Wall Street Journal: If College Football’s Rankings Were Based on Academics...

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,143
Reaction score
16,764
Points
113
per the Wall Street Journal:

The college football universe is unabashedly obsessed with rankings. Teams are ranked before they even play a game every season, and the magnitude of a win or less is measured by its reflection in the polls. Then the real arguments begin when the College Football Playoff releases its official rankings later in the season, which turns into a weekly exercise in euphoria and hysteria for the various teams in the hunt.

But one idea is lost in the endless comparisons: The players involved are representing actual universities where people take classes and learn things. For football fans, this opens an extra dimension of bragging rights.

Last month, The Wall Street Journal and Times Higher Education published a new set of rankings that measures U.S. colleges and universities based on their academic strength and other factors such as the salaries earned by their graduates. And now with the college football season in full swing, it’s time to put academic and football success side by side.

Big Ten
Average Academic Rank: 107

Ohio State has ruled the Big Ten over the last 10 years, but rival Michigan rates higher academically. (Any Michigan fan will likely remind of you of this within five minutes of starting a conversation.) Northwestern is the cream of the classroom but middling on the field. Then there’s Maryland and Rutgers, the two newest additions to the Big Ten—they didn’t do anything to boost the league’s academic or football profiles. In a conference that boasts the best average academic ranking, Nebraska, another relatively new addition, is the biggest outlier: The Cornhuskers rank 469th on the WSJ/THE list, more than 300 spots behind the next closest Big Ten school.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/college-rankings-football-vs-academics-1476293728

Go Gophers!!
 

The WSJ's firewall is impervious to those if us without a subscription.
Next to NE what BIG school was the lowest?
How did MN, IA and WI line up?
The NE ranking is no surprise and one I toss out at some rabid NE fans I know.
Thanks
 

"other factors such as the salaries earned by their graduates"

That's gonna favor some schools.

You could have a school bring in high academic performers outright and they'll score well in that aspect. You could have a school bring in folks who struggle, academically bring them up to fairly good.... they still lose, but who did better?

Academic stats are a bitch.
 

The WSJ's firewall is impervious to those if us without a subscription.
Next to NE what BIG school was the lowest?
How did MN, IA and WI line up?
The NE ranking is no surprise and one I toss out at some rabid NE fans I know.
Thanks

Don't know if I can get the formatting right with a copy/paste:


College WSJ/THE College Rank Conf. Win % (Since 2006)
Northwestern 13 .451
Michigan 24 .554
Purdue 37 .317
Illinois 48 .293
Michigan State 63 .646
Wisconsin 67 .695
Ohio State 71 .878
Penn State 96 .602
Maryland 100 .333
Minnesota 110 .317
Rutgers 110 .211
Indiana 129 .220
Iowa 164 .554
Nebraska 469 .643
Showing 1 to 14 of 14 entries

I'd say Michigan State and Illinois are surprising, but as mentioned the "other factors such as the salaries earned by their graduates" makes this an interesting statistic.
 




The WSJ's firewall is impervious to those if us without a subscription.

The paywall is relatively easy to beat. Click the link to open the article. Copy the headline. Paste the headline into google. The same article will be #1 in the results, but you'll be able to click on it and read it.
 




Top Bottom