The New Lavin

[Chief Rum]

I feel like it's Steve Lavin all over again.

Only this time his name is Karl Dorrell.

[SackAttack]

So what you're saying is that Dorrell's going to get you guys into a BCS bowl every year, only to blow it in the second half?

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I feel like it's Steve Lavin all over again.

Only this time his name is Karl Dorrell.

Face it..UCLA is a basketball school that has a great year in football 25% of the time, max. You're not USC. You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So what you're saying is that Dorrell's going to get you guys into a BCS bowl every year, only to blow it in the second half?

No, the true equivalent would be getting into the Holiday Bowl, a second tier bowl, every year (remember, Lavin kept getting to Sweet Sixteen, not Final Four). Plus, we would be top five in recrutiing every year.

So actually Dorrell is worse. He doesn't even do that good.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Face it..UCLA is a basketball school that has a great year in football 25% of the time, max. You're not USC. You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

Nope, not going to accept that. The resources are here. It's one of the two premier programs in a major metropolitan area with no football team. It's right smack in the middle of one of the three acknowledged recruiting hotbeds in the country (with Texas and Florida). The school is consistently Top 25 academically. It has a huge booster base with plenty of resources. Great weather. Great girls. It plays its home games in the MFing Rose Bowl for crying out loud. Recruits flock to a mediocre program here--you imagine what they would do if this program got its act together? If UCLA and USC were actually on somewhat even terms (yes, I know that's a huge leap, but this is hypothetical) talent and achievement wise, you think recruits would go to the lesser academic school in the heart of South Central? They choose USC because that school IS committed to its program and has shown it. The results show. And the result is the best program in the country.

The only thing lacking for UCLA is commitment from the school to the athletic department and from the department to football. Stop buying coaches on the slim. Get a heavyweight. If you offer them the money, they'll come. Because they know the advantages they could have coming here.

Dorrell is a terrific person. I would leave my kids with him. But I don't want to go through this anymore as a football fan. He needs to go, and it's time UCLA stepped up and decided their football program should be on par with their basketball program.

[Warhammer]

Heck, its not that long ago that UCLA was a dominant football team. When they had Terry Donahue they were in the running for the Pac-10 title every year and finished in the top 10 every other year.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

HA! That's funny.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If UCLA and USC were actually on somewhat even terms (yes, I know that's a huge leap, but this is hypothetical) talent and achievement wise, you think recruits would go to the lesser academic school in the heart of South Central?

I think you may be downplaying the influence that SC has.
#1 Despite the best efforts to tll us otherwise, the elite athletes aren't concerned about academic achievement. They want the least hassel on theeirr way to the NFL. Its unfortunant, and unappealing but true.

#2 You have an entire generation now that has grown up on "classics" that glorify compton and south central as the place to be. i really think there is a draw there that few are accepting. And face it having Snoop on the sidelines is a recruiting tactic by Carrol whether we like it or not.

[WSUCougar]

Sorry, CR, but that Utah fiasco was U-G-L-Y.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No, the true equivalent would be getting into the Holiday Bowl, a second tier bowl, every year (remember, Lavin kept getting to Sweet Sixteen, not Final Four). Plus, we would be top five in recrutiing every year.

So actually Dorrell is worse. He doesn't even do that good.

You should be happy that you make it that far...

[Pumpy Tudors]

What's Linda Lavin got to do with UCLA?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

What's Linda Lavin got to do with UCLA?

Other than the fact that she could do a better job than Karl Dorrell? Not much, I guess.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

What's Linda Lavin got to do with UCLA?

UCLA used to be sad... used to be shy. Funnest thing, the saddest part is they never knew why.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think you may be downplaying the influence that SC has.
#1 Despite the best efforts to tll us otherwise, the elite athletes aren't concerned about academic achievement. They want the least hassel on theeirr way to the NFL. Its unfortunant, and unappealing but true.

#2 You have an entire generation now that has grown up on "classics" that glorify compton and south central as the place to be. i really think there is a draw there that few are accepting. And face it having Snoop on the sidelines is a recruiting tactic by Carrol whether we like it or not.

1) Actually I follow the recruiting battles pretty closely, and academics is a pretty critical element for many recruits, a higher percentange than you think. They are only not much of a concern for players who truly believe they are on their way to the NFL, then they don't care (or if they still do, kudos to them). Remember, the parents are usually heavily involved in the rdcruiting process as well, and for them, academics is almost always in the top two or three important factors, whether their kid cares or not. That said, the "NFL Factory" consideration for USC is huge, and I don't doubt it would take many years of comparable success for UCLA to grow onto a similar level with USC.

