GSR....W&M and Georgetown on top for football.

[Tribe4SF]

Latest Graduation Success Rate data was released by the NCAA yesterday. Didn't check every school, but it appears from a check of top academic schools that W&M and Georgetown lead the nation for football with 98 ratings. Close behind are Richmond and Furman with ratings of 97.

Data can be found at ncaa.org. I-AA is slightly behind I-A football.

[Gordon Shumway]

All I can say is WOW.....A lot of the data in the report is appalling. I am not sure why I expected I-AA schools to be much better, but whatever it it was, I was horribly wrong. My own alma mater at 81% is totally unacceptable in my mind. It is not as if we have a bunch of players leaving early every year to turn pro. I am very disappointed. I have a feeling this thread is not going to get a lot of attention.

[Tribe4SF]

You may be right about a lack of attention. Unfortunately, attention is exactly what it takes to achieve high graduation rates for student-athletes. Too many coaches, ADs and boosters are willing to accept a percentage of academic casualties. High graduation rates usually reflect an ongoing emphasis that begins with recruitment.

[youwouldno]

Tribe is definitely right about the importance of emphasizing academics. It's not fundamentally an intelligence/potential issue, because while the top academic schools do recruit smart athletes, good football players are relatively scarce compared to regular students.

So your average football player will always be less qualified than your average student, whether you're at Montana or Furman or Harvard, wherever. The difference is whether the college and football program actually puts the effort into making sure players are well situated academically.

I don't have much respect for programs that don't take the scholastic part of 'student-athlete' seriously. They essentially are trying to gain a competitive advantage via unethical tactics. In most cases, people are upset by that, but when it comes to collegiate athletics, most look the other way.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Folks at the NCAA post a link to "Aggregate I-AA rates", and then list sports other than football. And then folks wonder why people want to get rid of the I-AA label and say it makes no difference. :rolleyes:

FWIW, Lehigh's at 94 for football. Wrestling, a scholarship sport, is at 83... :eyebrow:

[HIU 93]

The way the NCAA calculates graduation rates is a disgrace. If a student athlete transfers, he/she counts AGAINST the school he/she left and doesn't count at all for the school transferred to. If a student athlete does not graduate in six years, the student counts against the school. There are quite a few STUDENTS in genral, let alone student athletes, that don't graduate within six-years. The prevailing reason for that is the cost of higher education today. With an average TOTAL annual cost of about $15K (Hampton is WELL above that), it is hard for most people to AFFORD to graduate in four years.

[Tribe4SF]

The transfer issues are taken into account in the new data. The NCAA changed that this year in response to complaints such as those cited by HIU93.

[tribe ol]

This is incorrect. Transfers do not count against a school and their GSR, so long as they left the school in good academic standing.

Edit: Sorry, 4SF beat me to it.

[Gordon Shumway]

The way the NCAA calculates graduation rates is a disgrace. If a student athlete transfers, he/she counts AGAINST the school he/she left and doesn't count at all for the school transferred to. If a student athlete does not graduate in six years, the student counts against the school. There are quite a few STUDENTS in genral, let alone student athletes, that don't graduate within six-years. The prevailing reason for that is the cost of higher education today. With an average TOTAL annual cost of about $15K (Hampton is WELL above that), it is hard for most people to AFFORD to graduate in four years.

I'm not sure I subscribe to the "6 years isn't enough time due to the cost" theory. There are up to 63 equivalencies of free ride in most football programs, which I am certain is a dramatically higher percentage of aid than what is in the general student population. Add to that the "non-scholarship" schools probably do better overall, and the cost argument doesn't hold up. I just don't think there is any way to sugar-coat this issue.

[Pard4Life]

Eh, the data is 1996-1999 so this does not reflect anything in the past few seasons.

But, Lafayette is at 93 percent for football... not bad...

The rest of our sports were at 100%, including bball, except women's tennis and swimming.. they were the worst after football at 80 percent. :confused:

[Tribe4SF]

I'm not sure I subscribe to the "6 years isn't enough time due to the cost" theory. There are up to 63 equivalencies of free ride in most football programs, which I am certain is a dramatically higher percentage of aid than what is in the general student population. Add to that the "non-scholarship" schools probably do better overall, and the cost argument doesn't hold up. I just don't think there is any way to sugar-coat this issue.

I agree. What I find very disappointing is the fact that many of the schools with low graduation rates have ample curricula available which should be easily mastered by a student-athlete who is an NCAA qualifier. The question, I think, pertains to institutional philosophy and how that philosophy is implemented by athletic departments. If a school adheres to a philosophy of "athlete-student", as opposed to "student-athlete", their graduation rates will inevitably reflect that philosophy.

This is one area where I think the NCAA is leading in the right direction.

[HIU 93]

I'm not sure I subscribe to the "6 years isn't enough time due to the cost" theory. There are up to 63 equivalencies of free ride in most football programs, which I am certain is a dramatically higher percentage of aid than what is in the general student population. Add to that the "non-scholarship" schools probably do better overall, and the cost argument doesn't hold up. I just don't think there is any way to sugar-coat this issue.

Its not about sugar coating. Its about total cost of attendance. Tuition and room and board are not the only costs to attend a university. "Free rides" also end after four years. With student athletes' schedules, it is very difficult for them to complete the academic requirements for a degree in four years. Heck, most degree programs have courseloads which call for five years of study. If a student athlete (or a student period) has a four year scholarship and doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out when he starts school, how in the hell is he going to be able to come up with $15-$45K for a 5th year?

