Wait, wait. I, in no way was referring to BCS conferences. When I stated move up, I was referring to the former Big East or CUSA. Say what you want about CUSA but I have seen a Hughes difference to exposure with FIU from the S belt and CUSA and FIU has done nothing to move up. Attendance is one of the worst in the country, alumni giving money back does not exist, they are not competitive in athletics. The athletic department is a mess but with that FIU has moved up to CUSA, so why can't OHIO do something similar? 

I am not referring to who you are playing in CUSA, I am referring to money, bowls, and exposure. From the Sun belt to CUSA, that has been a hugh step up. I haven't studied the MAC but in respect from going from the Sunbelt to CUSA, it has been a big difference.

I've said it before and backed it up with facts from the university's own statistical profiles.  I believe that, while there may be a marginal increase in overall applications, athletic success does not drive the quality of those freshman classes forward.  You simply get more of the same kind of students who were applying previously.

The question still remains, why is every single AQ school ranked highly in academics, and why do they, almost without exceptions, have larger endowments than non-AQ FBS schools? From looking at the data, I have to think there is some sort of relationship there, where athletic success promotes both academic success and endowment giving, at least at the AQ level.  Is it because it attracts better students? Is it because name recognition attracts better professors? Is it because it attracts more R&D grants? Is is because it promotes non-athletic ties to affiliated institutions? I don't know.

Does the relationship extend below the AQ level? No, I don't think so. I see no difference between non-AQ FBS schools and non-FBS schools. The one gray area is the AAC, which seems to be mid-way between the AQ and the non-AQ FBS schools. They may get some benefits, but not as much as the AQ schools get.

My conclusion is that Ohio is unlikely to get much, if any, benefit from athletics while it remains in the MAC, and CUSA would be no different. Thus, the effect you are seeing, OUPride, is entirely consistent with what I am seeing in the data elsewhere.

Interestingly, because of all the conference re-alignments, we have a unique opportunity to see if athletics at the AQ level do indeed impact such things as academics, and I think we will find that they do. As a local example, I know that at U. Nebraska Lincoln has seen improvements in students, and increases in R&D since joining the Big Ten. In that case I think the driving cause is not the athletics, per se, but rather the closer ties to other quality Universities. (That's a reason why, if Ohio does move to another conference, either up or down, they should pick a conference where most of the institutions are high quality institutions academically).

Schools that we can watch over the next few years are:
Utah - moved from MWC to Pac-12 (non-AQ to AQ)
Nebraska - moved from Big 12 to Big 10 (better academic league)
Colorado - Big 12 to Pac-12 (better academic league)
West Virginia - Big East to Big 12 (non-AQ to AQ)
TCU - MWC to Big 12 (non-AQ to AQ)
Temple - MAC to Big East/AAC (non-AQ to in-between)
Missouri - Big 12 to SEC (sideways)
Syracuse - Big East to ACC (non-AQ to AQ, plus better academic league)
SMU - CUSA to AAC (non-AQ to in-between)
Pitt - Big East to ACC (non-AQ to AQ, plus better academic league)

Also, a number of schools moved from FCS to FBS (Georgia State, UTSA, Texas State, U.Mass, Old Dominion, South Alabama). I didn't list all the moves from Sunbelt to CUSA, or WAC to MWC as I see those to be sideways. I wouldn't expect anything to happen from an FCS-FBS move, nor from a Sunbelt-CUSA move..

I agree that is what he is saying, yet it seems too great of a coincidence to me that every AQ school is also highly regarded for academics. I don't doubt that there are many other factors at work, some much more powerful, such as lobbying power of various institutions. Therefore the absolute position of the various institutions is of less interest to me than the relative changes. That was why  I asked if anyone had an old ranking so I could compare changes over the last decade. I guess i will have to go to the library to get it as it doesn't appear to be online.