I think one factor that is very hard to quantify is how much the schools academic standards are enforced on its athletes. At Cal, the push towards improving team academic performance has absolutely played a major role in the programs problems the last 10ish years. However, at UNC, the school has absolutely shown it will make major exceptions for its players.
@@oVoxxyVandy has the money to attract good players with NIL. The problem is that they force them to uphold academic standards which most good players aren't great at.
My question would be if that factors in the name recognition of the school. Now I looked at the 2024 list, and UCLA, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and Michigan are all in the same tier academically. But of the 4, I feel like a highly touted recruit would lean towards ND or UM because they are more “national” or prestigious football brands, so they will get more eyes on them, more prime time games, etc. I can’t speak to how hard each of those 4 push their players academically, but I do know that of the 4, South Bend and Ann Arbor are going to get more visits from College Gameday and Big Noon than Nashville and non-USC LA would.
Fun Fact about UChicago, they are still cooperating/an unofficial member of the Big Ten's Academic Research Alliance despite not having been in the Big 10 since the 40s.
Though not football, a fun story about academics literally getting in the way: At Northwestern, baseball players (and most likely every sport that isn’t football or basketball) are not allowed to miss class for home games. That means, if it’s a 3:30 game and class is at 5, the player has to be pulled mid game (yes, they do check and are very strict in tracking). Also, we can’t miss class till 1:00 pm on a Thursday to travel to away weekend series. Literally took an 8 hour bus ride to Ohio State and had practice at 9 pm.
That seems crazy unfair to athletes to pull them mid game while they’re representing the school. You’d think that they’d find a way to make adjustments for student athletes to attend classes virtually after game but forcing in person attendance like that is insane and seriously unfair to student athletes playing for the school.
Research/Academics keep the lights on at universities. No research/academics, no universities. No universities, no college football. Many people neglect to see the big picture.
@@MrJohansen That obviously went WAY over your head. College football relies on colleges and universities. That's the point. Without colleges and universities, you might as well call it a semi-pro league. It's called COLLEGE football for a reason.
@@dantesinfernopurgatory7826man both of your comments were wildly incorrect. I’m impressed with your overwhelming lack of knowledge or even common sense. Just an incredible showing out of you here
I guess in a way, academics still matter because what if football doesn't work out for you or you don't know how to manage your money right in life. Learning a few jobs and getting a few degrees in certain areas of work can be helpful in life.
I believe the 30 foe 30 doc touched on this for a bit, but Miami (FL) was considered an academic school for a long time before the football team exploded into popularity in the 80's, and with all the antics they brought with the titles, the school threatened to (no avail, mind ya) get rid of the football team, if they didn't change their ways, cause of how it hurt their true academic image
Chicago has gone from an elite football school to the very best Quizbowl school, so I'd say their decision did win them more national titles in the long run, just not in athletics.
How about school size? A small and academically prestigious school is more likely to be bad compared to a large academically prestigious school imo. (ie Duke vs Michigan)
Makes sense, putting 100 sub par academic people into a school with 40,000 kids makes a lot less of a difference to the school than if you did the same to an 8,000.
@@KevBotStank Makes you realize how with an enrollment that large, schools like Michigan and UNC will never compete with private schools in terms of having a smart student body. They only really have low acceptance rates because of cheap in state tuition attracting lots of dumb applicants.
I would like to say that using "university rankings" is a somewhat poor (although definetly not horrible) choice to decide school academics, because these lists use many odd parameters to decide the rankings, along with factors that may not affect athletics like doctoral activity and research. For example, a school like Arizona State would rank fairly high in terms of rankings, but I doubt many athletes are prevented from going there due to athletics (nearly a 90% acceptance rate). Also, I would be interested at looking at the differences between private and public schools here.
100% agree, for me it was just the least bad option to try and rank schools academically without getting lost in the weeds trying to define something as subjective as “academic prestige”
Though I agree with Empires response here, I was also thinking something similar. The sheer breadth of offerings at an institution the size of Michigan, Georgia, or Texas that ranges from public gen-ed diploma mill with a few flag-bearing programs to highly specialized graduate research has got to be nearly impossible to quantify and rate, while a much smaller school like Stanford or Duke is probably easier to evaluate.
