Private Schools

[SyracuseMiami]

I was thinking back a bit around some of the conversations on realignment. The notion was raised that private schools are un equipped to compete in the future and just the large state schools would prosper long term. I do take a bit of satisfaction that some of the schools' fans who were propagating that belief are struggling this year, but I digress. I'm noting several private schools that are prospering, some with little to no tradition. Stanford & Miami (traditional powers with 9+ wins) and non traditional powers like Baylor and Duke both with double digit wins.

My point? While I like what Dr Gross has done for the program during his time, I'd like for donors to be better informed and engaged on the strategic plan for building our program. I.e. What is still needed to make our program competitive, which investments are budgeted for, which require further investment from donors (set some targets, etc). We have the foundation; it's time to inform, engage, and mobilize Orange Nation to take the next step. IPF was good start, but it's just a start to building the program into contender.

Go Cuse!

 

[SWC75]

This is not what you are asking for but I thought I'd update this post from a couple of years back:

In 2010 was talking to a Stanford grad and he told me how proud he was of their school and their 8-1 record so far that year. As an SU fan I told him how impressed I was since both schools are private schools and state schools seems to have such an advantage in this sport. They tend to have huge enrollments and fan bases, lower tuition and, in many cases, lower academic standards. They also have the state legislature behind them to build large facilities. The advantages became greater when the two-platoon era came in in the mid-60’s, which required many more players and much more depth.


It gave me the idea of seeing which private school had the highest ranking at the end of each season. I looked at the NCAA Record Book, which lists the national champions from all the various selectors, (34 of them), since 1869. I also looked at the Associated Press, (writer’s) Poll since 1936, the United Press International and USA Today, (coach’s) Poll since 1950 and the BCS championship games since 1998 to see what the highest ranked private school major college football team was. I checked the school’s status using Wikipedia. Some schools, like Rutgers, Purdue, Clemson, Auburn and Marshall, have names that sound like private schools but they are state schools. Some like the University of Pennsylvania, sound like state schools but aren’t. Some schools, like Pittsburgh, were once private schools became state schools later. (Pitt is considered a “state-related” school, which remains independent in administration but gets state funding. This dates from 1966 so they are counted as a private school before that and a state school since). I looked at the list of national champions from the various sources and picked the private school recognized by the most sources. For years where there were no private schools listed or where it was a tie in the number of selections, I looked at the writer’s and coach’s polls to see who was highest ranked. For the years before 1936, I checked the rankings from this list:

http://www.nutshellsports.com/wilson/

…for the year in questions and picked the private school with the highest ranking in any of them. I decided to exclude schools that were on probation, even though I’m not a fan of probation as a disciplinary tool.