2) Hey we have Eric Scott!

It's sad that that might be true, huh? USC can even march out an alleged murderer (and alleged extortionist?!?) and give "Bush Benefits" to the parents of any elite recruit in the land? :P

Don't take too much offense, USC; you know that your school's prestige is one of the primary reasons for my disenchantment with UCLA's current play.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Sorry, CR, but that Utah fiasco was U-G-L-Y.

Extremely, WSU. There are people around here who don't want to wait for Dorrell to get to his office on Monday to fire him.

There are some 80 men in that locker room (they're kids, but they're men) who need to look deep into their mirrors and discover who they are right now.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Nope, not going to accept that. The resources are here. It's one of the two premier programs in a major metropolitan area with no football team. It's right smack in the middle of one of the three acknowledged recruiting hotbeds in the country (with Texas and Florida). The school is consistently Top 25 academically. It has a huge booster base with plenty of resources. Great weather. Great girls. It plays its home games in the MFing Rose Bowl for crying out loud. Recruits flock to a mediocre program here--you imagine what they would do if this program got its act together? If UCLA and USC were actually on somewhat even terms (yes, I know that's a huge leap, but this is hypothetical) talent and achievement wise, you think recruits would go to the lesser academic school in the heart of South Central? They choose USC because that school IS committed to its program and has shown it. The results show. And the result is the best program in the country.

The only thing lacking for UCLA is commitment from the school to the athletic department and from the department to football. Stop buying coaches on the slim. Get a heavyweight. If you offer them the money, they'll come. Because they know the advantages they could have coming here.

Dorrell is a terrific person. I would leave my kids with him. But I don't want to go through this anymore as a football fan. He needs to go, and it's time UCLA stepped up and decided their football program should be on par with their basketball program.

Yes, a state school should be spending more money on coaches and the weigh team, as opposed to you know, the "education" part. USC is a private school - I sure as hell don't want more of my tax dollars going to funding football.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Face it..UCLA is a basketball school that has a great year in football 25% of the time, max. You're not USC. You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

No, they aren't. UCLA basketball hasn't been as dominant in basketball for quite a long time as USC football has been in football in the last 5 years.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

No, they aren't. UCLA basketball hasn't been as dominant in basketball for quite a long time as USC football has been in football in the last 5 years.

No, in two years, UCLA will have the run that SC had/has with Carroll. Back to back Final Four appearances is the equivalent to winning back to back BCS games.

[MrBug708]

A telling sign is to just look at the Tulsa BYU game and compare that with the way they slapped UCLA around, then consider what happened yesterday in Provo, I think you have to conclude that UCLA's footbal team is really -REALLY - bad. The players played like losers, and when a gang of creampuffs like Utah's reports that the opposition was soft, you KNOW it was.

But the players are good individually, and they're talented...certainly as talented as those at udub, yet they sure don't look like it. The conclusion has to be (and I say this very reluctantly) that the coaching staff is responsible. I submit that KD did clean up a genuinely bad mess that Toledo had left in his wake..i.e. the lack of any kind of relationship with local high schools and the dissention in the athletic dept offices etc. In that, he was good and I guess, necessary. But it appears that he simply isn't head coaching material. His intentions are all fine and he honestly loves UCLA and wants them to be as good as they can be, but he's not the one to raise them to that level. His stubborn insistence to pursue his version of the WCO despite clear evidence that it's not working, and his inability to get the best from his coaches and team make it obvious that he has got to go.

I've been a solid Blue since he was hired, but this is the end. I cannot be a crank because tearing into a good man who genuinely means well is not my style, but I can no longer be a supporter.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Heck, its not that long ago that UCLA was a dominant football team. When they had Terry Donahue they were in the running for the Pac-10 title every year and finished in the top 10 every other year.

I wouldn't go that far really, but they had some great runs.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yes, a state school should be spending more money on coaches and the weigh team, as opposed to you know, the "education" part. USC is a private school - I sure as hell don't want more of my tax dollars going to funding football.

Not sure how UCLA is run, but at most of the big name public schools, the football program is self-sustaining, meaning no public money is spent on them.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not sure how UCLA is run, but at most of the big name public schools, the football program is self-sustaining, meaning no public money is spent on them.

