Notre Dame FOOTBALL

Of the schools currently ranked in the top 25 in the BCS in football, here are their places in the US News rankings of top national universities:

School - Football Rank (Academic Rank)

Ohio State - 1 (57)

USC - 2 (27)

Michigan - 3 (24)

Florida - 4 (47)

LSU - 5 (Not ranked)

Louisville - 6 (Not ranked)

Wisconsin - 7 (34)

Boise State - 8 (Not ranked)

Arkansas - 9 (Not ranked)

Notre Dame - 10 (20)

Auburn - 11 (88)

Oklahoma - 12 (112)

Rutgers - 13 (60)

Virgina Tech - 14 (77)

West Virginia - 15 (Not ranked)

Tenessee - 16 (88)

Wake Forest - 17 (30)

Cal - 18 (21)

Texas - 19 (47)

Nebraska - 20 (98)

BYU - 21 (70)

Georgia Tech - 22 (38)

Texas A&M - 23 (60)

Oregon State - 24 (Not ranked)

Hawaii - 25 (Not ranked)

I don't want to undercut your point since I am an ND grad too, but your horrible grammar isn't really helping the cause, you know what I mean?

"strict" (not "strick")

"alumnus" (singular) or "alumni" (plural), not "alumn"

"I've spoken" not "I've spoke"

"curriculum" not "cirriculum"

Mark Mark Mark wrote:

Of the schools currently ranked in the top 25 in the BCS in football, here are their places in the US News rankings of top national universities:

How is it that USC, which is supposely ranked second in the US News Rankings, can only graduate 55% of their football players?

Are you sure those rankings are purely academic? Do they, perhaps, take into account things like quality of life, cost, etc?

Hey, another ND grad here. Nothing riles up a Domer like attacks on the academic reputation of the school. Great way to keep this thread alive.

For what it's worth, I attended Grad.School at another football powerhouse. Graduation rates are one thing. I'd like to see a "median" salary comparison for scholarship football players --- 10 years/20 years into the future. I think the ND/Stanford/N'Western guys would have a pronounced edge.

I didn't realize I was "riled up" but whatever. I have no problem with people attacking the academic reputation -- ND was great but not the greatest academically -- but they should be able to handle actually backing up their arguments, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise this denigrates into, "Your school sucks!" -"No, no, YOUR school sucks" type of discussion. Boring

I'd like to see something like the numbers you describe but lacking those, we've got to go with what we have. One thing I've learned in the working world is that salaries only sometimes correspond to brains or education.

graduation rates are based on 4 years from the time a kid steps on campus? notre dame's policy is to not redshirt an athlete unless they're injured, so guys get through in 4 years usually. usc redshirts players who don't play, so they might hang around 5 years and count against the graduation rate. i have no doubt that notre dame's graduation rate is higher, but i'm suggesting that usc's graduation rate may be higher in reality.

nd grad wrote:

Mark Mark Mark wrote:

Of the schools currently ranked in the top 25 in the BCS in football, here are their places in the US News rankings of top national universities:

How is it that USC, which is supposely ranked second in the US News Rankings, can only graduate 55% of their football players?

Are you sure those rankings are purely academic? Do they, perhaps, take into account things like quality of life, cost, etc?

You're reading it backwards. 2 is their football rank, 27 is their academic rank.

The question still stands, though. How can a very good school like USC feel comfortable with a 55% graduation rate for its football team? That's embarassingly low.

And just to undercut any attacks, I didn't go to any of the schools in question. My school, while a football "powerhouse", does it at the D3 level.

hahahaha wrote:

Short right leg wrote:

Either join a conference and play by the rules or no bowl for you!

Which conference? Big 10? weak. Big East? weaker. ND plays a top 10 schedule every single year because they always play Michigan and they always play USC. ND is willing to schedule any team in the nation. They just love to claim "conference obligations" as an excuse to not play them.

i believe the AD from notre dame has been quoted that they will be looking to make the schedule a little easier in hopes of getting to a national championship game. ND picks and chooses as much as anyone else. don't fool yourself.

shipalum wrote:

graduation rates are based on 4 years from the time a kid steps on campus? notre dame's policy is to not redshirt an athlete unless they're injured, so guys get through in 4 years usually. usc redshirts players who don't play, so they might hang around 5 years and count against the graduation rate. i have no doubt that notre dame's graduation rate is higher, but i'm suggesting that usc's graduation rate may be higher in reality.

Actually the Graduation Success Rate, like the Federal Graduation rate, is based on athletes who graduate within 6 years not 4. I don't know about ND's redshirt policy but it would be moot in this case. The difference between the GSR and the Federal rate is that the GSR accurately accounts for student who transfer in and out of multiple schools.

(and no, I don't think YOU are a ding dong, just the person I originally replied to, simply using the same name for continuity)

their losses to top 3 teams were not just losses but blowouts, one of which was a home game. please don't hang your hat on the georgia tech win. notre dame beat one ranked team all year. sorry, but that's not bcs material to me. nd's getting in because of tv ratings and money, not merit. i truly think they're a good football team, but all they've shown against good teams this year is that their defense still sucks. how about a rematch against michigan in the rose bowl? do we really need to see them get demolished again?

