…and to what extent do the players get an education, actually go to classes, etc.?
This should probably be in the Game Room, so I’ve moved it.
By “worst,” do you mean “least successful at turning out professional-calibre football players, but still lets their players skate through the academic program, so they’re not really prepared for life when they graduate?”
Or do you mean “Very effective at producing NFLers, but their academic standards for athletes are a joke”?
I guess the latter, but I wouldn’t mind getting the information on both.
I have no axe to grind. I graduated from a small college, and I have no idea what it’s like being a football player who who’s at a college/university but in reality isn’t in one - except for a frat perhaps.
2008 Graduation Rates for FBS schools are here: http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/007839.php
Michigan State, Texas, Georgia and Oklahoma were the worst among the top-tier football programs.
University of Georgia (where my grandparents lived) was rather famous for it because they fired a remedial reading instructor who refused to give passing grades to football jocks who couldn’t even read.
how about underachieving teams with great football talent like the dear old UVA. consistent 1st round draft picks, and yet consistently terrible.
Looked at the low end and found a lot of my usual suspects.
Seeing ND at the top made me so proud…even though watching them on the footballl field, isn’t much fun.
The thing is, you also have to look at OVERALL graduation rates for those schools.
The University of GA only has about a 75% overall graduation rate, while Notre Dame has about a 95% graduation rate. I don’t think the differences are always necessarily a fault of the football programs, but instead can be indicative of differences in the schools in general.
You can compare overall graduation rates at schools here:
http://www.collegeresults.org/search_basic.aspx
Statistics like that are always subject to further analysis.
For instance, a football team consists of something like 80 scholarship athletes plus walk-ons. At least half of those see little or no playing time or might not even travel with the team. Maybe a more telling analysis would be the graduation rates of those seeing significant playing time. Also, an athlete that is performing well academically but leaves early for the pro’s will diminish the graduation rate. Athletes that are marginal academically, don’t see playing time or get injured, and quit because of it will reduce the graduation rate.
I’m not sure how transfers are counted but that is something to also be considered. The samples are so small that a difference of just a few players can look like a large statistical difference.
Oklahoma has been at the bottom for decades. They are a football factory.
Yeah- Texas and Oklahoma have horrible records in that regard.
That’s why, when the Big 12 had a 3 way tie for first this past season, Texas Tech coach Mike Leach jokingly suggested graduation rates be used as the tiebreaker!
Every such study I have seen is pretty much a straightforward percentage of players who enter the program as freshmen and then exit the program with a degree 4 years later. So things like transfers count as failures, while incoming transfers and junior college students who do graduate don’t count for anything. As it happens I just tried to find the formula on the NCAA website, and I found a lot of things, but that formula wasn’t one of them, so I’m entering unciteable recollection territory now, but as I recall, not even 5th year seniors who graduate in that 5th year count as a graduation.
It isn’t the case that there are severe problems with the ways in which NCAA schools handle the academic side of the athletics programs (I graduated from Florida State, which seems somehow relevant here), but the statistics are frankly terrible.
Well, this particular one actually makes some sense.
I can’t find it, but a year or so ago the Daily Texan (UT’s student newspaper) did an article on how there have been cases where star football players were encouraged to not graduate so they could keep playing for the team. I could see why researchers would find it difficult or impossible to find out if 5th year senior athletes hadn’t graduated because of this, or because of some of the myriad reasons loads of non-athlete students go for a victory lap.
I wonder if they count athletes who are in programs which are expected to take 5 years in ordinary circumstances.
I don’t believe that’s true. You still get your four years of eligibility.(Or 5 with a red shirt year, or even 6 in rare cases of two red-shirts). There have been numerous players who have played their ‘senior’ year while actually in the Grad school part of the University, going for a masters.
She died last week. Read her obituary in SI.
Ah there’s the rub… for that to happen they actually have to get into a grad program. And sometimes the athletic scholarship won’t cover grad school for athletes if they’re past their 4th year.
Much easier to drop that one class in your Spring semester 4th year so that you don’t have enough credits to graduate, then take a minimal number of classes during your 5th year.
Wait a second, just because you can graduate doesn’t mean you HAVE to does it? I had to petition to graduate for both my undergrad and my masters, but if I didn’t petition to graduate, I could have kept on taking classes. Otherwise how can you have double majors and things like that? I can’t imagine students aren’t graduating because they were told not to take certain classes; because it wouldn’t matter.
People graduate with double and triple majors over the course of just 4 years all the time.
But not while playing sports competitively. Sports (any sport, not just football) are huge time sinks between practice and travel to the games.
I ended up taking enough credits for 2 degrees in 5 years. If I was really judicious with my time, I could have done it in 4 years. I definitely would not have been able to do it while playing a sport.