@@taylorburgart7172 it's ranked anywhere from 100-30 nationally, and the US News ranking (used in this video) has them above schools like Tennessee, Colorado, BYU, and Iowa State. I personally do not think of them as anything special but they rank fairly well for a public state school. I personally think most state schools would give exceptions for student athletes regardless of their academic prestige, other than maybe a handful of the top tier public schools like Berkeley or those not in D1
I think it is important to account for the fact that the private schools cannot be as lenient at publics when recruiting. Large public colleges have more room to take dumb people. Even if the rankings say UNC is better than Boston College for example, the average student at BC is probably smarter since they have to be more restrictive and they receive better overall applicants since they are pulling from around the country rather than mostly North Carolina. So acceptance rate is also not a great way to rank prestige, as many private schools attract smarter applicants than publics. Rankings are also very biased in favor of large public institutions just based on the criteria used.
The win % top 10 schools (especially private ones) seem to follow the performance of the economy. This makes sense to me because Stanford and Northwestern must have some reliance on wealthy alumni to maintain athletics so I would suggest splitting the scatter plot between public and private schools
Shout out to the football team, while getting my masters I had a regular GA position as a professors assistant and it stunk. By luck I met some other GAs who worked as tutors for the football team, we basically held their hands thru the homework but we didnt take their tests for them and they passed so we did it
I do think academics are a very ranging problem because for the best academic schools it can be a big problem but for the great but not elite ones its not a problem at all. also I think there are a few things you didnt mention in the video such as admissions for example, because a lot of teams miss out on transfers because of admissions like MIchigan basketball who did not get Caleb Love or Terrance Shannon Jr. who ended up having to transfer elsewhere because admissions did not accept them and also losing their best player from this past season Dug McDaniel because his grades were not good enough
at every turn of this video - you did exactly what I would've liked you to. I thought, "maybe he should use us-news rankings to determine academics" and you did, I thought, "maybe he should compare the records of the teams as well" and bang there it was. Great video
I don’t know or think you could get this, but one thing that would’ve been interesting to see/factor in would’ve been the graduation rates for the football team on average. I feel like if a school has a high graduation rate in their football program, it might indicate a better academic background/academic support for students.
Nobody fails school anymore, I remember when I was just getting out of high school they were making it so people could be moved up without passing. Now imagine an athlete with potential millions in their wake, they will definitely do what it takes for that. Not to mention it’s so easy to cheat nowadays, you hardly have to have a brain to get good grades.
Military height and weight standards hinder them too. The players do get waivers, but you’re not gonna find many of the 300+ pound SEC lineman builds on service academy teams 😂
I was friends with a guy in high school that had a scholarship for football at Ole Miss and absolutely did not have the grades to get in or stay. But was allowed to take the ACT/SAT with our math teacher separate from us. They knew that was gonna be his only shot at success and I’m sure we weren’t the first school that’s happened at. I’m sure anyone who’s not blind would recognize there’s bound to be a lot of help at the college level too whether it’s the classes they offer for those students who can’t play otherwise or professors who turn an eye and just get them through it.
Great video, I always thought I was more of a money issue than an academic issue. It makes me wonder if the best schools are simply the ones the pour more money into their programs? For instance how much money would a program like Cincinnati or UCF need to pour into their programs to realistically compete against the top programs and win national titles like Ohio State, Alabama, or Florida?
It’s about admission standards. Some highly ranked academic programs like Berkeley and USC admit anyone regardless of their academic grades and scores whereas other schools with similar academic profiles like Stanford and UCLA impose more rigid admissions standards on athletes.
Would be interesting to see it from a basketball side as some of the best programs are the best teams (UNC, UCLA, Duke) and some of the less academic ones (Kansas, Kentucky)
Absolutely,I have been following Army Football since 1957,saw Dawkins play.When more schools took academic's serious , Army was more nationally competitive.m Greed is killing college sports.You see it on the D-3 level too, especially in football.There ate two Federal Academy's in D-3,Coast Guard(which is the #1 hardest academy to get into of the Federal 5) and Merchant Marine. Then the Colby, Bates D-3 league,the little Ivy league. They can not compete with Wisconsin Whitewater.
