<p>From 2006, graduation rate percentages:
Football || Basketball
Berkeley: 44 38
UCLA: ? 44
Texas: 40 44
USC: 55
tOSU: 55 38
UConn: ? 30
Pitt: ? 55
GTown: ? 54</p>
<p>Schools like Duke, ND and BC do very well in everything. I can't find too much data about the other top schools, but I really don't care enough.</p>
<p>TUOwls
Just to give you some idea of the extent of athletes on these campuses, please know that there just aren’t nearly as many scholarship athletes as you and others might think. A school’s Common Data Set will provide the numbers of athletic scholarships and below are the numbers for the top schools that make their CDS public:</p>
<p>Freshmen Athletic Scholarships , Scholarships for Entire Student Body , Scholarship Athletes as % of Student Body , College</p>
<p>114 , 446 , 7% , Stanford
101 , 379 , 5% , Northwestern
37 , 228 , 3% , Vanderbilt
94 , 400 , 2% , UC Berkeley
124 , 434 , 3% , U Virginia
81 , 391 , 2% , UCLA
125 , 477 , 2% , U Michigan
94 , 378 , 2% , U North Carolina</p>
<p>As for graduation rates, here are some numbers that I recently collected from the NCAA website:</p>
<p>Grad Rate for All Students , Grad Rate for Football , (Grad Rate for Blacks in Football) , College</p>
<p>95% , 93% , ( 91% ) , Stanford
94% , 93% , ( 88% ) , Duke
93% , 94% , ( 90% ) , Northwestern
93% , 85% , ( 75% ) , Rice
89% , 91% , ( 81% ) , Vanderbilt
96% , 93% , ( 86% ) , Notre Dame
84% , 57% , ( 53% ) , USC
88% , 90% , ( 89% ) , Wake Forest</p>
<p>89% , 52% , ( 49% ) , UC Berkeley
92% , 68% , ( 62% ) , U Virginia
89% , 56% , ( 43% ) , UCLA
87% , 73% , ( 56% ) , U Michigan
84% , 79% , ( 75% ) , U North Carolina</p>
<p>With respect to basketball grad rates, I think its also important to note that Division 1 schools are allowed a total of about 12 scholarships. So, for example, when you see a basketball grad rate of 30-50%, you are probably talking about 2 student-athletes who did not graduate in that year.</p>
<p>hawkette,
I presume your 2nd column should read "Athletic Scholarship for Entire Student Body", right?</p>
<p>GoBlue,
Yes. Thank you for the clarification. And as you can see, it's really not a very large number of students, either absolutely or as a percentage of the student body.</p>
<p>Why do you give any more credence to D-III schools like Tufts or Carnagie Mellon than Patriot League schools like Colgate, Bucknell, Lehigh, Holy Cross, etc. that have more of a tradition of playing the Ivy League schools in football; especially if you are already following Georgetown that is also in the Patriot League for football?</p>
<p>gellino,
It's a fair comment, so let me explain how this got started last year. As you may know, I have long claimed that there are sharp differences among colleges in the athletiic life that they offer and the role that it plays on a college campus. My hope was to provide comparisons of colleges that might see a large number of cross applications and help those applicants understand the differences in athletic (and social) life that exists at these colleges and how that might affect their overall undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>The only contrast I originally tried to draw was on the nature of the athletic life experience among colleges in the USNWR Top 30 national universities. One could add Colgate, Bucknell, etc, which I think are highly comparable to the Ivies, but that would not change the comparison made between what an undergraduate experiences there with what one might get at a Stanford, a Duke or a U Virginia. I put these colleges in tiers according to the vibrancy and impact of the athletic life that they offer.</p>
<p>Tier One (Private)
Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, Wake Forest</p>
<p>Tier One (Public)
UC Berkeley, U Virginia, UCLA, U Michigan, U North Carolina</p>
<p>Large Drop</p>
<p>Tier Two (Private)
Ivies and I would include Colgate, Bucknell, Lehigh, Holy Cross, etc. in this group
small drop
Tier Three (Private)
Caltech, MIT, U Chicago, Wash U, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Carnegie Mellon, Tufts</p>
<p>Some posters have argued that Northwestern and Rice and maybe even Georgetown belong in the second tier of privates and perhaps that is so, but their opponents are at a very different level and thus I would keep them in Tier One. </p>
<p>Finally, if you want to add the numbers for Colgate, Bucknell et all in the future, please do so. Some reader might like to see how those colleges compare.</p>
<p>My two Ds were at Friday night's Harvard - Holy Cross game, under the new lights at 105-year-old Harvard Stadium. Over 20,000 in attendance - a big crowd for a Harvard game other than Yale. Great tailgating scene beforehand. The Crimson got off to a slow start, trailed 21-6 entering the fourth quarter, the faithless ones (and perhaps those who are fans of tailgating, not football) left, and then H roared back with two touchdowns in the last six minutes to win 25-24. D2, two weeks into her college career, pronounced it "awesome" (and she and D1 stayed to the end!). Hawkette, my daughters aren't really football fans and didn't make their college choice based on the athletic ambience, but I'm pretty pleased with the way last weekend played out. Not a bad start to enjoying college life for D2!</p>
<p>gadad,
Glad that they enjoyed the game and you perfectly illustrate my point. You don't have to be a fan of football (or basketball or whatever the sport) is to have a good time at the event. The energy of the social scene that accompanies the game is a major factor in the experience. 20,000 fans is pretty darn good for an Ivy game and hopefully Harvard can continue to attract large and enthusiastic crowds and the students and alumni can enjoy the scene (win or lose).</p>
