ddevich wrote:Am I the only one that seems to realize that this is a complete farce with random rankings, a deadpan delivery, and a dedicated and rather deceptive OP?
I resent that implication.
The original system was quite simple:
(# of national football championships) + (# of national basketball championships)*.1
This seems to work pretty well, and I think the above are plausible measures of overall institutional strength and most importantly are completely
objective and outcome-based, but, as I conceded earlier, the system seemed unfair to the New York schools and heavily favored Michigan.
The new system is rather more complicated:
47.45% weighting for: # of national fencing championships (FC)
39.20% weighting for: # of national football championships (FC2)
9.80% weighting for: # of Nobel Laureates affiliated with the university (NL) (self-reported data by the universities, which I concede may be flawed)
3.55% weighting for: # of national championships in any
sport (TC). This has the effect of double-counting football and fencing, of course, so I adjusted the coefficients accordingly.
Yes, including regional schools would make this system go completely sideways. The problem, of course, is that so many variables themselves correlate with age and "prestige" (HYP solidified their reputation as the "Big Three" by dominating 19th-century football) that it is fairly easy to make anything up. This is how Cooley ranks themselves into the top ten, or how seemingly every law school has found their way into one of the "specialized" USNWR lists.
My sincere apologies to anyone who feels that I wasted their time by suggesting such an outlandish paradigm but I do feel that much of the discussion that resulted was valuable.
ETA: I appreciate sev's efforts - they found another two things that more-or-less result from a university being older.