@@davidwadsworth8982 I dont think thats correct actually with Coast Guard. Navy is hardest at 10.8%, Army at 12%, AFA at 16% Coast Guard at 23% and USMMA at 27%. Navy and Army sometimes switch but navy is also a smaller academy. West Point probably has the most prestiege in name sake but yeah. Coast Guard doesnt even require a nomination from a congressman or senator like the other 4 do. Regardless all 5 are excellent schools academically and pretty hard to get into.
@@BooWorld-h9h Acceptance rate is over rated. All but C.G.A. take appointments from Senate,House,President, C.G.A. competitive exam.Army accepts M.O.H. winner dependents D-1 3 and U.S M.M.A. give 5% of recruited athletes a break. C.G.A. nope. Also besides academics,Cadet Life ,military training, military duty, restrictions, ate stiffer at the Point.It is the toughest place. Everybody has same secondary M.O.S. 11-Bravo,Infantry.I know ,I trained Cadets in warrior Skills.Army has less free time. Navy the most with Air Force a close second. Army kills the enemy up close and personal. Less than 11% Navy Grads go SEAL or Marine. Point Cadets get much less sleep too. Even Army cadet Uniforms are just not nice.White Dress Shoes.Navy looks like members of a marching band, they look polite,act polite.
Something I’d be really interested in is looking at the majors of CFB players at various schools. I’m an electrical engineering major and I couldn’t imagine having to practice and play football games with my schedule, so I’m wondering if there are many other CFB players with rigorous majors.
It is interesting to note that Cal and Stanford are the best in tons of other sports (water polo, rugby, etc), but sports that no one watches. So I wonder if the athletes for these sports know that there’s no money to be made in these sports so they aim to get a good education, or if there’s another factor that draws great athletes in other sports to these schools
It's a little bit of everything I think. Athletes in non-revenue sports pick those schools because of their academic reputations plus they might gravitate to those schools because they have a winning tradition in that sport. Stanford for example has a strong tradition in swimming, Katie Ledecky among others ended up going there for a bit. She left because she was one of the few who could make good money off endorsements but I would guess their academics and historic excellence in swimming attracted her to Stanford.
Academics can do more to hamper football success than help it in the new millennium. To be fair I'd say Sonny Dykes might have had more success at Cal had the academic reigns not been pulled so tight after the Tedford era. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out in Berkeley with the fallout of realignment and new younger chancellor.
Well, academic restrictions do play a part in recruiting. Notre Dame, North Western, etc. Can't recruit the same as Alabama, LSU, Clemson, Texas , Georgia Michigan Ohio State, etc. The academic requirements at those are less stringent than those high academic schools. Remember a couple of years when Alabama crushed Notre Dame in the playoff. Clemson did the same thing. It was obvious there was talent difference on the field. All the top talent is in the SEC now. Academic schools have a challenge trying to get those 5 stars to come to their schools. And those academic schools have waivers , but they won't use them. If these schools want to complete with the Georgia, Texas, Alabama Michigan , Ohio State They should consider using their waivers for these athletes or keep getting embarrassed by the SEC or the BIG 10 on the national stage. Remember what Brian Kelly said about Notre Dame before he left for LSU recruiting he said the quiet part out loud. He wasn't lying
Good video. However, when fans claim "academic standards are higher at XYZ school" they're referring to admission standards, not academic prestige. Michigan, for example, is notoriously difficult to transfer into for athletes because it often won't accept credits for low grades, high grades from low-quality colleged, or pointless classes from even good quality colleges. So, many transfers end up committing elsewhere.
If rankings changed all the time, you could take an average of academic rankings over those 50 years, rerank, then to this exercise to get a more accurate number.
Schools like Michigan, Texas and UNC are elite academic institutions but are no more selective about admitting athletes than schools ranked much lower.
I would argue it’s not about wins and losses- as you discovered -but it’s about *having a program*. Texas A&M hasn’t won anything, but their program has served as profitable and highly effective marketing for the school itself. Take the UC schools for example. Everyone knows about Cal and UCLA. But why do UCSD, UC Davis, UCSB, and UC Irvine struggle so much to gain a fraction of the name recognition? By most metrics, those are elite schools. They’re research powerhouses, their programs rank well, and they’re hard to get into. Why has no one outside of California heard of them?