1869 Princeton
1870 Princeton
1871 nobody (there were no college football games played that year)
1872 Princeton
1873 Princeton
1874 Yale
1875 Harvard
1876 Yale
1877 Princeton
1878 Princeton
1879 Princeton
1880 Yale
1881 Yale
1882 Yale
1883 Yale
1884 Yale
1885 Princeton
1886 Yale
1887 Yale
1888 Yale
1889 Princeton
1890 Harvard
1891 Yale
1892 Yale
1893 Princeton
1894 Yale
1895 Pennsylvania
1896 Princeton
1897 Pennsylvania
1898 Harvard
1899 Harvard
1900 Yale
1901 Harvard
1902 Yale
1903 Princeton
1904 Pennsylvania
1905 Chicago
1906 Yale
1907 Yale
1908 Pennsylvania
1909 Yale
1910 Harvard
1911 Princeton
1912 Harvard
1913 Harvard
1914 Harvard
1915 Cornell
1916 Pittsburgh
1917 Pittsburgh
1918 Pittsburgh
1919 Harvard
1920 Princeton
1921 Cornell
1922 Princeton
1923 Cornell
1924 Notre Dame
1925 Dartmouth
1926 Stanford
1927 Notre Dame
1928 Southern California
1929 Notre Dame
1930 Notre Dame
1931 Southern California
1932 Southern California
1933 Southern California
1934 Pittsburgh
1935 Southern Methodist
1936 Pittsburgh
1937 Pittsburgh
1938 Texas Christian
1939 Cornell
1940 Stanford
1941 Duke
1942 Tulsa
1943 Notre Dame
1944 Southern California
1945 St. Mary’s (Cal.)
1946 Notre Dame
1947 Notre Dame
1948 Notre Dame
1949 Notre Dame
1950 Princeton
1951 Princeton
1952 Notre Dame
1953 Notre Dame
1954 Notre Dame
1955 Texas Christian
1956 Miami (Fla.)
1957 Rice
1958 Texas Christian
1959 Syracuse
1960 Duke
1961 Syracuse
1962 Southern California
1963 Pittsburgh
1964 Notre Dame
1965 Notre Dame
1966 Notre Dame
1967 Southern California
1968 Southern California
1969 Southern California
1970 Notre Dame
1971 Stanford
1972 Southern California
1973 Notre Dame
1974 Southern California
1975 Southern California
1976 Southern California
1977 Notre Dame
1978 Southern California
1979 Southern California
1980 Notre Dame
1981 Southern Methodist
1982 Southern Methodist
1983 Miami (Fla.)
1984 Brigham Young
1985 Miami (Fla.)
1986 Miami (Fla.)
1987 Miami (Fla.)
1988 Notre Dame
1989 Miami (Fla.)
1990 Miami (Fla.)
1991 Miami (Fla.)
1992 Miami (Fla.)
1993 Notre Dame
1994 Miami (Fla.)
1995 Northwestern
1996 Brigham Young
1997 Syracuse
1998 Tulane
1999 Miami (Fla.)
2000 Miami (Fla.)
2001 Miami (Fla.)
2002 Southern California (Miami was ahead in both polls but received no national championship recognition: Southern California was chosen by Dunkel, Matthews and Sagarin)
2003 Southern California
2004 Southern California
2005 Southern California
2006 Southern California
2007 Southern California
2008 Southern California
2009 Texas Christian
2010 Texas Christian
2011 Stanford
2012 Notre Dame
2013 will be either Baylor or Stanford, depending on today’s results. Most rankigns have Stanford ahead right now.

Cumulative titles, (not yet counting 2013 as the season isn’t over)

Brigham, Young 1984, 1996
Chicago 1905
Cornell 1915, 1921, 1923, 1939
Dartmouth 1925
Duke 1941, 1960
Harvard 1875, 1890, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1919
Miami (Fla.) 1956, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2000, 2001
Northwestern 1995
Notre Dame 1924, 1927, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1980, 1988, 1993, 2012
Pennsylvania 1895, 1897, 1904, 1908
Pittsburgh 1916, 1917, 1918, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1963
Princeton 1869, 1870, 1872, 1873, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1896, 1903, 1911, 1920, 1922, 1950, 1951
Southern California 1928, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1944, 1962, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Southern Methodist 1935, 1981, 1982
St. Mary’s (Cal.) 1945
Stanford 1926, 1940, 1971, 2011
Syracuse 1959, 1961, 1997
Texas Christian 1938, 1955, 1958, 2009, 2010
Tulane 1998
Tulsa 1942
Yale 1874, 1876, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1900, 1902, 1906, 1907, 1909

Who’s won the most?

Notre Dame and Southern California 22
Yale 18
Princeton 17
Miami (Fla.) 13
Harvard 10
Pittsburgh 7
Texas Christian 5
Cornell and Pennsylvania and Stanford 4
Southern Methodist and Syracuse 3
Brigham Young and Duke 2
Chicago, Dartmouth, Northwestern, St. Mary’s, Tulane and Tulsa 1

 

[Cusefan95]

I think the landscape has changed somewhat since 2008, the economy remains weak and as a result lots of states are really having to think about what they spend money on. Some of the blogs I follow are taking about the education bubble (similar to the housing bubble), and the likelihood it pops in the next 3-5 years. I'm not sure what the consequences of that are going to be...other than being certain that states being willing to fund athletic programs at state schools is not going to continue at the pace it did for the last 30 years.

 

[All4SU]

Where is BC?

