The real score

[Dan_ref]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/sp...ll/24GRAD.html


March 24, 2004
Graduation Is Secondary for Many in Final 16
By JOE DRAPE

The N.C.A.A. men's basketball tournament is once more whittled to a field of 16, and among the teams are a few surprises. Graduation rates among players on the remaining teams have once more been analyzed in studies, and in that regard there have been no surprises: only four — Duke, Kansas, Vanderbilt and Xavier — posted graduation rates of 50 percent or better.

Sixteen of the teams that made the tournament's initial field of 65 had graduation rates of 25 percent or less. Four of those teams did not graduate a player within the six years allotted, according to the latest National Collegiate Athletic Association graduation data.

"It's reprehensible and disappointing," the N.C.A.A. president, Myles Brand, said of the overall findings. "I think the current system permits student-athletes in basketball to move through school without getting a degree."

Brand says he believes, however, that an academic reform package the N.C.A.A. is expected to adopt next month — the so-called incentive/disincentive plan — will soon allow university officials and fans to take pride in their basketball team's on-court performance without having to be embarrassed about failures in the classroom.

Teams that do not perform well academically could lose scholarships and be barred from postseason play, potentially losing millions of dollars in revenue for their respective colleges. Teams that perform well in the classroom, on the other hand, would be entitled to additional revenue through the N.C.A.A.'s distribution formula and would pick up more scholarships and receive other benefits like additional graduate assistant coaches.

Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, said that the new plan was overdue and that it could improve poor academic performance, especially in high-profile sports like basketball and football.

In his own studies over the previous 10 years, Lapchick has found, among other things, that more than 50 Division I basketball programs had failed to graduate even one black player.

"This would be the first time ever the N.C.A.A. would hand out sanctions for schools that fail to deliver on the promise of an education when they open their doors to athletes," Lapchick said.

Yesterday, he released his survey, "Keeping Score When It Counts: Graduation Rates and Diversity in Campus Leadership for 2004 Men's Sweet 16 Teams."

"There also are rewards for teams that do it right, which are not many if you look at the 16 teams," he said of the pending N.C.A.A. incentive/disincentive plan.

Of the teams still left in the N.C.A.A. tournament, Kansas had the top graduation rate among players, at 73 percent, followed by Duke and Xavier at 67 percent and Vanderbilt at 62 percent.

The other 12 teams had graduation rates below 50 percent, and 7 of them graduated 33 percent or less of their men's basketball players. Those colleges, according to a separate study released by the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, were Alabama; Alabama at Birmingham; Connecticut; Georgia Tech; Nevada; Oklahoma State; and Pittsburgh.

The N.C.A.A. did not release campus-specific graduation rates for 16 teams in the 65-field tournament. Those 16 colleges fell under the federal Department of Education's ruling last year that graduation rate information could not be published for a class in which there were fewer than three athletes on scholarships or fewer than three who graduated.

"We feel uncomfortable, too, when we see these rates published, and agree with the new structure," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "We've all raised the bar academically, and when kids know how high the bar is set they'll go meet it."

The Knight Commission chairman, William C. Friday, president emeritus of the University of North Carolina, said he was not so sure.

"When you see poor graduation rates, recruiting violations and instances of academic fraud, any thoughtful sports fan can see that we've created an entertainment industry and, in the process, it has eroded the integrity of the university," Friday said.

"It is a good first step, but it is going to take a lot more than that," he said of the proposed N.C.A.A. plan. "We need to step back and take the pressure off college sports. That means getting some discipline back in our dealings with television networks and keeping coaches' salaries down. We are not honoring our moral duty to these student athletes."

Indeed, the graduation rates of athletes in revenue-generating sports like basketball are at variance with the performance of students in other sports.

Sixty-two percent of all scholarship athletes who entered Division I colleges for the 1996-97 academic year graduated in the six-year window allowed for such statistics. Only 42 percent of the players in men's basketball programs in Division I graduated, however.

"There are some loopholes that haven't serve us well in sports like men's basketball," Brand said. "We intend to change that."



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[just another ref]

Are the universities to blame? Certainly, but not totally.
I am sure that a large number of players go to college with no interest in a degree or an education but with stars in their eyes and visions of NBA big bucks.

[rockyroad]

I would also want to know the graduation rates of the general population at those same schools...if they're graduating 33% of the athletes, but only, say, 45% of the population in general, then it's not an athletic department problem...if it's 33% of athletes and 87% of general pop., then we've got serious issues...

[mick]

Thanks, Sparky.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rockyroad
I would also want to know the graduation rates of the general population at those same schools...if they're graduating 33% of the athletes, but only, say, 45% of the population in general, then it's not an athletic department problem...if it's 33% of athletes and 87% of general pop., then we've got serious issues...

Great point.

The NCAA compiles this info, here's a link with info.