Though I also like what you said at the end: Vanderbilt and Duke aren’t bad at football because they’re smart. When UC San Diego moved up to Division 1, there was a lot of debate and contention about whether or not that move would diminish the academic reputation of the school. I would tell people that there are schools out there who are better at UCSD when it comes to academics *and* sports, so maybe they’re not mutually exclusive, and it’s possible to have both.
It shows in football. They have teams that are good, but not good enough to go all the way. When they won the national championship with Lou Holtz, it was an open secret that he had recruited a lot of players Notre Dame wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole in previous years because of their academics, or lack thereof. They fell to mediocrity in later years because they tightened standards again.
I remember one of my assistant coaches told us about the last school he was at, they had a guy that was recruited by Illinois, they looked at his grades and rejected him 😂.
As a 60 year Army fan, I can say for absolutely yes. There are players at Boston College(tougher school than that other Catholic College somewhere in Indiana) that could not get into Army. Same for that other Catholic School,the Duke Wake, Vandy, Tulane,Northwestern, Cal Berkley, Michigan,Virginia,.These schools are good to great ones academically,BUT not Ivy ,Patriot League,or Academy level.AND West Point is the 2nd toughest academy to get into.U.S.Coast Guard Academy is #1.Look at the F.C.S. level,home to Ivy And patriot Leagues. And how their football teams stack up against the top F.C.S. teams Montana/Harvard. South Dakota State/Colgate. U.New Hampshire/Holy Cross. Who is the tougher nut academically? Navy/Maryland, Air Force/ Boise State, Army/Rutgers
Your video is interesting but the methodology is flawed. The US News list has flawed methodology. The American Association of Universities is recognized as being a group of the most academically prestigious colleges in the country, if not the world. the Univ of Arizona, Arizona State University, University of Utah, Rutgers and South Florida are on that list. Many schools boycott the US News rankings as incorrect, misleading and biased. Using that list would have been easy.
You have no need to watch The answer is very simple…if you are a top athlete who will attract others and make the university money…nope academics means…ZERO.
Yes. This is a stupid ass question😂😂😂 academic schools suck at football. Football schools don’t. The players on football schools go to fake classes 😂😂😂
I think one factor that is very hard to quantify is how much the schools academic standards are enforced on its athletes. At Cal, the push towards improving team academic performance has absolutely played a major role in the programs problems the last 10ish years. However, at UNC, the school has absolutely shown it will make major exceptions for its players.
Exactly. A school like Vanderbilt could actually be competitive if they wanted to, but they simply don't care enough to make amends for the players.
Paper classes lol
@@Thereffereeno they couldn’t lol vandy would still need to recruit good players and that’s somewhere good players tend to avoid lol
@@oVoxxyVandy has the money to attract good players with NIL. The problem is that they force them to uphold academic standards which most good players aren't great at.
My question would be if that factors in the name recognition of the school. Now I looked at the 2024 list, and UCLA, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and Michigan are all in the same tier academically. But of the 4, I feel like a highly touted recruit would lean towards ND or UM because they are more “national” or prestigious football brands, so they will get more eyes on them, more prime time games, etc. I can’t speak to how hard each of those 4 push their players academically, but I do know that of the 4, South Bend and Ann Arbor are going to get more visits from College Gameday and Big Noon than Nashville and non-USC LA would.
Fun Fact about UChicago, they are still cooperating/an unofficial member of the Big Ten's Academic Research Alliance despite not having been in the Big 10 since the 40s.
We gotta keep dunking on Northwestern some way
☝🤓
@@HenryHubPlattsNorthwestern: The *second* best university in the Chicagoland area!
Though not football, a fun story about academics literally getting in the way: At Northwestern, baseball players (and most likely every sport that isn’t football or basketball) are not allowed to miss class for home games. That means, if it’s a 3:30 game and class is at 5, the player has to be pulled mid game (yes, they do check and are very strict in tracking). Also, we can’t miss class till 1:00 pm on a Thursday to travel to away weekend series. Literally took an 8 hour bus ride to Ohio State and had practice at 9 pm.
Just on base and having to run off the feild for class is crazy😭😭😭😭😭
That seems crazy unfair to athletes to pull them mid game while they’re representing the school. You’d think that they’d find a way to make adjustments for student athletes to attend classes virtually after game but forcing in person attendance like that is insane and seriously unfair to student athletes playing for the school.
