College Rankings for 2022-2023. Here is where every Power 5 Conference school stands

[NikkiSixx]

US News updated their College Rankings for 2022-2023. Here is where every Power 5 Conference school stands (including updated conferences)​

Big 10

1. Northwestern (9)
2. UCLA (20)
3. Michigan (23)
4. USC (27)
5. Wisconsin (42)
6. Illinois (47)
7. Ohio State (49)
8. Purdue (49)
9. Maryland (59)
10. Rutgers (63)
11. Penn State (63)
12. Indiana (68)
13. Minnesota (68)
14. Iowa (83)
15. Michigan State (83)
16. Nebraska (136)

SEC

1. Vanderbilt (14)
2. Florida (28)
3. Texas (38)
4. Georgia (48)
5. Texas A&M (68)
6. Auburn (99)
7. Tennessee (103)
8. South Carolina (117)
9. Missouri (122)
10. Kentucky (127)
11. Oklahoma (127)
12. Alabama (148)
13. Ole Miss (148)
14. Arkansas (162)
15. LSU (172)
16. Mississippi State (196)

PAC 12*

1. Stanford (6)
2. Cal (22)
3. Washington (59)
4. Colorado (99)
5. Oregon (99)
6. Utah (99)
7. Arizona (103)
8. Arizona State (117)
9. Oregon State (162)
10. Washington State (179)

*Rumored potential PAC 12 additions - SMU (68), San Diego State (148), Fresno State (213), UNLV (249), Boise State (299+)
ACC**

1. Duke (9)
2. Virginia (25)
3. North Carolina (28)
4. Wake Forest (28)
5. Boston College (36)
6. Georgia Tech (38)
7. Florida State (55)
8. Miami (55)
9. Pitt (59)
10. Syracuse (59)
11. Clemson (75)
12. Virginia Tech (75)
13. NC State (79)
14. Louisville (187)

**Notre Dame (19) - part time member
Big 12

1. Baylor (75)
2. BYU (79)
3. TCU (83)
4. Iowa State (122)
5. Kansas (122)
6. Cincinnati (148)
7. UCF (148)
8. Kansas State (162)
9. Houston (179)
10. Oklahoma State (187)
11. Texas Tech (213)
12. West Virginia (249)

 

[WHCSC]

Criteria?

 

[Husker.Wed.]

Criteria?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

Louisville is the Nebraska of the ACC

 

[TFrazier]

Stanford- #6 college ranking and #6 media market

Washington- #59 college ranking and #13 media market

Easy to see why the Big 10 would strongly consider both schools.

 

[king_kong_]

Louisville is the Nebraska of the ACC

ACC’s median school rank is lower than the B1G’s

so we belong to neither a prestigious athletics nor academics conference

B1G - always second fiddle. good stuff

 

[huskerfan66]

ACC’s median school rank is lower than the B1G’s

so we belong to neither a prestigious athletics nor academics conference

B1G - always second fiddle. good stuff

We get it. Even if there's any good news you despise the b1g

 

[WHCSC]

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights

Why is DONU so low? What’s being done wrong?

 

[puff1]

Why is DONU so low? What’s being done wrong?

UNMC considered separate from UNL is part of it. I believe this was also part of losing AAU status

 

[WHCSC]

UNMC considered separate from UNL is part of it. I believe this was also part of losing AAU status

So how does it get fixed? Does it need to? Does anyone care?

 

[TFrazier]

So how does it get fixed? Does it need to? Does anyone care?

Provide light rail connecting both campuses should do it.

 

[NikkiSixx]

Provide light rail connecting both campuses should do it.

This is a great comment, and I'll tell you why.

In South Florida, they have a light rail system from West Palm Beach all the way down to Miami. Lots of people use it to commute to work.. drive (or bike) a few miles, park your car at the station, take the train and get off near your work destination, and it's inexpensive and extremely useful.

I never would have thought much about rail when I lived in Omaha, but that all changed when I moved down to florida in 2017.