Quite remarkable if you ask me.

http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2003/d1/index.html

[rainmaker]

"There still is work to be done," Brand said. "The 38 percent rate is a significant improvement -- a full 10 percentage points above last year's performance -- but it isn't high enough. We should have no subgroup graduating below the graduate rate of the general student body on their campus. Academic reform cannot be considered a real success until we have reached that bar."

That's a quote from the article that points to what rockyroad is talking about.

It looks like overall, the D1 schools do pretty well, but there's no mention of individual schools, and what the rates are for the elite schools in each sport.

For any particular athlete, the thing to do is to carefully check the statistics before accepting any scholarship. If your goal is the NFL, or NBA, you look for one thing. But if you're looking to "work your way through college", a different set of number will definitely need to be examined.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

For any particular athlete, the thing to do is to carefully check the statistics before accepting any scholarship. If your goal is the NFL, or NBA, you look for one thing. But if you're looking to "work your way through college", a different set of number will definitely need to be examined.

Look at the ncaa link I provide, it has all D1, D2 & D3 schools.

From looking at it quickly it seems that the best grad rates, by far, are in the D1 private schools. All others (D1 public schools, D2 & D3 schools) are sorta kinda equal.

[rockyroad]

One thing to keep in mind is that these studies require the athlete to gradjiate in 4 years...if they gradjiate after that (say in 5 years like it took me after changing majors several times) then they go down as not graduating...also, JC transfers don't count in this research either...if a JC kid transfers in and graduates after their two years of eligibility, they actually count against the graduation rate because it wasn't a four-year membership...

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rockyroad
One thing to keep in mind is that these studies require the athlete to gradjiate in 4 years...if they gradjiate after that (say in 5 years like it took me after changing majors several times) then they go down as not graduating...also, JC transfers don't count in this research either...if a JC kid transfers in and graduates after their two years of eligibility, they actually count against the graduation rate because it wasn't a four-year membership...

I know there is a limit after which the graduation doesn't count in the stats but I thought it was either 5 or 6 years. Otherwise, redshirted player who graduates in his last season of eligibilty wouldn't even count.

Also, just to clarify, any transfer out of a program counts against the program, even if they graduate somewhere else. They count as simply not graduating. Also, they don't count for the school they transfer too either. They simply are counted as if they don't graduate at all.

I didn't think they counted against the receiving school, just that they didn't count at all, for or against.

If they're going to count graduation rates (and they probably should), they need to overhaul the way they are counted. A transfered athelete should count on someone's books if they graduate somewhere.

[BoomerSooner]

I agree that the means of counting and figuring these rates is suspect. I know that it used to be 5 years to graduate, and believe it still is as most athletic scholarships are 5 years in nature. Although with most schools now requiring as many as 140 credit hours for graduation (I only need 124 due to a wonderful little grandfather clause, although everybody else in my department needs 136), I could see them extending it to 6 years.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner
I agree that the means of counting and figuring these rates is suspect. I know that it used to be 5 years to graduate, and believe it still is as most athletic scholarships are 5 years in nature. Although with most schools now requiring as many as 140 credit hours for graduation (I only need 124 due to a wonderful little grandfather clause, although everybody else in my department needs 136), I could see them extending it to 6 years.

The average student in college does so in about 5 years. And that is usually because students are changing majors, not always taking a full load of classes each semester or have to work to get their degree. Most athletic programs graduate a higher rate of athletes in a single program then the general population of that school if they use the same standards for other students.

I really think this is very much an overblown issue. The school cannot make players that want to go to the NBA or Professional Basketball in order stay in school.

Did anyone see the Mississippi State player that went pro and got drafted in the second round (the thought he was a can't miss 1st Rounder) and is not suing his former agent because he did not understand what his options were with the Bulls that drafted him. So he went to Russia to play ball only to not be playing at all. The story was featured on SportCenter last night. The story was sad, but these kids think they are better than what the truely are and leave school to chase the money. I do not see how schools can prevent kids that are uneducated about life and pro ball from leaving when they think they are going to make millions in the NBA.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I really think this is very much an overblown issue.

Jeff -- After looking at the statistics on the website referenced above, I would tend to agree with you, with one exception. The really top, top schools in basketball and football, at least, do have much lower graduation rates for their players. The original post asked about the Final Four schools, and some of the replies concerned the Sweet Sixteen, as did the article cited. These schools are really not doing very well.

And it doesn't look as though it's because the players are moving into the NBA early. It appears that some just play out their scholarships and then move on without finishing school. The concern is that the school is taking advantage and gaining a great deal of value from certain playrs, wtihout giving anything back.

Like I said earlier, any particular individual player can avoid this problem for him or her self by carefully choosing a program where this isn't going to happen. But the schools still have a responsibility, I think and apparently others do too, to see to it that players are in fact given a fair shake at a degree.