You cost the school money…if you made the school money it wouldn’t matter
that is why the majority of athletes take classes online
the content machine keeps on crankin'
Hello do history of SEC
Research/Academics keep the lights on at universities. No research/academics, no universities. No universities, no college football. Many people neglect to see the big picture.
You realize college football by itself profits from tv deals, sponsor deals, merchandise sales and ticket sales, right? Cfb doesn't rely on academics
@@MrJohansen That obviously went WAY over your head. College football relies on colleges and universities. That's the point. Without colleges and universities, you might as well call it a semi-pro league. It's called COLLEGE football for a reason.
@@dantesinfernopurgatory7826man both of your comments were wildly incorrect. I’m impressed with your overwhelming lack of knowledge or even common sense. Just an incredible showing out of you here
@@jamey2326 Do yourself a favor - keep living inside your sports-centric bubble. My focus is on the big picture. Stay triggered, my friend 😆
@@dantesinfernopurgatory7826 3 wrong comments in a row you are on fire
I guess in a way, academics still matter because what if football doesn't work out for you or you don't know how to manage your money right in life. Learning a few jobs and getting a few degrees in certain areas of work can be helpful in life.
I legit get so hyped when I see an upload from empire
i am a student athlete at cal and can confirm the lack of athletic passion in anyway is certainly influenced by the strive for academic excellence
I believe the 30 foe 30 doc touched on this for a bit, but Miami (FL) was considered an academic school for a long time before the football team exploded into popularity in the 80's, and with all the antics they brought with the titles, the school threatened to (no avail, mind ya) get rid of the football team, if they didn't change their ways, cause of how it hurt their true academic image
Chicago has gone from an elite football school to the very best Quizbowl school, so I'd say their decision did win them more national titles in the long run, just not in athletics.
funny seeing this comment as a former football player and current member of my college’s quiz bowl club
Growing up in Kentucky, my dad is a vandy alumnus, and going to lsu rn, every time I see Georgia and ole miss in 73 I go Jesus Christ we did that
How about school size? A small and academically prestigious school is more likely to be bad compared to a large academically prestigious school imo. (ie Duke vs Michigan)
Makes sense, putting 100 sub par academic people into a school with 40,000 kids makes a lot less of a difference to the school than if you did the same to an 8,000.
@@KevBotStank Makes you realize how with an enrollment that large, schools like Michigan and UNC will never compete with private schools in terms of having a smart student body. They only really have low acceptance rates because of cheap in state tuition attracting lots of dumb applicants.
I would like to say that using "university rankings" is a somewhat poor (although definetly not horrible) choice to decide school academics, because these lists use many odd parameters to decide the rankings, along with factors that may not affect athletics like doctoral activity and research. For example, a school like Arizona State would rank fairly high in terms of rankings, but I doubt many athletes are prevented from going there due to athletics (nearly a 90% acceptance rate). Also, I would be interested at looking at the differences between private and public schools here.
100% agree, for me it was just the least bad option to try and rank schools academically without getting lost in the weeds trying to define something as subjective as “academic prestige”
Though I agree with Empires response here, I was also thinking something similar. The sheer breadth of offerings at an institution the size of Michigan, Georgia, or Texas that ranges from public gen-ed diploma mill with a few flag-bearing programs to highly specialized graduate research has got to be nearly impossible to quantify and rate, while a much smaller school like Stanford or Duke is probably easier to evaluate.
In what world would Arizona state rank fairly high 😂
@@taylorburgart7172 it's ranked anywhere from 100-30 nationally, and the US News ranking (used in this video) has them above schools like Tennessee, Colorado, BYU, and Iowa State. I personally do not think of them as anything special but they rank fairly well for a public state school. I personally think most state schools would give exceptions for student athletes regardless of their academic prestige, other than maybe a handful of the top tier public schools like Berkeley or those not in D1
I think it is important to account for the fact that the private schools cannot be as lenient at publics when recruiting. Large public colleges have more room to take dumb people. Even if the rankings say UNC is better than Boston College for example, the average student at BC is probably smarter since they have to be more restrictive and they receive better overall applicants since they are pulling from around the country rather than mostly North Carolina. So acceptance rate is also not a great way to rank prestige, as many private schools attract smarter applicants than publics. Rankings are also very biased in favor of large public institutions just based on the criteria used.