No longer there, but having some sort of rail system between Omaha and Lincoln would be hugely successful, and you would see communities between them flourish as well. It just might help create that "Metro" size requirement to draw in other big businesses too.

Imagine you could live in Lincoln and work in West Omaha and avoid the big traffic headache and spend your time being more productive too.

 

[SuperBigFan]

This is a great comment, and I'll tell you why.

In South Florida, they have a light rail system from West Palm Beach all the way down to Miami. Lots of people use it to commute to work.. drive (or bike) a few miles, park your car at the station, take the train and get off near your work destination, and it's inexpensive and extremely useful.

I never would have thought much about rail when I lived in Omaha, but that all changed when I moved down to florida in 2017.

No longer there, but having some sort of rail system between Omaha and Lincoln would be hugely successful, and you would see communities between them flourish as well. It just might help create that "Metro" size requirement to draw in other big businesses too.

Imagine you could live in Lincoln and work in West Omaha and avoid the big traffic headache and spend your time being more productive too.

And on gamedays! That ****ing thing would be packed and a blast.

 

[WHCSC]

This is a great comment, and I'll tell you why.

In South Florida, they have a light rail system from West Palm Beach all the way down to Miami. Lots of people use it to commute to work.. drive (or bike) a few miles, park your car at the station, take the train and get off near your work destination, and it's inexpensive and extremely useful.

I never would have thought much about rail when I lived in Omaha, but that all changed when I moved down to florida in 2017.

No longer there, but having some sort of rail system between Omaha and Lincoln would be hugely successful, and you would see communities between them flourish as well. It just might help create that "Metro" size requirement to draw in other big businesses too.

Imagine you could live in Lincoln and work in West Omaha and avoid the big traffic headache and spend your time being more productive too.

And it would only take a slight, temporary increase in your already low property taxes.

 

[BleedRed78]

And it would only take a slight, temporary increase in your already low property taxes.

EPIC tax reform would do the trick!

 

[redfanusa]

Why is DONU so low? What’s being done wrong?

If you look at the criteria, Nebraska is sort of doomed to fail. A big chunk (30%) of the ranking is graduation rate and retention rate. For a less selective school like Nebraska, you are going to get students who aren't prepared for college that drop out, transfer, or take ten years to graduate. Nebraska would benefit greatly by doing a better job retaining the students that enter as freshmen, and getting them to graduate within 4-5 years.

Another 20% is the "peer assessment survey," which is basically a positive feedback loop for academic snobs to bag on Nebraska for having a lower academic rating to which they themselves are contributing. Selectivity also harms a state school like Nebraska, whose mission is to educate the people of the state, not exclude them.

The top 10% of high school graduates in Nebraska are going to have their pick of schools around the country, so it is unlikely many are going to choose UNL over private schools and brand name schools elsewhere. Texas, meanwhile, has the benefit of the "10% rule" which by law means any of the 330,000 high school students who graduates in the top 10% of their class is automatically accepted (not enrolled). Thanks to relatively low in-state tuition, nearly every college-bound student in the state applies to UT. That alone boosts the application and rejection numbers considerably. A&M receives a similar bump.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

If you look at the criteria, Nebraska is sort of doomed to fail. A big chunk (30%) of the ranking is graduation rate and retention rate. For a less selective school like Nebraska, you are going to get students who aren't prepared for college that drop out, transfer, or take ten years to graduate. Nebraska would benefit greatly by doing a better job retaining the students that enter as freshmen, and getting them to graduate within 4-5 years.

Another 20% is the "peer assessment survey," which is basically a positive feedback loop for academic snobs to bag on Nebraska for having a lower academic rating to which they themselves are contributing. Selectivity also harms a state school like Nebraska, whose mission is to educate the people of the state, not exclude them.

