September 6th, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^

Because I don't think it's a very good ranking, I'm skeptical of the utility of college rankings to begin with, I don't like how often we (as a fan base) bring up academics when talking about football, and it's kinda lame to post this ranking over and over again when there's a more widely accepted ranking that doesn't list us as high (it feels like cherry picking)


September 6th, 2016 at 3:37 PM ^

Maybe, but it does feel like this board is all data until some PRIDEBALL happens then it's prideball.

Anyway, it's cool to be #1 in a ranking, but I think it's silly to act like op doesn't have a point about college rankings being dubious at best. I think we should approach it like public polling: Take the "average" of the polls, and you'll have a more accurate picture. That's enough to be proud of without being disingenuous.

Autocracy Now

September 6th, 2016 at 6:29 PM ^

Well, that's true to some extent. Of course, if this is one the many rankings (not polls) that would go into your averaging approach, and it ranks us highly, why not celebrate it? Arrogance is one of the things that makes Michigan great--not sure if that is a factor in the rankings though. 


September 6th, 2016 at 7:32 PM ^

As a pre-Ross UM MBA, I feel like there are no group of alums more concerned about these rankings than the B-school. Maybe for good reason = $tarting $alary. Myself, I take them with a grain of salt -- but would rather be higher than lower. My question is this: since this ranking is a composite of other rankings, could one just look up the raw data and assign the weighting so that the school of choice ends up on top? (In this case, UM = alumni = clicks)


September 6th, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^

All rankings are subject to intreptation since they rely upon subjective metrics.  However, this is yet another data point to consider, so why exclude it?

As per posting on a football blog, this page is devoted to many aspects ot UM and not solely football (although it is by far the most weighted factor, hence the OT qualifier).  However, it has bearing upon athletics and general unversity perception - I would not be surprised if this factoid was used in discussion with recruits (or their parents).

It seems like a valid comment to place here, at least to me.


September 6th, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

Why exclude it?  College rankings are a racket for clicks; they change their ranking systems which changes the rankings of school (which haven't themselves changed in quality), resulting in uneducated parents making a big deal about things that aren't a big deal. 

Many rankings obscure their methodolgies, many methodolgies at no way relate to what people think of when they think "best" and so on.  It's all a joke.


September 6th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

In addition to being a selling point for recruting, there's a good reason WHY it's a selling point for recruiting and why it's relevant beyond football—it's what I think of as part of the Michigan experience. Athletics is part of being a well-rounded, complete, healthy human being, alongside intellectual and spiritual pursuits.

No one ranking can definitively establish our academic excellence, or lack thereof, but it's certainly a valid data point. When Michigan wins the national title this year, my pride in that accomplishment exists in the context of that claim to academic excellence. Without it, we're just another college football behemoth, albeit with the greatest fight song and helmets ever.

So I'd say, yes, highly relevant. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a major dimension of our rivalry with Ohio State (ranked 88th) is defined by winning for its own sake versus winning as a part of a larger mission to advance the state of human knowledge and understanding.


September 6th, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^

It's not cherry picking. A couple weeks ago a different ranking was posted that had us as the seventh best public school. They all get posted.

If you aren't interested in any of the academic stuff, then don't click on those threads. Or watch pro football where academics doesn't play a part. But considering all of the players on our football team are enrolled at our college, I think it's applicable.


September 6th, 2016 at 1:26 PM ^

What is this other illustrious "widely accepted" ranking that you speak of?

They all have their flaws and internal agendas.  

Who knows who's really the number 23.9625 public university in the world?  It's probably somewhere in Kazakhstan.



September 6th, 2016 at 6:28 PM ^

While I generally agree that these school academic rankings have a lot to be desired, this QS World ranking in particular is relatively respected by academe.  Esentially all reasonable rankings have UCB and Michigan 1-2 in US National Public University rankings.  UCB is more times #1. 

Besides UCB and Michigan, you'll usually see Virginia, Texas, UCLA and North Carolina (maybe William and Mary) as the other top US Public National Universities.  The rankings, as much as they lack to be desired, are quite consistent.  Yes, you'll find exceptions. 


September 6th, 2016 at 12:25 PM ^

It would help advance the discussion of this thread if the poster could provide some details on how the universities are ranked. For example, are these rankings based on affordability, employability, alumni characteristics, marks of incoming students, and/or other metrics? Without this information it's difficult to comment on these rankings because we do not know what is being ranked.


September 6th, 2016 at 12:40 PM ^

Agree the Universities really should be ranked on Employment and Income I would guess. Though it maybe hard to gather such data as alumni could fudge numbers. other metric could be Cost/GPA, but again the GPA can be fudge by a University to rise up the list. Very hard to rank shcools in the long of it.


September 6th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

All of that can be found following the link, but here is an excerpt:


"Based on six performance indicators, the ranking assesses university performance in areas like research, teaching, employability and internationalization. Rankings are determined by academic indicators (40 percent), employer reputation (10 percent), student-to-faculty ratio (20 percent), research citations per faculty (20 percent), international faculty ratio (5 percent) and international student ratio (5 percent)."


Also:  http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-ran…


September 6th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

Why the MSU and OSU comparison with these everytime? Does anyone really feel MSU is close to UM? Sure it is a solid school, but most people know Michigan is high up there academically. OSU, MSU, PSU they are all solid, but just not Michigan. We can't compare sports and acedemics they have minimal corelation. Nobody is saying I can get into Harvad or Yale, but screw it I am hitting up Alabama because they are good at football.


September 6th, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^

Msu 160?



September 6th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

IMO, I think it's great and important to talk about academics.

College football is my favorite sport, specifically because the team is connected to the university I love.

Over the years, it's become increasingly difficult to defend the entire concept of "student-athlete" - I've come to respect and support those schools that attempt to recruit kids that belong in their school and make sure they get a real education. Give me Stanford or even ND over Ole Miss or Clemson every time.

It drives me crazy when I hear people say there's no difference between Alabama and Michigan. Of course there is. Michigan is a top academic institution first, a football program second.

Yes, every program has suffered a black eye or two, but there are a few who really do strive to honor the mission of their university - I'm happy that Michigan is one of those schools.

I admire and support that Michigan's athletic department (including football program) works hard to recruit and support kids who want to be in school and get an education in addition to competing in sports.

I'm proud when I hear about the countless former Michigan athletes who go on to successful careers in and out of sports, who are well-spoken and intelligent and who feel just as strongly about their alma mater as I do.

Let's strive to remain Leaders and Best!


September 6th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

schools such as UVA being around 150 and William & Mary around the 500s, I have a hard time giving any credibility to this list.  I guess at least UM is number 1?


September 6th, 2016 at 5:08 PM ^

An age of a school does not directly correlate to the quality of the educational experience gained there.  Many other factors must be taken into account, and each of these lists choose different metics and criteria for their rankings (otherwise they would all be the same).

UM was not listed as #1, or even in the top 20 (this was a list of universities around the world).  They were, however, the first US public university to be named (#23) which still is something to hold high.