<p>
[quote]
Well, USC isn't too surprising given how many of their players are drafted (even their backup quarterback gets drafted)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, being drafted (as long as you are still in good academic standing) has no effect on the graduation rates that were reported in USA Today. According to the GSR formula, schools subtract those players who leave in good standing from those rates.</p>
<p>^that makes USC look even worse then.</p>
<p>barrons,
There's no question that all Div-1 schools including the Ivies compromise but the extent of it is different. Stanford (Duke/Notre Dame/Northwestern) does compromise but at least they get kids that are smart and disciplined enough to graduate. I think their football players have average SAT of around 1100 and I think anyone with that score can graduate from even the top schools. He won't get the best grades but he will likely graduate if he puts the effort. The bottom line is programs like Stanford/Northwestern/Duke recruit athletes they believe can survive and graduate. Many eliite football programs don't. With the SAT average in the sub-900, many of them are probably too dumb or just don't have the discipline to do the schoolwork for even the supposedly easy classes. </p>
<p>Balancing</a> grades and gridiron - Los Angeles Times</p>
<p>Nationally, three schools had 99 percent graduation success rates for their student-athletes: Alcorn State, Colgate and San Francisco. Holy Cross, Notre Dame and the U.S. Naval Academy were next at 98 percent.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley has 33,903 students. (24,636 undergrads). Considering what the football program brings to campus, is it really worth getting worked up into a tizzy over 27 student-athletes per year not graduating? (Based on the current football roster of 50 Freshman at the reported 46% grad rate). Much ado about almost nothing.</p>
<p>Sounds about right Sam for Stanford. Also getting into Stanford with an 1100 is pretty much limited to star athletes and maybe the occasional really interesting person. I think the last class for Wisconsin was around 1025 which is pretty good. They have really tried to emphasize better students, but it might be hurting the product on the field (ouch). We'll see how they stick with that if they keep losing. ;-)</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Nobody is "getting worked up". We are just presenting what the facts are and why schools are doing what they are doing. People deserve to know the dirty truth and it's up to the individual to decide if it's right or not.</p>
<p>barrons,
1025 is indeed pretty good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People deserve to know the dirty truth and it's up to the individual to decide if it's right or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is "dirty" about it? The facts/stats are not a secret. Are you implying that those 27 Cal football players would have been better off not going to college, or attending a cc instead?</p>
<p>Most people don't know those facts/stats as demonstrated by the reaction on this board. I'd bet many people just assume/think Cal/USC athletes are smarter than the Alabama athletes. Some people are surprised to see those rates. Some didn't know those stats already exclude the athletes that were drafted (I didn't know that either until someone pointed it out). Why are you having such an issue with people discussing it? Nobody forces you to come to participate. </p>
<p>You seem to think it's so unncessary for schools to worry about it. That's what you think but the Ivies/Stanford don't share that view. People on this board can have different views on this too. After all, I didn't scream at the the elite programs "don't do this". In fact, I've been explaining why schools are doing what they are doing: it's difficult to have the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>As far as those 27 Cal football players go, well, they could have gone to schools that fit them better academically and more likely to graduate, at least hypothetically (yes, CC could be a better alternative). At least they would not have to juggle between classes and football practice while already not really academically qualified (to survive) for Cal at the first place.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with informed discussion about football grad rates. As I am from a family of college athletes, I do admit to being a little defensive, and I apologize for that. Descriptions on this thread alone include the words "disgrace," "bogus," "dirty truth," "too dumb...for easy classes." (Those last two were yours). My opinion is that the opportunity provided to these student-athletes is so valuable that a 50-50 chance of actually earning a degree (for free) is worth the risk, and not "dumb" at all. Obviously, others are free to disagree and conclude that the lives of those 27 Cal athletes would have been better off if they took the non-football cc route.</p>