The top 10% of high school graduates in Nebraska are going to have their pick of schools around the country, so it is unlikely many are going to choose UNL over private schools and brand name schools elsewhere. Texas, meanwhile, has the benefit of the "10% rule" which by law means any of the 330,000 high school students who graduates in the top 10% of their class is automatically accepted (not enrolled). Thanks to relatively low in-state tuition, nearly every college-bound student in the state applies to UT. That alone boosts the application and rejection numbers considerably. A&M receives a similar bump.

It isn't 10% anymore at UT and aTm and hasn't been for several years, it has dropped from 10 to 8 to 7 and now is at 6 and has been there since 2017. While still a significant number, it isn't the bump it was back in the late 90's when they instituted HB 588

 

[huskerfan1414]

As far as Im concerned that number is a badge of honor.

 

[RedCap]

Stanford- #6 college ranking and #6 media market

Washington- #59 college ranking and #13 media market

Easy to see why the Big 10 would strongly consider both schools.

Not arguing for or against including Stanford and Washington. Just pointing out that the size of the local media market does not always directly correlate to the number of people watching TV for that local college's football games.

For example in 2021, Stanford ranked #46 nationally with an avg. of 778K viewers for their football games. Washington ranked #38 with 985K viewers. In contrast, Oregon was far better at #10 and 2.57M viewers (the best TV rank in the PAC that year).

And for comparison, Nebraska? During the same period Nebraska ranked #12 nationally with an average of 2.29M viewers. And that of course was with a crappy football team performance on the field.

P.S. Notre Dame widely considered as the primo TV draw ranked #9 with 2.84M viewers, just ahead of Oregon.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Not arguing for or against including Stanford and Washington. Just pointing out that the size of the local media market does not always directly correlate to the number of people watching TV for that local college's football games.

For example in 2021, Stanford ranked #46 nationally with an avg. of 778K viewers for their football games. Washington ranked #38 with 985K viewers. In contrast, Oregon was far better at #10 and 2.57M viewers (the best TV rank in the PAC that year).

And for comparison, Nebraska? During the same period Nebraska ranked #12 nationally with an average of 2.29M viewers. And that of course was with a crappy football team performance on the field.

I don't understand why you keep pushing this viewership thing. Viewership is important but the attractiveness to the media rights is the market size. You can hide your weak viewing teams on the secondary networks. Look at Rutgers, the Big Ten wanted the NYC market, they get Rutgers. Rutgers doesn't ever play on ABC/ESPN, FOX Big Saturday or any of the other prime game times, they are relegated to ESPN2, FS1, BTN 11 am time where they will go head to head with the Big Saturday game of the week, and if they bring in 150,000 viewers, great. Because 6 million will be watching Fox, including any people in NYC that want to watch college football at noon EST.

 

[RedCap]

I don't understand why you keep pushing this viewership thing. Viewership is important but the attractiveness to the media rights is the market size. You can hide your weak viewing teams on the secondary networks. Look at Rutgers, the Big Ten wanted the NYC market, they get Rutgers. Rutgers doesn't ever play on ABC/ESPN, FOX Big Saturday or any of the other prime game times, they are relegated to ESPN2, FS1, BTN 11 am time where they will go head to head with the Big Saturday game of the week, and if they bring in 150,000 viewers, great. Because 6 million will be watching Fox, including any people in NYC that want to watch college football at noon EST.

The number of eyeballs translates to the ad dollars paid. It's not complicated. And the number of eyeballs automatically factors in the size of the local market, the passion of the fanbase and the popularity nationally. It's what advertisers pay attention to (ie., viewer impressions for their ads).

Now admittedly fans may think there are more important things than ad dollars. That's fine, no problem. But my point is that it seems like conferences these days are being driven to make choices based on the financial implications. We may agree or disagree with that as the criteria but we don't make those conference decisions.

 

[TheWayITellEm]

College 'rankings' are nonsense. Math, science, medicine, history, music....these things aren't taught differently by college. The answers remain the same.

Things like light-rail transit look fancy, support agendas, and therefore increase the ranking. But in reality, all it does is discourage walking....something that's good for you.

 

[cidsports]

So how does it get fixed? Does it need to? Does anyone care?

