<p>Very disturbing numbers. It seems as if top basketball teams are often the worst offenders.</p>
<p>I wondered why my team only gets to play one game in the NCAA tournament.</p>
<p>"There are examples to be emulated: Notre Dame, which makes academic performance part of the incentive-pay plan for its coaches, and the University of Florida, which provides enormous academic support to its players. Indeed, one measure of the Gator success is that five of its players taking the court this weekend opted to stay in school instead of leaving for a chance to play in the NBA."</p>
<p>This quote made me proud of my Gators. I can see, though, how it would be difficult to turn down a multi-million dollar contract for another year of college (and risk of injury), when you know you can always go back to school but you can't go back to the NBA. I value education, but I'd have to advise someone being offered a juicy contract to grab that ring before it passes you by.</p>
<p>Those who transfer to a different program and jump early to the NBA after matriculating into a certain program are also counted in the graduation rate, so just be aware that the numbers may be skewed a bit.</p>
<p>Not saying that's wholly responsible for the disparity in numbers, but that is part of it.</p>
<p>While I think the extra academic supports are wonderful, I am not nearly as disturbed. First of all, all the data I have seen indicates that those who have "some college" do much better than those who do not have any. Graduation is merely another point on the continuum. Secondly, at many of these schools, athletes (though perhaps not basketball players) graduate at a rate almost as high if not higher than those of the same race and income class as those who are not athletes. Third, and most important of all: the average age of an undergraduate in the United States is 24.5 years old. Students going to college at 18 and graduating at 22 are the exception, not the rule. Many athletes (I have quite a few in my office) go back to school after age 24 (or after they've been in the military, or after they've played in Europe or the CBA ), graduate, go on to graduate degrees and do just fine.</p>
<p>The Washington Post has decided to consider this from the point of view of its readers: white, top 3%ers in income, with two cats in the yard, and a Lexus in the driveway. (And if they really wanted to examine the Georgetown numbers, they should have at least analyzed the data for starting 5 versus end of the bench.)</p>
<p>The Washington Post should get off its high horse. There is no pretense that top ranked NCAA basketball players are students. They are professionals, moving up through the minor leagues. It's totally disingenuous to think they should (or could) be graduating from colleges.</p>
<p>--^^^--
They could, should, and are students while they are in college. They attend classes, study hall, write papers, take tests just like everyone else. </p>
<p>I agree with the poster above who said some college is better than none. There is nothing wrong with leaving school and returning later to finish. Of what benefit would it be to anyone (student athlete or college) if they were to never attend to begin with?</p>
<p>This article is messed up! Indeed there is a brewing scandal surrounding Georgetown and the recruiting of some very very unqualified students. One kid in particular who got all Ds and Fs in high school and a 6 hundred something SAT. But to print claptrap like this is pretty poor "journalism", for example:
[quote]
The most distressing aspect of this issue is the gap between the performance of white and black players. Georgetown, for instance, graduated all of its white basketball players in 1996-99 but only 38 percent of its African American players.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can you cite a statistic like this without also telling us how many white players and how many AA were on the team during this period? My initial reaction was surprise that there were ANY white b-ball players at Georgetown. My guess is that the total number is very small and they were all walk-ons, so they got into Georgetown based on their academic credentials in the first place. But then....
[quote]
As bad as the graduation rate is for African American basketball players, at schools across the country it's better than that of African American men who aren't on athletic teams. Now that's madness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ok, it's madness. Then why are we writing an article about the low grad rate of b-ball players?? That is madness! Doesn't that argue against the conclusion drawn by the OP? B-ball teams are NOT the worst offenders. Maybe b-ball teams produce higher graduation rates than students not on b-ball teams. We really don't know from the article.</p>
<p>Bobby Knight graduates a very high percentage of his players. Always has. Always will.</p>
<p>The graduation percentages are, to me, a bunch of hooey. College can have high graduation percantages for many reason such as better admissions, better tutoring OR it can help the players cheat by providing test answers. They can also put kids in the easier courses so that they have a decent GPA. I am sure that all of these games are played to various extents at many colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...OR it can help the players cheat by providing test answers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bingo. We have bingo.</p>
<p>Loads of schools loose their moral compass when their scholarship athletic stars are in question. That's a sad fact. Bogus majors, violent incidents, assorted brushes with the law. Jim Tressel, Ohio State football coach, taught a for-credit course in ..... Football!</p>
<p>I agree with doubleplay that an NBA contract MIGHT be worth jumping early for, depending on the draft pool in any given year. That really applies to a very small percentage of athletes, however. </p>
<p>Idad, there are many serious students who are able to manage real majors and excel in both the classroom & on the court. And at top programs, too. But Georgetown has always been sketchy. Remember when Patrick Ewing played & his fellow Georgetown students would hold up signs, saying "Patrick Ewing can't read this sign?" His son is now on the team.</p>
<p>Many programs have no interest in upholding standards. ANd the NCAA is an absolute joke. Turning the other way with flagrant violations of superstars (like the Reggie Bush mess,) yet ready to pounce if a coach buys a kid a sandwich at Subway on a recruiting visit.</p>
<p>Since this is starting to segue into an athletes-are-cheaters theme, I'll give my 2 cents. </p>
<p>The biggest cheaters at our high school are from the academic achiever class. The jocks just want to stay eligible, and they have easy and accomodating teachers/classes to help them (as I'm sure they do at college too). </p>
<p>On the other hand, the over-achiever class cares deeply and neurotically about every point and therefore are willing to do almost anything to stay ahead. </p>
<p>Zebras don't change their stripes. The kids who, at our college prep/private high school cheated their way to the top colleges are now cheating their way to finishing there.</p>
<p>Yes, Tigers may not change their stipes,but some people can if there is a compelling enough reason. </p>
<p>As for lack of cheating in highschool among athletes, this is a very different situation. Most of these kids aren't being given big scholarships to play. The money in college sports greatly exceeds the money from high school sports as does the incentive to cheat in college.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember Dexter Manley who played for the Washington Redskins. He made national news many years ago when he noted that despite being a college graduate, he couldn't read! These games have been going on for a long time, and I would bet are continuing today to the same extent.</p>
<p>huh? What are the academic requirements to stay eligible for these athletic scholarships? I stand by my reasoning. I know my evidence is anecdotal, but that goes for college as well as high school. I knew lots of scholarship athletes in college. They really didn't need to cheat to stay in.</p>
<p>Edit: I'll buy the argument that athletes have it all going for them- easy programs, tutoring, understanding teachers... I just don't buy the argument that they cheat in greater numbers (or even the same!) as regular students.</p>
<p>Edit again: Huh again? By your first statement are you doubting that academic overachieving cheaters DO change their stripes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how, exactly, is that so wrong? You know, there are P.E. classes offered for fun, recreation, and to achieve some measure of physical fitness. I imagine an international student attending OSU, wondering what the heck 110,000 people are so excited about on fall Saturdays, might find a football class interesting and rewarding in teaching the basic rules and concepts of the game. My undergrad institution actually still has a swimming requirement for every graduate, one of the few remaining out there... is this a waste of time as well? A little balance in one's life isn't so wrong, you know.</p>