For all those that are armchair quarterbacks as well... Why is it that the top schools in the academic rankings are rarely in the top of the rankings for college football? Other factors being equal, wouldn't a player want to go to the school that gives him the most valuable degree?- even if he really wants to play professionally, wouldn't he want to have the next best option too?
Of course, since the NCAA is a farm league for the NFL, most are going to the school that will give them the best shot at the NFL- usually the highest ranking school with the most coverage- this seems to create a dynasty effect- high rankings= better recruits= better team. But why aren't the best teams in the Ivy League? Yale, Cornell, and, Princeton even had several championships between them at the beginning of the 20th century, but since the 1930s the champs have almost exclusively been large, state schools, that are not usually in the top 50 in college rankings (Notre Dame being the only private, top 20 school to regularly do well). What sparked this change? If colleges cannot legally offer atheletes more then tuition and room and board, why isn't the more valuable degree getting players to go to top academic schools? The best reason I could think of has to do with football being played in front of extraorindarily large crowds- most top schools have stadiums that seat 70-100+ thousand. Private schools (the vast majority of the top 20 universities) are too exclusive to draw this many fans and, also, don't have the fans to watch on television. Top schools seem to do well at other sports without such big audiences- crew being the best example, but basketball (Duke, Princeton, Georgetown, Stanford regulary make the NCAA tournament) is another. And so, top academic schools, by their exclusive nature, make themselves a poor college football program because the general public cannot feel a part of them and fill. This is not completely satifying, any other thoughts? Jason DeBacker