No, it doesn't likely get fixed. Iowa State University is no longer in AAU, either. Programs with med schools on campus have advantages over programs without, past stories have reported on it.

 

[headcard]

We get it. Even if there's any good news you despise the b1g

What's the good news?

 

[mgbreis]

Gosh, I really remember how my life changed for the worse when Nebraska lost AAU membership.... errr wait. No, actually not one person outside of pointy-headed academia cared. You could try to explain to my why I should care about the AAU or this ranking, but I still won't. I want to watch Nebraska in a New Year's Day bowl game. That's all.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The number of eyeballs translates to the ad dollars paid. It's not complicated. And the number of eyeballs automatically factors in the size of the local market, the passion of the fanbase and the popularity nationally. It's what advertisers pay attention to (ie., viewer impressions for their ads).

Now admittedly fans may think there are more important things than ad dollars. That's fine, no problem. But my point is that it seems like conferences these days are being driven to make choices based on the financial implications. We may agree or disagree with that as the criteria but we don't make those conference decisions.

But the ad dollars go to the media company not the league, this is how they pay for the media rights. There is a correlation but it isn't as direct as you are making it out to be. Getting the LA media market will make the Big Ten more money than all of the USC games Nebraska is more of an exception to the rule for expansion. Adding Nebraska made sense because at the time, the Big Ten thought Nebraska was going to be in the prime TV time slots. When Nebraska is in those games, it isn't against the Rutgers', it is against Ohio St's, so the match up is intriguing and profitable for the channel.

I have provided the Clemson numbers on here a couple of times. People think Clemson would be a no brainer for the SEC because they are good and average 1.2 million viewers per game. But the reality is Clemson had 5 games where less than 200,000 people watched. The Georgia game and the 9 million viewers accounted for almost 1/3 of Clemson's total viewership for the year.

 

[RedCap]

But the ad dollars go to the media company not the league, this is how they pay for the media rights. There is a correlation but it isn't as direct as you are making it out to be. Getting the LA media market will make the Big Ten more money than all of the USC games Nebraska is more of an exception to the rule for expansion. Adding Nebraska made sense because at the time, the Big Ten thought Nebraska was going to be in the prime TV time slots. When Nebraska is in those games, it isn't against the Rutgers', it is against Ohio St's, so the match up is intriguing and profitable for the channel.

I have provided the Clemson numbers on here a couple of times. People think Clemson would be a no brainer for the SEC because they are good and average 1.2 million viewers per game. But the reality is Clemson had 5 games where less than 200,000 people watched. The Georgia game and the 9 million viewers accounted for almost 1/3 of Clemson's total viewership for the year.

For reference - In 2021, Clemson ranked #19 and racked up 1.74M viewers. Georgia ranked #5 and racked 3.61M viewers. Yes, it varies some by year but the number of viewers are the best correlation to media rights value we have. Some schools/conferences are better negotiators in terms of getting media rights contracts but the value to the media companies is the number of viewers they reach with ads. I find it strange that anyone would argue with that but everyone can have their own opinion I guess.

 

[Redmich]

For reference - In 2021, Clemson ranked #19 and racked up 1.74M viewers. Georgia ranked #5 and racked 3.61M viewers. Yes, it varies some by year but the number of viewers are the best correlation to media rights value we have. Some schools/conferences are better negotiators in terms of getting media rights contracts but the value to the media companies is the number of viewers they reach with ads. I find it strange that anyone would argue with that but everyone can have their own opinion I guess.

