. It would hurt Ohio in the MAC recruiting battles to play in CUSA or the AAC with little exposure in the Midwest. Move to a BCS conference MAC recruiting battles are no longer relevant but to get to a BCS conference we'd have to have 40,000 seats. The program is finally winning the MAC recruiting battles so I hope a MAC Championship is on the way.

 
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 2/16/2014 11:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Wes, it was my understanding the quality of the students entering OHIO now are not as high as the students 10 years ago.  I also thought the teacher student ratio was higher.  There may be some other factors but I think it is a fact that OHIO has slipped the past decade.  Whether that is because we don't "buy" quality studetns like some other schools is besides the point.  Fact is we have dropped about 60 places I believe (seems that OHIO was in the 70-80 range at one time.  Spin it any way you want but i am pretty sure a bunch of the metrics are lower now than they were.

others have talked about UC.  I know for a fact they used to be a Tier 3 school but they have recently rocketed up the rankings.  Again, say what you want about mortgaging the future with their spending, but bottom line is they used to be nowhere near OHIO and soon they will pass us up in the rankings.  I know for a fact their cohort of frosh is light years ahead of where it was 10 years ago.  They are really going after higher quality students and scholars.

 
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 37
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)