It's self sustaining, but the University hasn't made it a priority. Under Dalis (where this mess all started from) he thought that football was no more important then any other program whether men's or woman's. Obviously it's true in a small sense and that is why UCLA is the premier athletic school in the nation, but the football program (and basketball program at times) has been almost an afterthought. As long as the team was graduating players and somewhat competitive and making positive cash flow, nothing else mattered. But that's not really the worse part. UCLA is ran with an Ivy League school mantra; Academics first no matter what. If they could get away with it, the admissions office would run UCLA athletics like they do at Stanford. Being a public school like UCLA that is nearly impossible but they still like to try.

Sad to say and it's miserable being a UCLA football fan most of the time.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yes, a state school should be spending more money on coaches and the weigh team, as opposed to you know, the "education" part. USC is a private school - I sure as hell don't want more of my tax dollars going to funding football.

Boosters can do it. They can bring in the money needed. Cal did it.

I don't need UCLA to get to USC level. I'm just saying it's possible they can be on somewhat equal footing because, outside of the private-public aspect, they enjoy largely the same advantages, and UCLA even has a couple that USC doesn't have.

Also, a good football program brings in tons of money and exposure. Do you really think spending more on coaches won't result in more money for the school to be spent elsewhere?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

No, in two years, UCLA will have the run that SC had/has with Carroll. Back to back Final Four appearances is the equivalent to winning back to back BCS games.

Let me know when they have actually won a championship. Let me know when they've actually won more than 80% of their games in the last 5 years. Yes, they've been very good the last 2 years, but 3 years ago they won just over 60% of their regular season games. The 2 years before that they didn't even win 40% of their regular season games.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

UCLA is ran with an Ivy League school mantra; Academics first no matter what. If they could get away with it, the admissions office would run UCLA athletics like they do at Stanford. Being a public school like UCLA that is nearly impossible but they still like to try.

Sad to say and it's miserable being a UCLA football fan most of the time.

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games. It's fine to be a fan and want your team to win, but UCLA's status as a top academic university has far, far more social importance than its status as a top athletic school, and it dismays me to see it criticized for having its priorities right.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by clintl

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games. It's fine to be a fan and want your team to win, but UCLA's status as a top academic university has far, far more social importance than its status as a top athletic school, and it dismays me to see it criticized for having its priorities right.

Why even play sports in college then? Let's scrap the entire athletic department and put it all toward education.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by clintl

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games. It's fine to be a fan and want your team to win, but UCLA's status as a top academic university has far, far more social importance than its status as a top athletic school, and it dismays me to see it criticized for having its priorities right.

+1

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Why even play sports in college then? Let's scrap the entire athletic department and put it all toward education.

I'm not saying that there is no place for sports in college. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to criticize universities for not lowering their academic standards just so they can compete for a national championship in football - which is what Mr. Bug was doing. And it's not like UCLA hasn't had its share of success in many sports. In my memory at least, UCLA has had some pretty good teams. Most universities would love to have UCLA's athletic program.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm not saying that there is no place for sports in college. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to criticize universities for not lowering their academic standards just so they can compete for a national championship in football - which is what Mr. Bug was doing. And it's not like UCLA hasn't had its share of success in many sports. In my memory at least, UCLA has had some pretty good teams. Most universities would love to have UCLA's athletic program.

Okay, in that respect, I agree. I love that UCLA doesn't lower its standards. It's my belief we can succeed despite that if we make better decisions in other areas of the program, decisions that are currently being poorly made.

I don't support Bug saying to lower admissions. I support that the school should make a stronger commitment to national success in its football program, as it has done in its other sports. To my knowledge, football is the only one now that seems to get short shrift and has limitations on it from the administration. Meanwhile everywhere else they administration is clearly doing enough to allow those teams to compete for championships in their respective sports.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Let me know when they have actually won a championship. Let me know when they've actually won more than 80% of their games in the last 5 years. Yes, they've been very good the last 2 years, but 3 years ago they won just over 60% of their regular season games. The 2 years before that they didn't even win 40% of their regular season games.

You make it seem like Howland any choice of it? UCLA had the talent of a bottom tier PAC-10 team. To see where UCLA is at this point is just a tribute to the hardest working man in all of college; Ben Howland

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Let me know when they have actually won a championship. Let me know when they've actually won more than 80% of their games in the last 5 years. Yes, they've been very good the last 2 years, but 3 years ago they won just over 60% of their regular season games. The 2 years before that they didn't even win 40% of their regular season games.