 

[All4SU]

A conference of Syracuse, Stanford, Baylor, Notre Dame, southern Cal, Miami, BYU, Northwestern, Duke, Boston College, and TCU doesn't look half bad.

 

[OrangePA]

Comparing Stanford to Syracuse is pointless.

Stanford dwarfs SU, and most state schools for that matter, in terms of financial strength.

SU is a relatively poor private school.

Stanford, USC, NW, BC and ND are pretty darn rich.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Comparing Stanford to Syracuse is pointless.

Stanford dwarfs SU, and most state schools for that matter, in terms of financial strength.

SU is a relatively poor private school.

Stanford, USC, NW and ND are pretty darn rich.

Stanford has a very fickle fanbase though for sure

 

[Millhouse]

Where is BC?

Boston

 

[omniorange]

Comparing Stanford to Syracuse is pointless.

Stanford dwarfs SU, and most state schools for that matter, in terms of financial strength.

SU is a relatively poor private school.

Stanford, USC, NW and ND are pretty darn rich.

Yet we are wealthier than Miami, and about equal to Baylor if one measures such things as endowments listed on the NACUBO site. So it's not just the financial strength involved, but location seems to play a role as well.

Still there are wealthy privates on a par with USC and Stanford in terms of financial strength and location who haven't exceeded us in terms of football success such as Duke, NW, and Vandy.

So even financial strength and location are not the be-all and end-all factors in private (or smaller publics that operate similarly to privates) football success. I continued to be amazed that we have remained as relevant as we have when one considers all of the factors that one can think of -

1) financial strength, which impacts coaches salaries and facilities
2) location in terms of both media and recruiting
3) huge die-hard fan support, with the caveat that the die-hards we do have are solid, just not huge

But I'm grateful that we just didn't throw in the towel and give up on football which outsiders thought we should have.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[SyracuseMiami]

I'll acknowledge that not all private schools are created equal but my point is if others can field strong teams capable of double digit win seasons we should be able to add well and I think the AD should present a strategy and road map to get there to the donors. Let's mobilize!

Comparing Stanford to Syracuse is pointless.

Stanford dwarfs SU, and most state schools for that matter, in terms of financial strength.

SU is a relatively poor private school.

Stanford, USC, NW and ND are pretty darn rich.

 

[CuseOnly]

There are very, very few private schools that are on par with Stanford as far as financial strength and endowment Period. Their endowment was 17 Billion with a B in 2012. The next closest school that plays D1 football is Northwestern at 7 Billion, then ND at 6 Billion, Cal at 5.9, Duke at 5.6, etc., etc.

Not that it has anything to do with athletics cause Stanford could shut it down and it wouldn't effect them a bit.

 

[SWC75]

There are very, very few private schools that are on par with Stanford as far as financial strength and endowment Period. Their endowment was 17 Billion with a B in 2012. The next closest school that plays D1 football is Northwestern at 7 Billion, then ND at 6 Billion, Cal at 5.9, Duke at 5.6, etc., etc.

Not that it has anything to do with athletics cause Stanford could shut it down and it wouldn't effect them a bit.

My understanding is that endowment cannot be used for athletics. If that is true, what is the relevance of using to assess the football potential of a school?

 

[CuseOnly]

My understanding is that endowment cannot be used for athletics. If that is true, what is the relevance of using to assess the football potential of a school?

I clearly stated it is measure of financial strength, I said "Not having anything to do with athletics." Can schools use this money to spend on athletics, I do not believe so but can they borrow against assets and endowment if they needed to for athletics?

 

[omniorange]

I clearly stated it is measure of financial strength, I said "Not having anything to do with athletics." Can schools use this money to spend on athletics, I do not believe so but can they borrow against assets and endowment if they needed to for athletics?

I think overall college endowments basically show the willingness of donors to give the university money. Doesn't necessarily mean they will give to athletics as well as they do to academics, but many capital campaigns have a separate athletics portion/goal to achieve in addition to separate athletic fund drives for particular efforts, usually facilities. Again, overall giving to the university in terms of academics doesn't necessarily mean there will be as much enthusiasm in giving to athletics, but there is enough evidence to show there is some correlation in this regard if not necessarily a causation.