It’s not necessarily how many are watching the game - it’s how many eyeballs there are in the market to subscribe to the cable package that has the channel that carried the game

for instance in NYC many may not be that interested in the big ten network but you package the network with the cooking channel, Smithsonian, Disney, the knicks and Yankees and people if they want those channels they are also paying for BTN

people with cable don’t watch probably 90% of the channels included but they are paying for them and those networks get the same take whether you watch them or not

 

[RedCap]

It’s not necessarily how many are watching the game - it’s how many eyeballs there are in the market to subscribe to the cable package that has the channel that carried the game

for instance in NYC many may not be that interested in the big ten network but you package the network with the cooking channel, Smithsonian, Disney, the knicks and Yankees and people if they want those channels they are also paying for BTN

people with cable don’t watch probably 90% of the channels included but they are paying for them and those networks get the same take whether you watch them or not

True in the past but that will be far less of a factor in the future as cable subscriptions with forced packages decline and are replaced by ala cart streaming options.

 

[RedCap]

True in the past but that will be far less of a factor in the future as cable subscriptions with forced packages decline and are replaced by ala cart streaming options. The media world is undergoing change.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

For reference - In 2021, Clemson ranked #19 and racked up 1.74M viewers. Georgia ranked #5 and racked 3.61M viewers. Yes, it varies some by year but the number of viewers are the best correlation to media rights value we have. Some schools/conferences are better negotiators in terms of getting media rights contracts but the value to the media companies is the number of viewers they reach with ads. I find it strange that anyone would argue with that but everyone can have their own opinion I guess.

Awesome,... you are making my point for me. Clemson averaged 1.74 million for 14 games, your numbers not mine. The Georgia game had 9 million viewers. So 1.74 times 14 is 24.36 million, so 24.36 mil minus 9 million is 15.36 million.

So as I said, more than 1/3 of the total viewership for Clemson was 1 game, in week 1 of the season. The remainder of their viewership was 15.36 million for 12 games...or 1.28 million per game. Considering 5 of those 12 games had a viewership of less than 200,000, that isn't all that great. But if you want to think that individual schools viewership matters in the overall scheme of things, be my guest. But you are wrong. Good talk.

 

[RedCap]

Awesome,... you are making my point for me. Clemson averaged 1.74 million for 14 games, your numbers not mine. The Georgia game had 9 million viewers. So 1.74 times 14 is 24.36 million, so 24.36 mil minus 9 million is 15.36 million.

So as I said, more than 1/3 of the total viewership for Clemson was 1 game, in week 1 of the season. The remainder of their viewership was 15.36 million for 12 games...or 1.28 million per game. Considering 5 of those 12 games had a viewership of less than 200,000, that isn't all that great. But if you want to think that individual schools viewership matters in the overall scheme of things, be my guest. But you are wrong. Good talk.

The only point I've made in any of these posts is that the number of TV eyeballs watching teams in a conference correlate to the media contract dollars for that conference. Period, that's all. I'm not making any points or conclusions specifically about Clemson or Georgia other than citing their viewership numbers relative to other teams.

 

[HuskersWay]

This seems to confirm one thing - I always knew in my bones that all the talk about how joining the Big 10 would provide immense benefits to the academic side of the university was just hot air. Eleven years in, I've seen nothing yet to make me think my skepticism about those claims was wrong.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The only point I've made in any of these posts is that the number of TV eyeballs watching teams in a conference correlate to the media contract dollars for that conference. Period, that's all. I'm not making any points or conclusions specifically about Clemson or Georgia other than citing their viewership numbers relative to other teams.

what? You are literally arguing about viewership as if it was the secret to success. You have provided specific numbers, about eyeballs on the game involving a specific team as the basis of you point. Then when I dispute that you write something about TV eyeballs watching teams in a conference is the key. You are not making any sense.

I am telling you and the numbers will back it up that, outside of Nebraska in 2010, conferences don't add schools that don't add TV sets to the footprint. The Big Ten didn't add UCLA and USC because they have the highest viewership. No one goes to UCLA games, and very few people in LA care about UCLA football. The TV sets in a particular metro, don't need to add viewers of the team in the specific metro to make a difference. Fox doesn't care if the people in LA are watching UCLA or USC or if they are watching Nebraska. The league simply wants the market.