Don't be jealous now. Have fun half-filling your brand spanking new arena.

[Eaglesfan27]

Hey guys, this thread was all about UCLA's jealousy of USC football and their coach.

I was just giving facts to denounce the ridiculous statement that UCLA Basketball is equivalent to USC Football.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Hey guys, this thread was all about UCLA's jealousy of USC football and their coach.

I was just giving facts to denounce the ridicuolous statement that UCLA Basketball is equivalent to USC Football.

Well, I'll give that. UCLA isn't on comparable level with USC in football--yet.

I would also argue this thread is about UCLA's suckiness in football, regardless of USC's success. USC's success merely puts it in further shitty context.

[dawgfan]

As an outside observer, I would agree that UCLA has a lot of inherent advantages that should lead to a consistently upper-level football program. Great location, both in terms of actual campus location as well as being centrally located for a hotbed of recruiting, great venue (how can you not appreciate playing in the Rose Bowl), great University (one of the top public schools in the nation) and a pretty good football history.

That UCLA has struggled since that latter years of Terry Donahue's tenure to field consistently outstanding teams is puzzling - they usually do quite well in recruiting according to the various "experts".

I've heard before that UCLA's athletic department is running things on the cheap, not wanting to spend a lot of money on coaches. Given their general success in athletics, I would expect that the athletic department is doing pretty well in revenue, such that they don't have to tap the general fund of the University system. If that's the case, it's surprising that their AD(s) haven't seen the value in investing in the football program by spending enough to get a top-drawer coach. I would also expect that UCLA's booster base should be pretty wealthy.

In any event, I feel like UCLA is a sleeping giant - a place with a lot of inherent advantages, but without the dedication by those in the administration to fully encourage and support a highly successful football program.

If the UW is going to return to consistent Rose Bowl contention, they'd be well-advised to do so before UCLA gets a top-notch coach in place, because it will make things that much tougher in the Pac-10.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

As an outside observer, I would agree that UCLA has a lot of inherent advantages that should lead to a consistently upper-level football program. Great location, both in terms of actual campus location as well as being centrally located for a hotbed of recruiting, great venue (how can you not appreciate playing in the Rose Bowl), great University (one of the top public schools in the nation) and a pretty good football history.

That UCLA has struggled since that latter years of Terry Donahue's tenure to field consistently outstanding teams is puzzling - they usually do quite well in recruiting according to the various "experts".

I've heard before that UCLA's athletic department is running things on the cheap, not wanting to spend a lot of money on coaches. Given their general success in athletics, I would expect that the athletic department is doing pretty well in revenue, such that they don't have to tap the general fund of the University system. If that's the case, it's surprising that their AD(s) haven't seen the value in investing in the football program by spending enough to get a top-drawer coach. I would also expect that UCLA's booster base should be pretty wealthy.

In any event, I feel like UCLA is a sleeping giant - a place with a lot of inherent advantages, but without the dedication by those in the administration to fully encourage and support a highly successful football program.

If the UW is going to return to consistent Rose Bowl contention, they'd be well-advised to do so before UCLA gets a top-notch coach in place, because it will make things that much tougher in the Pac-10.

Thanks, dawgfan. That illustrates the situation well.

I have no idea what to make of our game next week.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games.

And there's not a single more effective marketing program for 95% of schools out there than a successful football program. Before you can "educate and add to knowledge" you've got to get someone to want to attend (and someone to kick in the donations to pay for all of that educating & adding).

It's a relatively short list of schools that have that sort of appeal absent something in their athletic department. It's an even shorter list of public schools that have it.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Thanks, dawgfan. That illustrates the situation well.

I have no idea what to make of our game next week.

I don't either. I'm not sure if that blowout makes things harder or easier for the Huskies. I would lean towards thinking the former - there's still talent on that team, and when you look at the stats for the UCLA/Utah game, it's really only the turnover column that stands out. It's not like Grady didn't miss some passes, and Utah didn't run all over UCLA. Add-in the UCLA loss last year to the Huskies, and I figure the Bruins are more likely to be frothing mad this week and give the UW a great effort rather than them falling apart mentally.

This game could really go any number of ways - the Huskies have shown they can play with tough teams, but they also lack the depth and talent to overcome missed opportunities. I have no doubt they are capable of beating UCLA, but they will have to play smart and take advantage of opportunities that are presented to them.