And there are endowed coaches and endowed athletic scholarships that help defray the salaries of coaches and of scholarships. This is where Stanford is way ahead of us and many others.

http://www.jwtns.net/2013/05/should-stanford-be-financial-model-for.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...coaches-make-winning-teams-not-just-luck.html

Cheers,
Neil

 

[DPCuse]

Endowments are used for whatever the donor stipulates. Donors can endow the football program or whatever else they feel like. Universities must comply with donor restrictions if they accept the gift. With that being said, most of endowment assets are earmarked for the educational mission.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

One thing Stanford has going for it as well, is location and the number of super wealthy alumni within a 30-40 mile radius of the campus as well. Not just blue hairs either, young, middle aged, men, women, aliens, etc

 

[SmilinBob]

Out of curiosity, how much more money do public schools get compared to private tax dollar wise? SU gets tax breaks galore but I'm sure not close to the money public get tax wise.

 

[Scooch]

Yet we are wealthier than Miami, and about equal to Baylor if one measures such things as endowments listed on the NACUBO site. So it's not just the financial strength involved, but location seems to play a role as well.

Still there are wealthy privates on a par with USC and Stanford in terms of financial strength and location who haven't exceeded us in terms of football success such as Duke, NW, and Vandy.

So even financial strength and location are not the be-all and end-all factors in private (or smaller publics that operate similarly to privates) football success. I continued to be amazed that we have remained as relevant as we have when one considers all of the factors that one can think of -

1) financial strength, which impacts coaches salaries and facilities
2) location in terms of both media and recruiting
3) huge die-hard fan support, with the caveat that the die-hards we do have are solid, just not huge

But I'm grateful that we just didn't throw in the towel and give up on football which outsiders thought we should have.

Cheers,
Neil

Agreed. Not enough of our fanbase (or potential fanbase I suppose) appreciates how disadvantaged SU is compared to most other FBS Power 5 schools.

Pretty wild to consider that there are almost as many private football-playing schools in the ACC (5) as there are in the other four power conferences combined (6). If you count ND as an ACC school then it's even. Definitely the right home for us in that regard.

 

[Scooch]

A conference of Syracuse, Stanford, Baylor, Notre Dame, southern Cal, Miami, BYU, Northwestern, Duke, Boston College, and TCU doesn't look half bad.

I seem to recall that there was chatter in the 50s or 60s about forming a private school conference that spanned the entire nation.

 

[Moontan]

Some private schools have a clear advantage over others, be it:

1. Location - weather/recruiting (Miami, USC)
2. Tradition (Notre Dame)
3. Religious affiliation - larger national fanbase (Notre Dame, BYU, and to some extent Baylor)
4. Recruiting hotbed (Miami, USC, TCU)
5. Location - local economy & employment market (Stanford, Northwestern, USC, Vandy?, TCU?, BCU?, possibly Duke. Syracuse used to have some of this as some alums stayed local. SMU does as well, though the death penalty changed everything)

The rest have a somewhat tougher row to hoe... Tulsa, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Tulane, Rice?

Of the 17 private schools, those not in a power conference (other than BYU) could be facing tougher times to attempt to be competitive on the gridiron. Those would be Rice, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane. One more blip on the conference re-alignment front and there won't be anything to differentiate the AACk (which will be housing 3 of those private schools) from the old C-USA.

 

[All4SU]

I seem to recall that there was chatter in the 50s or 60s about forming a private school conference that spanned the entire nation.

I forgot Vandy.

 

[SyracuseMiami]

Scooch, hence my point, need better education and engagement of donors. Need to put forth a concerted effort and provide transparency to the gap we need to address

Agreed. Not enough of our fanbase (or potential fanbase I suppose) appreciates how disadvantaged SU is compared to most other FBS Power 5 schools.

Pretty wild to consider that there are almost as many private football-playing schools in the ACC (5) as there are in the other four power conferences combined (6). If you count ND as an ACC school then it's even. Definitely the right home for us in that regard.