<p>I don't know about the Ivies (though I suspect it is similar), but I know that in the case of both Amherst and Williams, they feel much, much more athletic than when I-D and I were there. And the reason for that is simple: when I was in Billsville, there were 1250 male students on campus. Today, there are 900. Yet, the squads for each of the major sports are slightly larger today, and there are a few more sports than there were then. This was accomplished, by the way, with virtually no increase in the percentage of African-American students, and the percentage of students coming from private schools, and those receiveing no financial aid (top 5%ers), is likely slightly HIGHER than 30 years ago.</p>
<p>Duke was the only D1 school to graduate 100% of the football players with the latest NCAA data. W&M was the only D1-AA school.</p>
<p>What do all these football players do after they play 4 years and have no education to build a life on?</p>
<p>But turn it around - given the Duke and W&M data, why are they accepting all those inferior (white?) non-football students who don't graduate?</p>
<p>This is a very comprehensive site, although its from 2003</p>
<p><a href="http://stanford.scout.com/2/267697.html%5B/url%5D">http://stanford.scout.com/2/267697.html</a></p>
<p>According to that, Duke only graduated 83%. </p>
<p>And this:</p>
<p>For the fifth straight year, the Patriot League leads all Division I athletic conferences in graduation rates, according to the report released this week by the NCAA.....</p>
<p>...Led by Bucknell University, which was one of two schools with a 100 percent graduation rate, the Patriot League member institutions combined to graduate 310 out of 370 freshmen who matriculated during the 1996-97 school year and received athletic aid. The University of Maryland Eastern Shore also reported a 100 percent graduation rate</p>
<p>And FWIW since it is actually basketball season:</p>
<p>This has recent data for basketball teams.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the graduation rates for some athletes may be low because the students may be offered lucrative professional opportunities prior to graduation. I know this happens with basketball, I am not sure about football.</p>
<p>This is a more recent report than that cited by texastaximom and includes 2004 statistics as well:</p>
<p><a href="http://stanford.scout.com/2/355659.html%5B/url%5D">http://stanford.scout.com/2/355659.html</a></p>
<p>The baseball draft also claims many of the players at the end of their junior year in college. At the schools with high graduation rates, the players are pushed to load up on units and many of them are close to completing graduation requirements after the 3 years. For example, I know one sophomore who had junior standing at the end of his first quarter of sophomore year, through a combination of a few extra units each quarter and AP credits coming in. This is a player who is likely to be drafted at the end of his junior year but will also probably already have enough credits to graduate. At Stanford, the coach meets with each player individually at the beginning of each quarter to review their courseload.</p>
<p>The comment above about how athletes can be extremely successful later in life really resonated with me. Athletes are not necessarily just about brawn (although some are, including a few who recently appeared before Congress.....). The top ones have qualities that will win them personal and professional success in life beyond what many purely academic types will ever know: leadership skills, interpersonal skills, extraordinarily good time management and organizational skills, a sense of working collaboratively with their team as well as having that desire to win and to achieve, an ability to think clearly under enormous pressure.</p>
<p>OTOH, I know a bunch of former college scholarship players who really didn't ever get the grades or the skills to succeed in a non-athletic environment and are struggling, despite their great athletic skills, to succeed in their post-sports worlds. This is probably a combination of the schools focusing too much on their athletic skills only, and the individual students putting all their eggs in the pro-sports basket, which of course will only apply to a very tiny percentage of college athletes.</p>
<p>The new NCAA ratings do ding schools for students that leave for professional careers before graduation, and there is no way to tell which of them would have graduated if they had stayed. I also think this must be a small number because of how many actually make it to the pros. However, are colleges now in the business of paying for two years of college via scholarship so that student can skip off to the pros? Are we now getting away from the idea that one goes to college with the goal of graduation? At least with the kids that do make it to the pros, both the college and the student benefitted. The college from x years of an excellent player, and the player from the exposure and subsequent pro career. But what about the kids that don't make the pros, and they don't graduate either?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The new NCAA ratings do ding schools for students that leave for professional careers before graduation, and there is no way to tell which of them would have graduated if they had stayed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Athletes of the caliber to make it to the pro ranks are not in college for the academics. It's ridiculous to even talk about "graduation rates" for that caliber of athlete because their entire job in college is to play their sport. Accomodations are made to make it look like they are actually a college student.</p>