[Tribe4SF]

Its not about sugar coating. Its about total cost of attendance. Tuition and room and board are not the only costs to attend a university. "Free rides" also end after four years. With student athletes' schedules, it is very difficult for them to complete the academic requirements for a degree in four years. Heck, most degree programs have courseloads which call for five years of study. If a student athlete (or a student period) has a four year scholarship and doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out when he starts school, how in the hell is he going to be able to come up with $15-$45K for a 5th year?

There are plenty of sources for financial aid, especially for students of limited means. If a school brings in a student-athlete for four years and doesn't help them plan how they're going to graduate, that is irresponsible. As far as athlete's schedules go...five years is plenty of time. Six usually means they've been coasting. If you take 12 credits per semester, you graduate in five years, even without any summer school.

[Gordon Shumway]

HIU 93...It sounds like you are saying that the schools are bringing in athletes, using up their eligibility, and then kicking them to the curb. If that doesn't make Tribe4SF's argument about institutional philosophy, then I don't know what does. I used the word eligibilty, because I'm pretty an athlete's scholarship would last through his eligibility, and not just a straight 4 years. When an athlete is redshirted, I doubt he has to pay for that 5th year in school. If the institution is serious about graduation rates, then kids would be graduating in 5 years at most. I may be wrong about the scholarship rules & eligibility, and I stand corrected if so.

[tribe_pride]

Eh, the data is 1996-1999 so this does not reflect anything in the past few seasons.

But, Lafayette is at 93 percent for football... not bad...

The rest of our sports were at 100%, including bball, except women's tennis and swimming.. they were the worst after football at 80 percent. :confused:

Pard - the data for 1996-1999 is for students entering between 1996-1999. So if students entered in 1999, the NCAA was giving them until 2005 to graduate. There is only one extra season that they could have put in there so it is relatively up to date.

By the way, Lafayette appears to do a great job graduating their student athletes.

[DFW HOYA]

Eh, the data is 1996-1999 so this does not reflect anything in the past few seasons.

It's the incoming freshmen classes of 1996-1999, which takes it out to the graduating class of 2003.

[Tribe4SF]

Takes them to 2005, because they give six years to graduate.

[Wmbgskip]

Strangely enough, lots of student-athletes actually do graduate in 4 years.

We need to lower the standards? Is that what's being suggested?

If the complaint is about tuition costs, then write to your congress-folks and state legislators. I'm literally sitting in a class titled "The Finance of Higher Education" right now, and the data is depressing. From 2001-2005, the averaged state spending per Full-time equivalent student went from an all-time high of $7,124 to an all-time low of $5,825.

http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef_sv06_v2.pdf

Read it and weep.

--Skip

[DetroitFlyer]

According to the GSR, Dayton graduated 96% of its football players!

From the UD website:


http://daytonflyers.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/092706aaa.html


GOTTA PLAY SMART The University of Dayton placed a league-best 11 players on the 2005 Academic All-Pioneer Football League team. Since the league's origin in 1993, over a quarter (124 of 460) of the PFL All-Academic selections have been Dayton Flyers. UD also had 60 players on the PFL Academic Honor Roll (3.0 GPA or better). That was 26 better than the next-best school.

HITTING THE BOOKS The Dayton football program has produced 12 ESPN The Magazine Academic All-Americans since the 2000 season. That's most at any level of college football. Safety Brandon Cramer was named a Second Team ESPN The Magazine Academic All-America in 2005. In the history of the Academic All-America program, UD has had 44 football Academic All-Americans. Among schools currently playing Division I football, only Nebraska (80) and Notre Dame (45) have had more. UD has had at least one football player named Academic All-American in 14 of the last 15 years. UD had five players named to the 2005 ESPN The Magazine Academic All-District Team, the most of any school in the district for the fifth straight year. Twelve Flyers were nominated for Academic All-America in each of the last three years (2003, 2004 and 2005).

ARTHUR ASHE SCHOLAR Fullback Matt Marshall was one of three Arthur Ashe Scholars from the University of Dayton in 2005-06, the most in UD history.
TOPS IN I-AA NON-SCHOLARSHIP In the 13 years I-AA Non-Scholarship has been an option, UD has the best winning percentage (.816, 124-28) of the 21 schools playing at this level. Duquesne's .748 (107-36) is second, followed by Drake (.668, 95-47-1), Robert Morris (.617, 76-47-1) and Albany (.583, 77-55).

FLYER FOOTBALL'S GOLDEN ERA It might seem a reach to say that the present state of Flyer football should be referred as its "Golden Era," but it's also hard to argue with the numbers. Since going to non-scholarship football in 1977, Dayton is 271-54-3, the most successful period in school history. In fact, UD's .831 winning percentage during that time is second in all of college football, behind only Mt. Union's .853.

BEST OF THE DECADE UD has the best winning percentage in I-AA since the new century began (maybe we should have hyped this note as "Best of the Century"). UD's .838 percentage (57-11) leads Montana (.795, 70-18), Penn (.787, 48-13), Duquesne (.783, 54-15), and Grambling (.760, 57-18) and Lehigh (.760, 57-18).

PFL POWER The Flyers' 48-8 PFL record is the best in the 13-year history of the league. UD's eight league championships equal those won by the rest of the PFL combined.

Hard to argue with the steller football program at the University of Dayton! You may not like the teams we play, the fact that we are non-scholarship, etc., but the success in the classroom and on the field are impressive!!!!!xsmileyclapx