Now Fox and BTN are looking for viewership because they need to recoup the money they are spending on Big Ten football games. So what they do is put Ohio St vs Michigan on Fox at noon EST because it will get more eyeballs than Rutgers vs USC. They know that the LA market will watch that game, and the advertisers will pay to have their ads on for that game. No one is paying a premium to advertise on the Minnesota/Nebraska game with a noon EST start time on BTN when it is opposite Penn St/ Michigan or Wisconsin/ Iowa or Ohio St/ Michigan St with an noon start on big Fox.

Your argument is flawed, I am just pointing out the flaws. I have spent too much time on this, I will bow out now. Good talk.

 

[RedCap]

what? You are literally arguing about viewership as if it was the secret to success. You have provided specific numbers, about eyeballs on the game involving a specific team as the basis of you point. Then when I dispute that you write something about TV eyeballs watching teams in a conference is the key. You are not making any sense.

I am telling you and the numbers will back it up that, outside of Nebraska in 2010, conferences don't add schools that don't add TV sets to the footprint. The Big Ten didn't add UCLA and USC because they have the highest viewership. No one goes to UCLA games, and very few people in LA care about UCLA football. The TV sets in a particular metro, don't need to add viewers of the team in the specific metro to make a difference. Fox doesn't care if the people in LA are watching UCLA or USC or if they are watching Nebraska. The league simply wants the market.

Now Fox and BTN are looking for viewership because they need to recoup the money they are spending on Big Ten football games. So what they do is put Ohio St vs Michigan on Fox at noon EST because it will get more eyeballs than Rutgers vs USC. They know that the LA market will watch that game, and the advertisers will pay to have their ads on for that game. No one is paying a premium to advertise on the Minnesota/Nebraska game with a noon EST start time on BTN when it is opposite Penn St/ Michigan or Wisconsin/ Iowa or Ohio St/ Michigan St with an noon start on big Fox.

Your argument is flawed, I am just pointing out the flaws. I have spent too much time on this, I will bow out now. Good talk.

OK, so you don't think eyeballs influence media dollar contracts with conferences. It's your right to have that opinion, no problem with me if that's what you believe. We just have different opinions about that and it's fine.

Peace, this conversation has exhausted its usefulness.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

OK, so you don't think eyeballs influence media dollar contracts with conferences. It's your right to have that opinion, no problem with me if that's what you believe. We just have different opinions about that and it's fine.

Peace, this conversation has exhausted its usefulness.

Indirectly it affects the media rights contract, in that if you don’t have compelling matchups no one is going to pay you $1B to show your games because the network isn’t going to be able to sell advertising for those games.

The networks choose the games. Fox big Saturday game is always going to have the best match up for the week. It doesn’t matter if that game was Nebraska vs Purdue or USC vs Rutgers.

Getting USC and UCLA helps Big Ten ratings because it will give the people in the 2nd largest market a reason to watch Ohio St vs Iowa at 9a not because because UCLA or USC gets viewers.

UCLA vs Northwestern in 2022 would be a BTN game with maybe 200k viewers at most. But having UCLA, and USC, in the league also allows for more matchups that are intriguing for the networks.

I just think you put too much of an emphasis on viewership, when the market is what drives the ship. Attractive matchups will attract viewers, not so much the teams individually. That is what I was pointing out in the Clemson example. People aren’t tuning in to watch Clemson, they tuned in to watch Clemson play Georgia.

 

[TampaBaySkers]

This is a great comment, and I'll tell you why.

In South Florida, they have a light rail system from West Palm Beach all the way down to Miami. Lots of people use it to commute to work.. drive (or bike) a few miles, park your car at the station, take the train and get off near your work destination, and it's inexpensive and extremely useful.

I never would have thought much about rail when I lived in Omaha, but that all changed when I moved down to florida in 2017.

No longer there, but having some sort of rail system between Omaha and Lincoln would be hugely successful, and you would see communities between them flourish as well. It just might help create that "Metro" size requirement to draw in other big businesses too.

Imagine you could live in Lincoln and work in West Omaha and avoid the big traffic headache and spend your time being more productive too.

Expanding to Orlando and Tampa!