And regarding UCLA in general, I think the UW has virtually all the same advantages UCLA has, save being in a recruiting hotbed. That obviously favors UCLA. On the other hand, I think there's a greater commitment to winning football at the UW by the administration. Is Ty the guy to return the UW to the days of Don James? We'll see. Is this just a blip for Karl Dorrell, or is it indicative of deeper problems in his program? We'll see.

I can certainly understand the frustration after that loss yesterday given all the positive momentum that UCLA has had coming into this season and through the first 2 games. Next week should be a big gut-check for both programs.

[MrBug708]

Now that the UW job doesnt look to open for a bit, maybe Jim Mora Jr would be interested in UCLA?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Now that the UW job doesnt look to open for a bit, maybe Jim Mora Jr would be interested in UCLA?

Stay away - he's our backup plan!



Actually, there's a fair amount of speculation he's the heir apparent to Holmgren for the Seahawks job once Mike decides to move on.

[cartman]

When Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds was asked about the pressure of "keeping up with the Joneses" in college athletics, he replied:

"Well, we ARE the Joneses."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And there's not a single more effective marketing program for 95% of schools out there than a successful football program. Before you can "educate and add to knowledge" you've got to get someone to want to attend (and someone to kick in the donations to pay for all of that educating & adding).

It's a relatively short list of schools that have that sort of appeal absent something in their athletic department. It's an even shorter list of public schools that have it.

I don't know which way this cuts, but here is the USNEWS list of the top 100 National Universities.

	Princeton University (NJ)
2.	Harvard University (MA)
3.	Yale University(CT)
4.	Stanford University(CA)
5.	University of Pennsylvania
5.	California Institute of Technology
7.	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
8.	Duke University(NC)
9.	Columbia University(NY)
9.	University of Chicago
11.	Dartmouth College(NH)
12.	Washington University in St. Louis
12.	Cornell University(NY)
14.	Brown University(RI)
14.	Northwestern University(IL)
14.	Johns Hopkins University(MD)
17.	Rice University(TX)
17.	Emory University(GA)
19.	Vanderbilt University(TN)
19.	University of Notre Dame(IN)
21.	University of California—Berkeley *
22.	Carnegie Mellon University(PA)
23.	University of Virginia *
23.	Georgetown University(DC)
25.	University of California—Los Angeles *
25.	University of Michigan—Ann Arbor *
27.	University of Southern California
28.	University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill *
28.	Tufts University(MA)
30.	Wake Forest University(NC)
31.	Lehigh University(PA)
31.	Brandeis University(MA)
33.	College of William and Mary(VA) *
34.	New York University
35.	University of Rochester(NY)
35.	Georgia Institute of Technology *
35.	Boston College
38.	University of Wisconsin—Madison *
38.	University of California—San Diego *
38.	University of Illinois—Urbana - Champaign *
41.	Case Western Reserve University(OH)
42.	University of Washington *
42.	University of California—Davis *
44.	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute(NY)
44.	University of Texas—Austin *
44.	University of California—Santa Barbara *
44.	University of California—Irvine *
48.	Pennsylvania State University—University Park *
49.	University of Florida *
50.	Syracuse University(NY)
50.	Tulane University(LA)
52.	Yeshiva University(NY)
52.	University of Miami(FL)
54.	Pepperdine University(CA)
54.	George Washington University(DC)
54.	University of Maryland—College Park *
57.	Ohio State University—Columbus *
57.	Boston University
59.	Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey—New Brunswick(NJ) *
59.	University of Pittsburgh *
59.	University of Georgia *
62.	Texas A&M University—College Station *
62.	Worcester Polytechnic Institute(MA)
64.	University of Connecticut *
64.	Purdue University—West Lafayette(IN) *
64.	University of Iowa *
67.	Fordham University(NY)
67.	Miami University—Oxford(OH) *
67.	Clemson University(SC) *
67.	Southern Methodist University(TX)
71.	University of Minnesota—Twin Cities *
71.	Virginia Tech *
71.	University of Delaware *
71.	Michigan State University *
75.	Stevens Institute of Technology(NJ)
75.	Baylor University(TX)
75.	Colorado School of Mines 11 *
75.	Indiana University—Bloomington *
79.	Brigham Young University—Provo(UT)
79.	University of California—Santa Cruz *
79.	University of Colorado—Boulder *
82.	St. Louis University
82.	SUNY—Binghamton *
82.	Marquette University(WI)
85.	SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry *
85.	North Carolina State University—Raleigh *
85.	University of Denver
85.	American University(DC)
85.	Iowa State University *
85.	University of Kansas *
91.	University of Alabama *
91.	University of Missouri—Columbia *
91.	University of Nebraska—Lincoln *
91.	University of Tulsa(OK)
91.	Clark University(MA)
96.	Auburn University(AL) *
96.	SUNY—Stony Brook *
96.	University of Tennessee *
96.	University of Vermont *
96.	University of Arizona *
96.	University of the Pacific(CA)
96.	University of California—Riverside *
96.	Howard University(DC)
96.	Illinois Institute of Technology
96.	Northeastern University(MA)
96.	University of Massachusetts—Amherst *