Shoutout empire for the Memorial Day banger
The win % top 10 schools (especially private ones) seem to follow the performance of the economy. This makes sense to me because Stanford and Northwestern must have some reliance on wealthy alumni to maintain athletics so I would suggest splitting the scatter plot between public and private schools
Shout out to the football team, while getting my masters I had a regular GA position as a professors assistant and it stunk. By luck I met some other GAs who worked as tutors for the football team, we basically held their hands thru the homework but we didnt take their tests for them and they passed so we did it
Bro. Your videos are top notch.
Aw hell yeah Empire dropping another banger
your videos are so well put together. keep it up man!
I do think academics are a very ranging problem because for the best academic schools it can be a big problem but for the great but not elite ones its not a problem at all. also I think there are a few things you didnt mention in the video such as admissions for example, because a lot of teams miss out on transfers because of admissions like MIchigan basketball who did not get Caleb Love or Terrance Shannon Jr. who ended up having to transfer elsewhere because admissions did not accept them and also losing their best player from this past season Dug McDaniel because his grades were not good enough
at every turn of this video - you did exactly what I would've liked you to. I thought, "maybe he should use us-news rankings to determine academics" and you did, I thought, "maybe he should compare the records of the teams as well" and bang there it was. Great video
I don’t know or think you could get this, but one thing that would’ve been interesting to see/factor in would’ve been the graduation rates for the football team on average. I feel like if a school has a high graduation rate in their football program, it might indicate a better academic background/academic support for students.
This is such an underrated channel
You never hear of ANY player being suspended for grades anymore.
Nobody fails school anymore, I remember when I was just getting out of high school they were making it so people could be moved up without passing. Now imagine an athlete with potential millions in their wake, they will definitely do what it takes for that. Not to mention it’s so easy to cheat nowadays, you hardly have to have a brain to get good grades.
Navy army Air Force def get hindered by academics imagine all the crazy grunts they can get into a football uniform. It be like the prime U on juice
Military height and weight standards hinder them too. The players do get waivers, but you’re not gonna find many of the 300+ pound SEC lineman builds on service academy teams 😂
I was friends with a guy in high school that had a scholarship for football at Ole Miss and absolutely did not have the grades to get in or stay. But was allowed to take the ACT/SAT with our math teacher separate from us. They knew that was gonna be his only shot at success and I’m sure we weren’t the first school that’s happened at. I’m sure anyone who’s not blind would recognize there’s bound to be a lot of help at the college level too whether it’s the classes they offer for those students who can’t play otherwise or professors who turn an eye and just get them through it.
Great video, I always thought I was more of a money issue than an academic issue. It makes me wonder if the best schools are simply the ones the pour more money into their programs? For instance how much money would a program like Cincinnati or UCF need to pour into their programs to realistically compete against the top programs and win national titles like Ohio State, Alabama, or Florida?
It’s about admission standards. Some highly ranked academic programs like Berkeley and USC admit anyone regardless of their academic grades and scores whereas other schools with similar academic profiles like Stanford and UCLA impose more rigid admissions standards on athletes.
ucla, berkeley, and usc recruit the same kids lmfao. This is such delusion from a Bruin fan, thinking they're like Stanford lmfaooo
@@5david Well the Bruins do think they're the #1 public university in the world...🙃
Would be interesting to see it from a basketball side as some of the best programs are the best teams (UNC, UCLA, Duke) and some of the less academic ones (Kansas, Kentucky)
Google “Rosa Parks Essay UNC Athlete”
I wonder how much this would change if the conferences were even rather than a jumbled mess.
Including Cal and Stanford, but leaving out BYU, Houston, and SMU is wild. BYU was one of the top programs of the '80/.
Put the service academies into this too!! They are super smart.
Absolutely,I have been following Army Football since 1957,saw Dawkins play.When more schools took academic's serious , Army was more nationally competitive.m Greed is killing college sports.You see it on the D-3 level too, especially in football.There ate two Federal Academy's in D-3,Coast Guard(which is the #1 hardest academy to get into of the Federal 5) and Merchant Marine. Then the Colby, Bates D-3 league,the little Ivy league. They can not compete with Wisconsin Whitewater.
