<p>1987 is 20 years ago. I think people can learn a lesson or two, can't they?</p>
<p>Why do you want to bring up Reggie Bush? Reggie is a good B+/A- student as I heard. He left as a junior so he did not graduate. Reggie's problem has nothing to do with academics. I sincerely hope you don't mix things up. At least be logical and give some reasoning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC has a lot of early departures. NCAA has some official data to assess every school's academic performance. Its name escapes me at the moment, maybe called NCAA academic progress rate? USC is pretty good according to that.
[/quote]
It's called Graduate Success Rate (GSR) which is the number I reported earlier. </p>
<p>NCAA</a> - National Collegiate Athletic Association
"The GSR measures graduation rates at Division I institutions and includes students transferring into the institutions. The GSR also allows institutions to subtract student-athletes who leave their institutions prior to graduation as long as they would have been academically eligible to compete had they remained."</p>
<p>USC's GSR is 57% (compared to its Federate Rate at 54%). Any way you spin it, 43% of the USC football athletes didn't graduate which is significant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reggie is a good B+/A- student as I heard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think so. Check the following:
Hancock</a> and Ting Twins Named to Pac-10 All-Academic First Team :: Vanderboom makes honorable mention.</p>
<p>USC had only 4 players (on the low side among the Pac-10 schools) named to the 2005 Pac-10 All-Academic teams (1st + 2nd + honorable mention) and Reggie wasn't one of them.</p>
<p>QW, although it may appear academic, the reasons for chosing one elite football program over another seldom is. USC and Michigan have very similar standards when it comes to the academic potential of their football and basketball stars, and neither should be proud of those standards because they are disgraceful.</p>
<p>The Reggie issues I alluded to were not academics. Just ca$h and merchandise.</p>