[Eaglesfan27]

Good list. I didn't want to look up the stats at the time I was posting in this thread, but I wanted to say that USC isn't really below UCLA academically. They are very close to each other with each school having their own strengths.

[MrBug708]

I just wish that UCLA could have the ability (lack of disclosure) that private schools have. As it is, UCLA does a marvelous job within its limits

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Good list. I didn't want to look up the stats at the time I was posting in this thread, but I wanted to say that USC isn't really below UCLA academically. They are very close to each other with each school having their own strengths.

Actually, yes, USC has improved significantly academically in recent years, so kudos for them. They're still in South Central, though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't know which way this cuts, but here is the USNEWS list of the top 100 National Universities.

Probably cuts both ways a bit, but once you take the private schools out, you're left with a good bit of what I was talking about I think.

There's certainly a few specialty school types in there that would carry some weight in a specific field (Col. School of Mines for example) but on the whole, outside of the usual suspects (such as the Ivy's), you walk into a HR office and see how many of those non-football schools raise an eyebrow in a positive way. Some of them get instant recognition, others are lucky if someone doesn't blurt out "where the fuck is that?"

Remember, I'm not talking about the quality of the education at these schools, but rather about their image or how they're perceived out in the world. It's that perception that creates the buzz around them, their cachet, etc.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Probably cuts both ways a bit, but once you take the private schools out, you're left with a good bit of what I was talking about I think.

There's certainly a few specialty school types in there that would carry some weight in a specific field (Col. School of Mines for example) but on the whole, outside of the usual suspects (such as the Ivy's), you walk into a HR office and see how many of those non-football schools raise an eyebrow in a positive way. Some of them get instant recognition, others are lucky if someone doesn't blurt out "where the fuck is that?"

Remember, I'm not talking about the quality of the education at these schools, but rather about their image or how they're perceived out in the world. It's that perception that creates the buzz around them, their cachet, etc.

We live in different worlds, Jon. I think the football factories have very little respect, in favor of institutions that are better academically. I will concede the private schools are perhaps the biggest examples.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And there's not a single more effective marketing program for 95% of schools out there than a successful football program. Before you can "educate and add to knowledge" you've got to get someone to want to attend (and someone to kick in the donations to pay for all of that educating & adding).

It's a relatively short list of schools that have that sort of appeal absent something in their athletic department. It's an even shorter list of public schools that have it.

That's not true at all. There are many highly regarded universities that don't even have Division 1-A football teams, yet have no problem recruiting students. Among them, most of the University of California campuses, which are consistently near the top of public university rankings.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

We live in different worlds, Jon. I think the football factories have very little respect, in favor of institutions that are better academically. I will concede the private schools are perhaps the biggest examples.

Since when did working towards a good athletics program automatically mean you ignore academics?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by clintl

That's not true at all. There are many highly regarded universities that don't even have Division 1-A football teams, yet have no problem recruiting students. Among them, most of the University of California campuses, which are consistently near the top of public university rankings.

And let's not forgot about the New England liberal arts colleges, who don't have big time sports teams, but are very, very highly regarded and have no problems recruiting students.

Hell, the school I went to law school is in the South, has NO football program, and seems to be overloaded with applicants (Emory).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

That's not true at all. There are many highly regarded universities that don't even have Division 1-A football teams, yet have no problem recruiting students. Among them, most of the University of California campuses, which are consistently near the top of public university rankings.

And degrees from most of them (I'm reading this as the UC-Davis, UC-Riverside, etc. schools) have nowhere near the cachet of a university that anyone more than 300 miles away has never heard of.