<p>"dirty truth" = schools seemingly caring whether the athletes win them games and bring in cash while ignoring if they are likely to survive (graduate). you probably think the schools are doing them a favor by giving them free education. maybe some athletes are better off in the process (i can't really say for sure if the alternative route is better), but i don't believe that's the schools' primary focus/intention at the first place. for me, if Cal truly cares, they should know asking a group with an average SAT of sub-900 to juggle between daily practice and classes for one of the best/supposedly most academically rigorous institutions in the country and expecting them to survive is simply unrealistic. if i am not mistaken, admission offers to non-athletes are given because the schools believe they will graduate with confidence, not with half/half chance. people are free to disagree; it's just my opinion.</p>
<p>as for "too dumb", i admit i could have worded less offensively. i meant not being academically qualified enough to survive and graduate. they are very smart in knowing how to react/play in the field. i also wasn't referring to the decision to accept schools' offers. just in case there's confusion, this "issue" is relevant primarily to revenue sports (football/basketball). athletes of other sports tend to do as well as others in the top schools.</p>
<p>RANKINGS IN THE CLASSROOM </p>
<p>Reshuffling this week's USA TODAY coaches' football poll according to each program's graduation rate:</p>
<p>Team (rank in poll) Grad rate </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Vanderbilt (23)
91% </p></li>
<li><p>Wake Forest (19)
83% </p></li>
<li><p>Texas Tech (5) 79% </p></li>
<li><p>Penn State (3)
78% </p></li>
</ol>
<p>North Carolina (21) 78% </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Virginia Tech (18)
75% </p></li>
<li><p>Ball State (25) 72% </p></li>
<li><p>Florida (7) 68% </p></li>
<li><p>TCU (24) 67% </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Bowl subdivision avg. 67% </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Oklahoma State (10) 62% </p></li>
<li><p>Missouri (12)
59% </p></li>
<li><p>Utah (13) 57% </p></li>
<li><p>BYU (8)
56% </p></li>
</ol>
<p>South Florida (20) 56% </p>
<ol>
<li>Alabama (2)
55%<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Boise State (16) 55% </p>
<ol>
<li>Southern California (4)
54% </li>
</ol>
<p>LSU (14) 54% </p>
<ol>
<li>Kansas (15) 53%
53% </li>
</ol>
<p>California (22) 53% </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ohio State (11) 52% </p></li>
<li><p>Michigan State (17) 51% </p></li>
<li><p>Texas (1) 50% </p></li>
<li><p>Georgia (9) 48% </p></li>
<li><p>Oklahoma (6) 46% </p></li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Average four-year graduation rates for players entering school from 1998-2001.</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: NCAA</p>
<p>THE GOOD AND THE BAD </p>
<p>Schools with the highest and lowest NCAA graduation success rates, tracking scholarship athletes who arrived from high school or transferred from other colleges from 1998 to 2001: </p>
<p>The good in Division I </p>
<ol>
<li>Alcorn State 99% </li>
</ol>
<p>Colgate 99% </p>
<ol>
<li>Holy Cross 98% </li>
</ol>
<p>Notre Dame 98% </p>
<p>Navy 98% </p>
<p>The rest of the best in FBS (formerly I-A) </p>
<p>Duke 97% </p>
<p>Northwestern 97% </p>
<p>Boston College 96% </p>
<p>Stanford 95% </p>
<p>Vanderbilt 94% </p>
<p>The bad in Division I </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Florida A&M 39% </p></li>
<li><p>Chicago State 40% </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Jackson State 40% </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Savannah State 43% </p></li>
<li><p>Southern 44% </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The worst in FBS (fomerly I-A) </p>
<p>San Jose State 52% </p>
<p>Florida International 58% </p>
<p>Fresno State 61% </p>
<p>Louisiana-Monroe 61% </p>
<p>Texas-El Paso 61% </p>
<p>Source: NCAA</p>
<p>I DO agree with Bay above that its sort of a silly measurement (again! sigh!) for those interested in "rankings" and "prestige". After all, we all agree that the athletic scholarship is based on athletics and not on academics, though SOME student athletes are highly intelligent and go on to professional and graduate school work. But to measure a schools academic rigor (the implied measurement here) by virtue of its graduation success rate for athletes, most of whom are very small in number (less than 50 per year) is silly. The GOOD THING about these statistics is it shows the level of commitment of those students who attend college and play sports and go onto graduate. I am a STRONG proponent of making it illegal for sports agents to contact a student while they are in college, to lure them out of school and into the professional ranks. Some schools do a better job, perhaps than others in helping students stay up on their school work and obtain passing grades. The best way to do that is to do appropriate recruiting on the front end. Some Div I-A schools do an excellent job of that....looking at students not just from athletic talent, but whether they can pass muster on campus: Notre Dame, Wake, Holy Cross, Colgate, Duke all do an excellent job of that, to avoid problems later on. And for the most part, their student athletes who even go onto professional sports careers are a credit to the school long after they leave. (with some sad exceptions).</p>
<p>Hmmm...here are 2 of the hypothetical 27 Cal football players Bay was referring:
Two former Cal football players dismissed from the university after armed robbery. Crazy story...