Sadly I have to agree with this assessment. We have no business being in the top 10 this year. The Michigan game should have knocked us back to #20. We should probably be in the 15 - 20 range now

Ike wrote:

..........Athlete Grad. Average SAT Football National

Rate Championships

Notre Dame 89% 1369 14

USC 61% 1350 11

Ohio State 65% 1170 8

Trifecta goes to ND.

USC's SAT average is 1350??? Times have changed! When I went to school 20 years ago, USC was like a back up if the local junior college turned you down - as long as your parents had enough money. My now ex-girlfriend, who is an ND grad, told me last year that USC was well respected for academics. I laughed at that but maybe she's right.

Anyway, who cares about comparing football players and students? More interesting is comparing football and academics. Both are businesses for most schools. Football and academic rankings affect the public's perception of a school. Both help to bring in good students and large donations. Schools pour a lot of money into football in order to generate a lot of money for the school, not all of which comes back directly through the football program. Academic rankings bring in good students and good financial support for the university.

Most applicants don't really know which school is best for them. It's really a crapshoot. You may be lucky and get into a great school like Cal Tech but if you aren't a super nerd you may not like it. You may get into a great networking school like USC but if you are too shy to make friends then that won't do you any good. You may be brilliant and go to Stanford but with all the grade inflation it's hard to have your transcript reflect that you are smarter than the other Stanford grads.

And what school you go to doesn't truly reflect how good/smart you are. My physician friend recently told me of someone who started Med school at Harvard and for some reason transfered to another med school which was ranked fairly low. That student didn't perform well at all at the lower ranked school. Then, there are American Rhodes Scholars who attended universities that are thought of as just mediocre.

Don't worry about where others went to school. And don't brag about where you went because someone else can always brag more than you unless you went to a school like Todai where failed applicants often commit suicide and which produces most national and industry leaders. This is not to say that you shouldn't show your school pride. Just don't go too far.

NDalum- to say that ND should be bewtween 15-20 is outright absurd. Look at the teams down there. A 3 loss Texas team, who plays a real wack schedule, a 3 loss Cal team with a loss to Arizona, a 10-2 WFU with a joke schedule, a WVU team with no quality wins and a loss to USF. Even the biggest ND haters would be hard pressed to make a case for ND being so low. For an ND alum to say so is moronic.

Who else is going to play?

Wisco can't b/c there are already 2 Big 10, There will also be 2 SEC teams. Cal has 3 losses. WV and VA Tech is the only other possible 2 loss teams.

As far as ripping ND for playing the service acadamies its not like all the other schools don't play cup cakes.

ND has beaten 5 Bowl Eligable teams.

MSNBC sucks

USC has a low rate because half their team goes pro, they don't need their degree. ND players NEED a degree because they suck and can't make a living playing football.

shipalum- i'm curious which teams you think should go to a BCS game over ND. and what does it mean to "hang your hat on the GT win"? I pointed out they beat a quality team on the road. I'm also still waiting for this big list of teams who play a tougher schedule than ND.

1) I love how when someone says a certain school's football team sucks that immediately a fan of that school's team comes back with -- "yeah, but we're smarter" or "we'll be your bosses some day." How is that even relevant? The topic is the ability of the football team, and nothing else. Perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are.

2) OSU will beat USC in the national championship game, and quite handily too. Of course USC still has to beat UCLA, and they certainly should, but it's not a given.

3) Notre Dame's football team does suck hard. Got blown out by two teams this year, had a miracle comeback to beat a horrible Michigan State team, and beat up on some very weak teams. Brady Quinn is ok and will likely do well in the NFL, but other than that, the team stinks. Almost assured that they will lose their bowl game to finish with 3 losses.

4) I know there are some Buckeye haters out there, but when all is said and done, they will have beaten THREE No. 2 ranked teams this year plus two other ranked teams (ranked when they played them) and one team with one of the best running backs in the country.

5) Regarding the reference to OSU playing a 1-AA team. Youngstown State gets a favor and a huge pay day just because Tressel is nice. He'll gladly beat them, but once the lead is comfortable, he'll call off the dogs and just finish with a resounding victory and not a beating. Big deal. OSU plays enough good teams every year that they don't need to schedule super tough opponents for every non-conference game.

6) Buckeyes may win the national championship in basketball and football this year. Could EASILY happen.

?? wrote:

NDalum- to say that ND should be bewtween 15-20 is outright absurd. Look at the teams down there. A 3 loss Texas team, who plays a real wack schedule, a 3 loss Cal team with a loss to Arizona, a 10-2 WFU with a joke schedule, a WVU team with no quality wins and a loss to USF. Even the biggest ND haters would be hard pressed to make a case for ND being so low. For an ND alum to say so is moronic.

No it just means I actually watched the games. Michigan, Michigan State, GT, etc.

We've lost 2 games. We are very lucky not to have 4 or 5 losses right now. We barely scraped by against some terrible teams. We belong in the 15-20 range.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

1) I love how when someone says a certain school's football team sucks that immediately a fan of that school's team comes back with -- "yeah, but we're smarter" or "we'll be your bosses some day." How is that even relevant? The topic is the ability of the football team, and nothing else. Perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Perhaps you have trouble reading. The academic talk is in response to the poster who claimed they loosened their academic standards to accept better football players.

And you of all people telling people they aren't as smart as they think? Thanks, that made my day.