Since most won't know, I will point out that these NCAA rates are based on some ridiculous criteria. For example, if you sign a kid to a scholarship and you end up kicking him out for fighting, not going to class or some other valid reason, that's counted against the class and reduces the graduation rate. Same for those who may graduate, but who take a semester longer to do so. Another strike. If a scholarship athlete comes in and doesn't graduate within a set amount of time for any reason, your rate gets reduced.
These rates are much easier to accomplish in some sports (my guess is the golf team has a heck of a lot better chance than 85 football players). Women probably do better than men. And, I'm guessing smaller, private schools will do better than large, public universities.
Schools, including UT, need to do better. Making freshman ineligle would help (to get them accustomed to school and studying without worrying about playing), but that won't happen for lots of reasons. But, there are a lot of factors with these kids and a lot of criteria to arrive at figures which are not obvious in the final number.
I love rebuttals that support the premise under rebuttal.
"For example, if you sign a kid to a scholarship and you end up kicking him out for fighting, not going to class or some other valid reason, that's counted against the class and reduces the graduation rate."
You signed the player.
"Same for those who may graduate, but who take a semester longer to do so"
That's right. You only get 5 to 6 years worth of scholarship. If you are a National Merit Scholar do you get 5 to 6 years worth of money. No.
"If a scholarship athlete comes in and doesn't graduate within a set amount of time for any reason, your rate gets reduced."
No kidding.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Bbeanster on Thu, 2007/11/01 - 1:45pm.
I'm with Chad on this one. The Lady Vols basketball team, whom I follow closer than any other team, has occasional transfers. Every single player who has stayed all four years has graduated. Every. Single. One. And of the transfers (that I know about), every single one has gone on to graduate from another school (or is making progress toward that goal). Why should Pat Summitt be denied a 100 percent graduation rate because of a rule that makes it easier for bureaucrats to count on their fingers?
Almost all of these transfers do so for reasons involving playing time, homesickness or a boyfriend in some other place. And every one of them has been academically sound (ie, where they should be, in terms of credit hours and GPA) when they left.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Thu, 2007/11/01 - 6:00pm.
Why should Pat Summitt be denied a 100 percent graduation rate because of a rule that makes it easier for bureaucrats to count on their fingers?
Apparently she wasn't.---
Yes, she was.
This story isolated one single year, when there were no transfers. In other years, like the freshman class of '04, when Sybil Dosty and Sa'de Wiley-Gatewood transfered; or '05, when Lindsey Moss transferrd, or '06, when Nicci Moats transfered, Summitt will be penalized. In fact since the latter two classes only had two members@, she'll be tagged with a 50% graduation rate.
I was also trying to make a point that Pat Head Summit can hire great athletes who can also excel as scholars and graduate from college and still win a National Championship. Not to mention raise the UT graduation rate.
I was also trying to make a point that maybe Phil Phulmer should take a cue from the UT Women's Basketball Coach and start hiring guys who can read and understand the playbook and speak semi-intelligently in class and in press conferences, and maybe then he could win another National Championship and graduate more players.
I'd really like to see a graduation rate for football that doesn't count transfers or dismissals or players who leave early to go pro. It would at least give you an idea of how well the players actually in the program are progressing academically. And I'd like to see separate graduation rates for 4 years, 5 years, and 6 years. There are some actual Engineering students in the football program, and no amount of NCAA regulation can make a student in a 5-year program graduate in four years.
You can make the argument that the choice of players or the atmosphere they are living in is what is causing them to leave, and, of course, the reason for including those stats in the GSR is to keep coaches from kicking kids off of the team because they might lower the graduation rate, but there is still a separate question of whether the University is providing the academic support that these players need or bringing in student-athletes that are not over their heads before they even get hear. The stats as currently defined don't really answer that question.
"If a scholarship athlete comes in and doesn't graduate within a set amount of time for any reason, your rate gets reduced."
I should have added 'regardless of the reason'. So, if a kid gets admitted, but once in school refuses to go to class, gets in trouble and the coach kicks him off, that's a fair to penalize the team's graduation rate? The school, coaches, teachers and administrators all did their job. Some kids just can't make the transition or refuse to do the work. Some 19 year olds make stupid decisions.
Likewise, some kids figure out that Tennessee (or whatever school) isn't for them and they transfer. Voluntary transfers over which the school has no control also count against a school's graduation rate. That makes no sense.
