<p>Yeah, I know. And that will probably occur later this season as well. I mean, who expects Duke to be any good in football???</p>
<p>But it is kinda fun to see the Blue Devils win after such a long drought. I wouldn't want to be a U Virginia fan right now (although I bet their tailgate scene hasn't suffered too much).</p>
<p>hikids post is accurate from what I've been exposed to.</p>
<p>The "REVENUE SPORTS" which for most schools are Football and Basketball, have much lower academic thresholds than the subsidized sports (just about every other one) ... hint: does the program have "Parents and Friends FUNDRAISERS"? If so, it is not a revenue sport.</p>
<p>Non-Revenue sports have academic entrance requirements similar to URMs -under represented minorities (african american, hispanic/latino, native american), which is to say a little lower than the general population of admits. However, the Non-Revenue sport coaches bear the burden of having a high GPA so as to raise average Athlete GPA which is dragged down by the the C+ average of the Revenue Sports students.</p>
<p>The athlete also has to consider whether he/she even wants to play at a school that focuses on academics. A student athlete devotes about 30 hours per week off-season, and about 40-45 hours per week in season (includes travel time). That's almost a full time job! Due to these time commitments, it is so much easier for a student athlete to play at a less academically rigorous school (let's just say not Top 50) where keeping a B/B+ average is not as much of a struggle.</p>
<p>I'm surprised more recruited athletes, having gained admission to a school they would not otherwise have qualified to attend, don't simply drop their sport after the first year to focus on school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The athlete also has to consider whether he/she even wants to play at a school that focuses on academics. A student athlete devotes about 30 hours per week off-season, and about 40-45 hours per week in season (includes travel time). That's almost a full time job! Due to these time commitments, it is so much easier for a student athlete to play at a less academically rigorous school (let's just say not Top 50) where keeping a B/B+ average is not as much of a struggle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt the vast majority of D-I football players at any school are maintaining a B/B+ average.</p>
<p>dunnin,
I think that there are tiers of competence on the issue of student-athletes and IMO, the best comparative numbers are graduation rates, both vs the overall student body and vs a sub-class, eg, black student-athletes. </p>
<p>The NCAA compiles and reports this data for the scholarship-awarding Division I athletic schools. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and Wake Forest do an awfully good job at graduating their student-athletes, even in the major revenue sports. </p>
<p>These colleges compete in the most competitive leagues and play in high profile, nationally relevant/consequential games. I think that these schools should be applauded for their ability to attract the top athlete who also happens to be a decent-to-excellent student. It really is a unique combination that benefits the student, the school, the student body, etc. and which is very rare in college athletics.</p>
<p>hawkette, the last time I looked at the statistics of athletes at Duke, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt, they resembled those at many of the powerhouses such as Michigan, PSU and Wisconsin. Maybe things have changed recently, but it was certainly the case back in 1997 or 1998.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and Wake Forest do an awfully good job at graduating their student-athletes, even in the major revenue sports.
[/quote]
How many of those athletes go on to the professional leagues from those schools?</p>
<p>Was John Elway the last pro football player to come outta Stanford?</p>
<p><em>EDIT</em> I found my answer...It's 17:
Football</a> - Stanford University Official Athletic Site</p>
<p>How does this compare to the powerhouses?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Was John Elway the last pro football player to come outta Stanford?</p>
<p><em>EDIT</em> I found my answer...It's 17:
Football - Stanford University Official Athletic Site
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's 17 currently; not since 1983.</p>
<p>^ I know.</p>
<p>My point was that players at the "lesser powerhouses" are not as likely to make a career playing professional sports. Therefore, there is more incentive to do well and graduate.</p>
<p>This link will shed light on this. Cal Berkeley admits 95% of its football players by exception to normal admissions standards.</p>
<p>sorry, no other Top 25 schools are in this list... UCLA did not divulge. Georgia Tech is the one that surprises me. That is one TOUGH school, and only 10% of its football players were let in the side door. Virginia reports NO special football admits (as does #26 Michigan and #30 UNC).</p>
<p>The last three are lying. Or just chose not to define things as "special".</p>
<p>^lol.........at least the bears are honest. right? ucb. ;)</p>
<p>^ Of course...Like I said, we air all of our dirty laundry.</p>
<p>This whole "our football team is smarter than your football team" is silly.</p>
<p>^no wonder i was like "what's that smell??" when i was at berkeley.</p>
<p>By the way, cats are usually pretty clean.</p>
<p>Surprised that no one has mentioned the Collegiate</a> Power Rankings of the National Collegiate Scouting Association, which are intended to evaluate the combined strength of a school's athletic and academic programs.</p>
<p>Top NCAA Division I schools are Stanford, Duke, Princeton, Harvard, and Notre Dame, which seem like reasonable choices. </p>
<p>Johns Hopkins follows, which seems unreasonable. JHU should be in the Division III ranking, because it competes in DIII in all sports except lacrosse.</p>
<p>Highest ranked schools overall are DIII powers Williams, Amherst, and Middlebury.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's no coincidence that Duke has given coach K pretty much no restriction for recruiting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>During the mid-1990s, the avg. SAT score of the Duke BB team was in the mid-900s - which was lower than the averages for about half the teams in the ACC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had seen a post on here a little while back showing that the only five schools whose football team's avg SAT was over 950 were Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>During the 1990s, only 2 schools had avg. SAT scores over 1000 - Stanford and Northwestern (I think this was before the SAT scores were "pushed up").</p>
<p>Since then, in continual attempt to become competitive, Duke has lowered their academic requirements for FB recruits.</p>
<p>While keeping the already lowered standards for 2/3 of the recruiting class, Duke now allows 1/3 of the recruiting class to consist of players close to the NCAA minimum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is definitely a difference across schools with regard to athletes. For example at some places in order to recruit a coach has to run the athlete by admissions first to see if he/she makes whatever the basic cut is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Case in point - there was a FB recruit who actually got dinged by UM admissions so he ended up at MSU.</p>
<p>There are recruits who can't get pass admissions to B10 schools and end up at another major conf.</p>
<p>Corbett, those rankings would have been better if they used Peer Assessment for the "academic ranking" instead of USNWR overall ratings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern may be competitive this year but once Sutton graduate after this season, it's gonna take a while for them to get lucky again and find someone of that caliber while still having decent admission standard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sam - Northwestern has always been able to find 1,000 yd rushers - Darnell Autry, Damien Anderson, Jason Wright, Noah Herron, Ron Burton, Bob Christian, Ron Rector, etc.</p>
<p>The trouble is finding enough B10 caliber corners and DEs. Luckily, the 'Cat are set at those positions for the next couple of years.</p>
<p>And while NU should slip next year due to losing vitually their entire O - starting QB, starting RB and pretty much the entire WR corp - the D will keep the team competitive as well as a more experienced O-line.</p>
<p>Plus, in next year's recruiting class, the 'Cats have the cornerstone of their future O in place w/ the top QB, RB and LT in Chicago.</p>
<p>Having said that, Cal fans should worry since Harbaugh is putting together a monster recruiting class.</p>
<p>^ Cal is finally renovating its stadium...that should help, thank god.</p>
<p>"Monster" recruiting class + Stanford does not jive.</p>