<p>"You don't have to be a fan of football (or basketball or whatever the sport) is to have a good time at the event. The energy of the social scene that accompanies the game is a major factor in the experience. 20,000 fans is pretty darn good for an Ivy game and hopefully Harvard can continue to attract large and enthusiastic crowds and the students and alumni can enjoy the scene (win or lose)."</p>
<p>You don't have to be in a large crowd of 20,000 or more to have a good time at the event, either. I agree that the energy of the social scene that accompanies the game is a factor in the experience. I disagree that the energy of the social scene is directly correlated to the size of the crowd. Sometimes big is just big, but not necessarily better or more fun. Small crowd does not mean poor spirit.</p>
<p>don't forget boston college has major top tier academic football school</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some posters have argued that Northwestern and Rice and maybe even Georgetown belong in the second tier of privates and perhaps that is...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh, football is the driving force behind college athletics and NU has had the most success out of the academic elite privates (Stanford, Vandy, Duke) aside from ND in recent years w/ 3 conference championships since '95 and only one losing season out of the past 5 years (when the head coach unexpectedly passed away from cardiac arrest). </p>
<p>As for BB that's another story - but w/ a highly regarded recruiting class (some big men - finally) to go along w/ 3 of the top returning scorers in the B10, the BB team should make some noise in a year or two.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A "greater investment"? What do you mean by that? Investment in college football? I doubt it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the Ivies have been pumping more $$ into their FB and BB programs and some, like Harvard, have been going as far as to recruit players who, in the past, wouldn't have been admitted (even w/ the lowered standards for athletes).</p>
<p>And keep in mind, among the BCS "academically elite" privates, some schools take more leeway w/ regard to academic qualifications than others (ahem, Duke, ND).</p>
<p>NU didn't have close to a 'highly regarded' recruiting class...</p>
<p>
[quote]
NU didn't have close to a 'highly regarded' recruiting class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe not from the national services which dismiss recruits who commit to schools which aren't the traditonal powers, but according to BB coaches, yes.</p>
<p>Luka Mirkovic - 6'10" c/f had offers from Marquette, DePaul and Louisville (I think the coach at Louisville know talent when he sees it). Mirkovic, hailing from Serbia only played in the US for 1 year and thus missed the AAU circuit, whereby he would have gotten a lot more attention.</p>
<p>Kyle Rowley - 7' 265 lb center had offers from Wisconsin, Marquette, DePaul and Baylor and had interest from "big boys" like Kentucky, Georgetown, etc., but Rowley, unexpectedly, elected to attend college early (finished HS in 3 yrs) and likely would have had a long list of offers.</p>
<p>John Shurna - 6'8" f and Nick Freundt 6'6" sg/f - Shurna is a top 10 player in Illinois and Freundt is one of the two top pure shooters in the state. Both play for a top AAU team in IL. Both committed early before other schools got in the mix (but in comparison, the other top shooter in IL is now atIndiana).</p>
<p>Davide Curletti - 6'9" c/f - bit of a hidden gem since he was out of the AAU circuit before his senior year due to a back injury - but he played for the best AAU team in Michigan.</p>
<p>Izzo really wanted him at MSU but was out of schollies (offered as a preferred walk-on).</p>
<p>NU's problem last season (well, for the past few seasons) was rebounding due to not having any legit "big men" - hopefully that has been addressed.</p>
<p>Nice article in USA Today on the "smart schools" (Vandy, Wake and Northwestern) which are a combined 11-0.</p>
<p>Small</a>, smart schools showing off football skills - USATODAY.com</p>
<p>Re graduation rates for basketball, yes it is a small sample, but don't forget that: (a) it's a 4-year rolling average; (b) players who transfer from a school are not counted against a school as long as they didn't flunk out; and (c) players are given 6 years to graduate for statistical purposes.</p>
<p>There aren't many legitimate excuses for programs with graduation rates less than 60%.</p>
<p>The Big Red shuts down Ivy League favorite Yale 17-14!</p>
<p>Not about FB, but BB.</p>
<p>Classless move on the part of Amaker/Harvard -</p>
<p>
[quote]
One week after the Harvard mens basketball program was cleared by a five-month Ivy League investigation into its recruiting practices, Coach Tommy Amaker continued his aggressive overhaul of the team.</p>
<p>One by one, Amaker called five players into his office before classes began in early September and told them they no longer had spots on the team. The five players included all three sophomores on the team, each of whom started games last season. </p>
<p>Their main point of contention is that Amaker did not allow the players to compete for spots, going against the universitys athletic mission statement, and instead cleared them out to make room for his own players.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not allowing the players to compete for their spots on the team is classless enough, but to do so at a time when the players can no longer transfer to another school for this academic year, much less cut a player who spent a good chunk of change to attend his summer camp is getting darn low in my book.</p>