<p>There isn't a serious candidate for the NFL draft who has been in class since the end of the college football season. They are enrolled full-time in preparation programs for the NFL scouting combine, some at their universities, some at institutes scattered around the country -- Arizona, Los Angeles, etc. Many do evenually go back and get their degree at some point, taking courses during the professional offseason.</p>
<p>There's a story in the book "Patriots Reign" about the New England Patriots coaches looking a particular draft prospect. During their discussions with the player's coaches, it came to light that he had missed some team meetings. The reason? His chemistry class had conflicted with the football meetings and the kid was serious about his academics. The Pats took him off their draft board because they aren't interested in a player unless football his his number one priority. The Pats coaches were quoted to the effect that the kid had his entire life to learn chemistry, but only four years of college football to prepare for the pros.</p>
<p>I'm not complaining about that. I actually think big-time Div I programs should abandon the pretense and be allowed to openly hire their athletes.</p>
<p>I think maybe everybody ought to check out the biographies of Bill Bradley, Len Elmore, Tom McMillen, Mike Mussina, Bill Cosby, another basketball player from Maryland named Steve Blake before you write off all college atheletes as dim bulbs. Some are and some sren't. In fact a kid named Reagan managed to go to college on a football scholarship and make something out of himself in the world. And then there was a fellow named Largent who managed to catch a couple of footballs in the NFL and , well the list could go on and on. Our own governor of Maryland went to princeton on one of those atheletic scholarships the Ivy League doesn't give - but that another story.</p>
<p>I don't know where the Duke stat went... I know I read it in an article on <a href="http://www.tribeathletics.com%5B/url%5D">www.tribeathletics.com</a> back in the fall. It just came out when the new data was released.</p>
<p>With this system though, that this ncaa data measured, the student/athletes had 6 years to complete their degree, because the latest data was for the entering class of 1998, and how many had graduated by spring 2004. The data for the graduating class of 2003 would not have W&M at 100% either, though it was very high.</p>
<p>Anyone have a link to the new APR rankings? I tried looking, can't find them. All I can find is from W&M</p>
<ol>
<li>Yale University (999)</li>
<li>Princeton University (994)</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania (993)</li>
<li>William and Mary (992) - highest of schools offering athletic scholarships</li>
</ol>
<p>"But turn it around - given the Duke and W&M data, why are they accepting all those inferior (white?) non-football students who don't graduate?"</p>
<p>Some people don't make the transition to college well, or can't handle the workload and higher expectations. That's my guess where the dropouts come. There's probably a better support system for the football players also, and most normal students are under pressure to finish in 4 rather than 6 years.</p>
<p>Nobody said that all athletes are dim bulbs, only that today's athletes, of the caliber to be drafted in the NFL or NBA are NOT in college for the academics. Whatever academic program they participate in is simply a necessary evil related to maintaining their NCAA eligibility.</p>
<p>Nice list by the way. Most of the names you mention are 50+ years old. Bigtime NCAA sports today are, you might say, a completely different ballgame.</p>
<p>Interesteddad,</p>
<p>Your statement that "There isn't a serious candidate for the NFL draft who has been in class since the end of the college football season" seems a bit strong. I certainly do not know the grades and test scores of all of the top draft picks this year, and I would agree that it is likely that the vast majority of big-time football players do not have excellent grades, but there are exceptions. Danny Wuerffel was a Heisman trophy winning quarterback at the University of Florida in the 1990's and graduated with a 3.98 GPA. Matt Bonner graduated from University of Florida last year, also with about a 3.98 GPA (he was named the Academic All-American of the Year for all sports for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004), and now plays for the Toronto Raptors in the NBA. True student-athletes such as these not only maintain high grades but also participate probably 30 or more hours per week in a high-level Division 1 sport. They are definitely rare, but not extinct. As you may have guessed, I am familiar with these examples because I was an undergrad at UF. However, many other colleges still have some excellent student-athletes. Pat Tillman, the former Arizona State and NFL defensive back who was killed in Afghanistan, had something like a 3.8 GPA and graduated in fewer than 4 years. Cartainly MOST Division 1 college athletes underachieve academically, but so do many other college students.</p>
