Stole this off of the MAC board. Pretty interesting....

So this doesn't include JMU yet because there isn't enough FBS data, but overall lots of room for improvement in the conference in both rankings.

And I think App is excluded because they are still classified by US News as a regional school.

(04-23-2024 09:23 AM)Dukes_Royals Wrote:  So this doesn't include JMU yet because there isn't enough FBS data, but overall lots of room for improvement in the conference in both rankings.

And I think App is excluded because they are still classified by US News as a regional school.

Looks like they used Winsipedia data and unfortunately JMU has yet to be included in the Winsipedia data set.

I’m sorry UTSA was a bad institution 20 years ago when I had first ever heard of it and it still holds true today. Slide UTSA down the axis to meet with degree mill Liberty.

I’m also not buying that Ole Miss is a better school than LSU or Arkansas. Diploma = admission at OM. UCONN and UMASS being considered elite publics is a bit surprising considering I’ve never heard of anyone beating down their doors for admission. I assume Buffalo gets that bump from being the SUNY flagship or something? Lack of an abundance of publics in general on east coast/New England area probably helps too. FIU has me pretty stumped too.

Used to think Tulsa was on more similar footing academically to Tulane or Baylor. Tulane slightly ahead of SMU is interesting.

i'm having a hard time reading it. Is this all-time data or just FBS? The SBC has a lot of programs that were strong in 1-AA/FCS which would greatly skew the data if it weren't included. Also, there are SBC programs that are young in football that are disadvantaged when you go back 100 years. I understand it's a high level view but it looks like a lazy way to rate teams and conferences. The MAC is higher than the SBC primarily because they've been around longer.

(04-23-2024 11:33 AM)HD76 Wrote:  i'm having a hard time reading it. Is this all-time data or just FBS? The SBC has a lot of programs that were string in 1-AA/FCS which would greatly skew the data. Also, there are SBC programs that are young in football that are disadvantaged when you go back 100 years. I understand it's a high level view but it looks like a lazy way to rate teams and conferences. The MAC is higher than the SBC primarily because they've been around longer.

The data excludes Regional Universities.

U.S. News is a joke of a ranking system for academics. They always deflate the status of Louisiana with whatever metrics they use.

(04-23-2024 11:43 AM)Big Buds Wrote:  U.S. News is a joke of a ranking system for academics. They always deflate the status of Louisiana with whatever metrics they use.

Oh, US News... 'nough said.

Am I missing Troy?

US News National Rankings is the most falsified popular ranking of academia in existence.

The "metrics" are not looked into in enormous detail for every university, at all. If Harvard or Dartmouth had one year where they did poorly academically, they would never be moved down the list, because they are an Ivy League school.

Demoting any "reputable" university or college would cause the publication to lose credibility with academia leaders. The publication would literally lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially since schools pay a sum of a few thousand dollars to even be included on the 'national' list.

(04-23-2024 12:08 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  Am I missing Troy?

Troy, App, and Coastal are regional universities. Looks like they only included national universities in the chart.

yawn, we'd be to the right and north.

(04-23-2024 04:12 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 12:08 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  Am I missing Troy?

Troy, App, and Coastal are regional universities. Looks like they only included national universities in the chart.

AKA not enough doctoral offerings.

USM and Marshall right next to each other as usual. Literally two peas in a pod.

(04-23-2024 07:41 PM)MUther Wrote:  USM and Marshall right next to each other as usual. Literally two peas in a pod.

By far and wide the 2 historically best G5s up until about the time that UCF and Boise started to blow up.

(04-23-2024 09:44 PM)Johnnychimpo Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 07:41 PM)MUther Wrote:  USM and Marshall right next to each other as usual. Literally two peas in a pod.

By far and wide the 2 historically best G5s up until about the time that UCF and Boise started to blow up.

We did open some doors for schools to waltz through. After '99 they couldn't ignore the undefeated little guys anymore. We got ranked many times after that, but were unable to quite get there again. I always enjoyed the false bravado and uneasy looks when we came to town. When Pruett was our coach, no one considered us a gimme. I always stared back like "You know what's about to happen, don't you?"

That Tony guy is great when he sticks to straight facts but much of his content is super biased when ever he throws opinion into any ranking. He had "controversies" as part of his rankings once I called him out on it and he blocked me lol. He does not like being questioned at all. Super sensitive dude. He is a USC homer and to say he is far far left is an understatement. So his definitions of non quantifiable factors are a joke. Hate or love Liberty you know they are coming like a freight train but he had them dead last as far as his "desirability" ranking lol. BYU gets the same treatment. Also with everyone having different time frames in the FBS this chart is basically meaningless. Army today nah lol. For this to matter it needs rolling average of success.