@@davidwadsworth8982 I dont think thats correct actually with Coast Guard. Navy is hardest at 10.8%, Army at 12%, AFA at 16% Coast Guard at 23% and USMMA at 27%. Navy and Army sometimes switch but navy is also a smaller academy. West Point probably has the most prestiege in name sake but yeah. Coast Guard doesnt even require a nomination from a congressman or senator like the other 4 do. Regardless all 5 are excellent schools academically and pretty hard to get into.
@@BooWorld-h9h Acceptance rate is over rated. All but C.G.A. take appointments from Senate,House,President, C.G.A. competitive exam.Army accepts M.O.H. winner dependents D-1 3 and U.S M.M.A. give 5% of recruited athletes a break. C.G.A. nope. Also besides academics,Cadet Life ,military training, military duty, restrictions, ate stiffer at the Point.It is the toughest place. Everybody has same secondary M.O.S. 11-Bravo,Infantry.I know ,I trained Cadets in warrior Skills.Army has less free time. Navy the most with Air Force a close second. Army kills the enemy up close and personal. Less than 11% Navy Grads go SEAL or Marine. Point Cadets get much less sleep too. Even Army cadet Uniforms are just not nice.White Dress Shoes.Navy looks like members of a marching band, they look polite,act polite.
Will still forever be using the excuse
Something I’d be really interested in is looking at the majors of CFB players at various schools. I’m an electrical engineering major and I couldn’t imagine having to practice and play football games with my schedule, so I’m wondering if there are many other CFB players with rigorous majors.
It is interesting to note that Cal and Stanford are the best in tons of other sports (water polo, rugby, etc), but sports that no one watches. So I wonder if the athletes for these sports know that there’s no money to be made in these sports so they aim to get a good education, or if there’s another factor that draws great athletes in other sports to these schools
It's a little bit of everything I think. Athletes in non-revenue sports pick those schools because of their academic reputations plus they might gravitate to those schools because they have a winning tradition in that sport. Stanford for example has a strong tradition in swimming, Katie Ledecky among others ended up going there for a bit. She left because she was one of the few who could make good money off endorsements but I would guess their academics and historic excellence in swimming attracted her to Stanford.
Academics can do more to hamper football success than help it in the new millennium. To be fair I'd say Sonny Dykes might have had more success at Cal had the academic reigns not been pulled so tight after the Tedford era. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out in Berkeley with the fallout of realignment and new younger chancellor.
I think another interesting metric to look at would be how many academic all-americans each team has produced.
got flash-banged by Chad Morris Arkansas football
ending clip made up for it
Now I wonder how football impacts academics like does the press that comes from sports promotes people to apply
I love this video idea!
EMPIRE does not miss
If he were a stock, I would invest the house
Well, academic restrictions do play a part in recruiting. Notre Dame, North Western, etc. Can't recruit the same as Alabama, LSU, Clemson, Texas , Georgia Michigan Ohio State, etc. The academic requirements at those are less stringent than those high academic schools. Remember a couple of years when Alabama crushed Notre Dame in the playoff. Clemson did the same thing. It was obvious there was talent difference on the field. All the top talent is in the SEC now. Academic schools have a challenge trying to get those 5 stars to come to their schools. And those academic schools have waivers , but they won't use them. If these schools want to complete with the Georgia, Texas, Alabama Michigan , Ohio State They should consider using their waivers for these athletes or keep getting embarrassed by the SEC or the BIG 10 on the national stage. Remember what Brian Kelly said about Notre Dame before he left for LSU recruiting he said the quiet part out loud. He wasn't lying
You have it backwards. The question is "Do academics influence football"?
college football fans when the players actually have to go to college: 🙆♂
Good video. However, when fans claim "academic standards are higher at XYZ school" they're referring to admission standards, not academic prestige. Michigan, for example, is notoriously difficult to transfer into for athletes because it often won't accept credits for low grades, high grades from low-quality colleged, or pointless classes from even good quality colleges. So, many transfers end up committing elsewhere.