<p>I agree with your statement that "today's athletes, of the caliber to be drafted in the NFL or NBA are NOT in college for the academics." It only makes sense that if an athlete is capable of earning millions of dollars doing some activity that he enjoys that he would pursue that for now, when he can always go back to college later. Unfortunately, most of the college athletes who THINK they will have successful professional careers do not, and many do not go back to complete their degrees. I have heard that women who participate in college sports have signifciantly higher GPA's and graduate rates that than non-athletes. Perhaps it is because they know that there is no possible way to make a big salary through women's sports (except for tennis and golf). The top WNBA and women's professional soccer players (before the league went bankrupt) earned less than a strong starting salary for a BS from a top university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your statement that "There isn't a serious candidate for the NFL draft who has been in class since the end of the college football season" seems a bit strong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's probably a bit of hyperbole. I'm sure there are exceptions. </p>
<p>However, the NFL Network has been interviewing draft prospects on a daily basis since the end of the NFL season, including dozens at the NFL scouting combine. Not one of them has been enrolled in classes since their eligibility ran out at the end of football season. They all talk about full-time participation in draft-preparation training -- many having moved to Los Angeles or the other locations around the country where athletic "Performance Institutes" are located.</p>
<p>When it comes to big-time college athletics, for players who are good enough to move to the pros, most of what the NCAA presents as academic participation is nothing but window dressing.</p>
<p>Even at a school like Rice that really isn't a pro sports breeding ground, more that half of the scholarship athletes and more than 60% of the football team majors in a single department, "Kinesiology". It would be interesting to see the "majors" at a real football powerhouse like the U of Miami, where the average SAT of the football team is 808, or about 300 points lower still than the Rice football team.</p>
<p>I don't have any problem with this. These kids are "in school" for one purpose: to play football in preparation for a career in the pros. Why should they waste their time on academics? I do object to the hypocrisy of pretending otherwise. The universities should just give them their paychecks and let them do what they were hired to do: play football.</p>
<p>"Even at a school like Rice that really isn't a pro sports breeding ground, more that half of the scholarship athletes and more than 60% of the football team majors in a single department, "Kinesiology". </p>
<p>"I don't have any problem with this. These kids are "in school" for one purpose: to play football in preparation for a career in the pros."</p>
<p>Since there are likely more "kinesiologists", athletic trainers, junior high, high school, and college coaches, physical education teachers (and professors!), owners and managers of exercise facilities, organizers of afterschool athletic programs, golfing pros, tennis pros, and etc. than there are doctors and lawyers in this country, (and likely a greater need for them), I think you might wish to reconsider your position. (When you went to Billsville, likely 20% of the student body "entered for one purpose: to get good grades in peparation for a career in the medical profession". As you and I well know, less than a third ended up there.)</p>
<p>But I agree: as regards college football players, the colleges should pay 'em.</p>
<p>Eh, Just found this thread. I play offensive line on the football team at my school... We won conference last year. I'm on track to have a 4.7+ GPA, and a 2300-2400 SAT. Not all football players are dumb... but honestly, I have the highest GPA on my team by quite a bit, there are a few others in the low 4s, but a majority are in the 1.5-2.5 range (eligibility minimum is at 2.0...).</p>
<p>are you hoping to play college ball and if so, where?</p>
<p>I would love to. My main sport is lacrosse, but I think I have a better chance at being recognized for football. I know I'm not going pro, so I really just hope it gives me an extra nudge in ivy admissions... I'd love to go to Princeton or Yale. If not, I'll probably go to northeastern D1 LAC, like Colgate.</p>
<p>Visirale - you may be heavily recruited, depending on which school needs your particular position OR given you high grades and scores, or find a school to go ED. You sound like a hard working young man.</p>