10.21.2008</a> - Police arrest two suspects in Sept. 30 Clark Kerr Campus robbery</p>
<p>
[quote]
UC Berkeley has 33,903 students. (24,636 undergrads). Considering what the football program brings to campus, is it really worth getting worked up into a tizzy over 27 student-athletes per year not graduating?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that it's a matter of getting "worked up" or a 'tizzy'. </p>
<p>However, I do think it is fair to hold Berkeley to higher standards. After all, Berkeley is supposed to be the best public school in the country. Hence, I think it is entirely proper for Berkeley to have a GSR rating of better than 53% for its football team. </p>
<p>Honestly, why not? The University of Michigan can boast of a 70% GSR figure, and UM was a far more successful football team than Cal was during the time period studied (1998-2001). The University of Wisconsin football team had a 63% GSR and won 2 Rose Bowls during that time (whereas Cal hasn't even been to the Rose Bowl since 1959, and hasn't won the Rose Bowl since 1938). Heck, even UCLA has a higher GSR (62%) and also went to the Rose Bowl during the period examined. Then of course there are those aforementioned private schools such as Notre Dame which boast a 90+% GSR, and went to the Fiesta Bowl during that time period. Come on, at least academically speaking, Berkeley is supposed to be better than all of these schools. Yet, compared to those other schools, Cal's football team performed worse both athletically and academically. Cal didn't make it to a single bowl game during that time period.</p>
<p>^ perhaps the two are linked. The teams that do well have discipline and better coaching/mentoring. When the team doesn't perform well athletically, that perhaps can lead to frustration and weak academic performance...members are more willing to leave an unsucessful program.</p>
<p>Well, UCBChemEGrad, I would say that it's not an excuse. Like I said, Berkeley is supposed to be one of the top academic schools in the nation. Other schools with strong academic reputations are willing to trade a lot of losses in return for a high GSR, or in other words, while their players may not play great on Saturday, at least they're performing decently in the classroom. Duke football has been terrible for years, but at least they had an 86% GSR. Rice football hadn't been that great either, but had a 82% rate. Vanderbilt's football team was mediocre during the time period examined, but had a 91% GSR. Wake Forest was a bad team during that time, but had a 83% GSR. In all of these cases, bad athletic performance did not translate into bad academic performance. What do these schools know that Berkeley doesn't know? </p>
<p>Like I said, the issue is that Berkeley is supposed to be one of the best schools in the nation, and so I think it deserves to be held to high standards. If Berkeley was just some average school, then we wouldn't be able to expect much. But Berkeley is supposed to be an exceptional school, and exceptional schools are supposed to deliver exceptional results. Stanford, for example, has a 93% GSR and also won the Pac-10 championship and went to the Rose Bowl during the examined time period, damn it. Now, maybe I can't expect that out of Cal, but I think it's fair to expect either strong academic performance or strong athletic performance out of the football team. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Yet, the team delivered neither. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, things have been better lately. I don't know about the graduation rates, but the football team has achieved decent success on the gridiron under Jeff Tedford. But, that just highlights how dark the times before Tedford.</p>
<p>Look at this 2008 comparison of 6 year graduation rates for African American and Caucasioan football players:</p>
<p>Grad Rates for African American Football Players: Selected Others
African- American Caucasian Difference
Florida 61% 86% -25%
Miami 61% 100% -39%
Michigan 54% 86% -32%
Alabama 48% 74% -26%
Auburn 48% 88% -40%
LSU 44% 71% -27%
Ohio St. 41% 72% -31%
Arkansas 39% 82% -43%
Texas 38% 67% -29%
Georgia 38% 76% -38%
Georgia Tech 36% 81% -45% </p>
<p>This is shameful</p>
<p>Holy Cross and Colgate do a great job in graduating their student athletes. HC and Colgate compete at Div1 level in all sports(football Div1aa) in highly prestigious Patriot League. Both schools also have very strong alumni networks.</p>
<p>I think you guys are forgetting, when comparing basketball vs. football, that quite a few basketball players from bigtime D1s opt to go pro after their freshman year or maybe a little later.</p>