If rankings changed all the time, you could take an average of academic rankings over those 50 years, rerank, then to this exercise to get a more accurate number.
Wait, which US New Rankings did you use? The 2023? The 2024 US News Rankings(National), don't seem to match the metrics that were shared in the video.
We got Kronk talking about grades and college football before GTA 6
Tulane is also a huge what if, having left the SEC due to their “lack of academic commitment”
11 views 3 minutes bro didn’t fall off
Schools like Michigan, Texas and UNC are elite academic institutions but are no more selective about admitting athletes than schools ranked much lower.
Haha Michigan maybe but not the other two. Just Google “Rosa Parks Essay UNC Athlete” to get a sense of how much they care about academics XD
Being a Cal fan is painful 😔
I would argue it’s not about wins and losses- as you discovered -but it’s about *having a program*. Texas A&M hasn’t won anything, but their program has served as profitable and highly effective marketing for the school itself.
Take the UC schools for example. Everyone knows about Cal and UCLA. But why do UCSD, UC Davis, UCSB, and UC Irvine struggle so much to gain a fraction of the name recognition? By most metrics, those are elite schools. They’re research powerhouses, their programs rank well, and they’re hard to get into. Why has no one outside of California heard of them?
Though I also like what you said at the end: Vanderbilt and Duke aren’t bad at football because they’re smart. When UC San Diego moved up to Division 1, there was a lot of debate and contention about whether or not that move would diminish the academic reputation of the school. I would tell people that there are schools out there who are better at UCSD when it comes to academics *and* sports, so maybe they’re not mutually exclusive, and it’s possible to have both.
As a lifelong Cal Bears fan, it is my professional opinion that we just suck at football
Notre dame enforces education. Student athlete with student first.
It shows in football. They have teams that are good, but not good enough to go all the way. When they won the national championship with Lou Holtz, it was an open secret that he had recruited a lot of players Notre Dame wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole in previous years because of their academics, or lack thereof. They fell to mediocrity in later years because they tightened standards again.
@@lucashenderson2775 it just takes one opportunity to change a narrative. We’ll see what happens this year
@@IAmTrash1995 They certainly have the chance to do it.
Not the divine punishment
I remember one of my assistant coaches told us about the last school he was at, they had a guy that was recruited by Illinois, they looked at his grades and rejected him 😂.
Go Irish!
Michigan is in the thumbnail, and Georgia Tech isn’t. Got it.
As a 60 year Army fan, I can say for absolutely yes. There are players at Boston College(tougher school than that other Catholic College somewhere in Indiana) that could not get into Army. Same for that other Catholic School,the Duke Wake, Vandy, Tulane,Northwestern, Cal Berkley, Michigan,Virginia,.These schools are good to great ones academically,BUT not Ivy ,Patriot League,or Academy level.AND West Point is the 2nd toughest academy to get into.U.S.Coast Guard Academy is #1.Look at the F.C.S. level,home to Ivy And patriot Leagues. And how their football teams stack up against the top F.C.S. teams Montana/Harvard. South Dakota State/Colgate. U.New Hampshire/Holy Cross. Who is the tougher nut academically? Navy/Maryland, Air Force/ Boise State, Army/Rutgers
To be fair some of the student athletes can’t even read at some of these schools.
Your video is interesting but the methodology is flawed. The US News list has flawed methodology. The American Association of Universities is recognized as being a group of the most academically prestigious colleges in the country, if not the world. the Univ of Arizona, Arizona State University, University of Utah, Rutgers and South Florida are on that list. Many schools boycott the US News rankings as incorrect, misleading and biased. Using that list would have been easy.
College baseball is the opposite
If academics was a real thing their wouldnt be so many a.a. athletes
Nice spelling, racist.
Georgia claims 4 national championships, not 3.
Within the last 50 years, since 1973
I’m early
Go Gators
GO GATORS
Jesus Christ man, please read me the phonebook
Call 2300 EMPIRE today!
You have no need to watch The answer is very simple…if you are a top athlete who will attract others and make the university money…nope academics means…ZERO.
Yes. This is a stupid ass question😂😂😂 academic schools suck at football. Football schools don’t. The players on football schools go to fake classes 😂😂😂
EMPIRE, You're amazing! Let's be friends and have fun together!