Anyway, I would expect nothing less than these comments from professor Toby who dislikes major D-1 sports (are you still protesting against Rutgers expansion?) and 'Factchecker' who complains anonymously and likens all evil to Republicans. You don't support UT athletics to begin with, so Randy just throws up a pinata for you with this thread. Whack away.
I don't dislike Division 1 sports. I dislike the misrepresentation of a university's mission by people who only see the football team, not the school. If UT football were to disappear tomorrow, UT will still exist. Sorry. That's a fact.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Oh, BTW, I do pull for the Volunteers. It is hard to do what with the amazingly poor coaching, but I do pull for them. I think Ainge has had a very good year despite the handicap of playing in an archaic offensive system. The offensive line has been great, but the lack of a running game nullifies this point.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Al (not verified) on Mon, 2008/04/28 - 11:45pm.
Met - How do you judge the Coaching ? Been a Coach ? Just wondered how you grade, based on ?, or evaluate Coaching . Unless its based on Your Opinion with no experience ? Or, have experience and just dont agree ? Just curious. Thanks
If UT football were to disappear tomorrow, UT will still exist.
Well, yes it would. Same for most any other school. Some fans who have no other connection to a school see only athletic teams. But, athletics is part, to one degree or another, of most colleges and universities.
There will always be those who see athletics as causing the glass to be half-empty, rather than filled with opportunities for students (to play or simply attend games), connection to the community, fundraising for academics and promotion of the school. I choose the latter.
Finally, I believe the general student population graduation rate is less than 40% for 4-years and less than 50% for 6 years. So, students-athletes at UT overall perform far better than non-athletic students. As for football, it's close to average.
Submitted by Al (not verified) on Mon, 2008/04/28 - 11:40pm.
I sense some jealosy here ??? Why even go there ? UT Football IS and will always be a Large Part of the "Tradition", NOT, as you assume - LIFE . Your point is irrelelant and I am guesssing, feel left out. Your welcome to attend any football game with me, so you can at least try ....Education IS why the Students are there - NOT football. It's called School SPirit, Alumnus, Excitement and Class. Why ANYONE would want to even touch on ANY negatives associated with those words above, HAS an alterier motive. Smile !!!
Submitted by Stick Thrower on Thu, 2007/11/01 - 2:44pm.
The NCAA Graduation Success Rate (GSR) does NOT penalize a program's "success" when a student transfers in or out. Nor does it count student athletes when they leave a program for whatever reason (kicked off or voluntary) as long as they have eligibility remaining. So, players who go pro early and those who decide they'd rather smoke weed than play football or basketball during their sophomore years aren't counted against the program.
Not surprisingly, as a creation of the NCAA, the "GSR" is the most generous, most forgiving method possible to calculate a graduation rate because it factors out all the usual negative variables of student retention. It's a ridiculous criteria, but not the way CBT thinks it is.
UT's four-class average rate (according to the link at top) for student-athletes would be 57% for the 00-01 year compared to 59% for all students using the same criteria. That's probably the red flag in the entire report. It seems to be rare for scholarship athletes to have a lower graduation rate than the entire student body at four-year schools.
* disclaimer: I'm not an expert on student retention... I just read the report and this year-old ncaa press release which explains more about the GSR.
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sun, 2007/11/04 - 3:23pm.
What Randy says about hiring athletes who are a good fit for the school, and not just the team is important. Students who don't have the academic background or the work ethic or the extended support that is needed for any college student not just athletes, are going to have trouble once they get to campus.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Submitted by redmondkr on Tue, 2008/04/29 - 9:15am.
I sense some jealosy here ???
Your point is irrelelant and I am guesssing, feel left out. Your welcome to attend any football game with me, so you can at least try ....Education IS why the Students are there - NOT football.
Since most won't know, I will point out that these NCAA rates are based on some ridiculous criteria. For example, if you sign a kid to a scholarship and you end up kicking him out for fighting, not going to class or some other valid reason, that's counted against the class and reduces the graduation rate. Same for those who may graduate, but who take a semester longer to do so. Another strike. If a scholarship athlete comes in and doesn't graduate within a set amount of time for any reason, your rate gets reduced.
These rates are much easier to accomplish in some sports (my guess is the golf team has a heck of a lot better chance than 85 football players). Women probably do better than men. And, I'm guessing smaller, private schools will do better than large, public universities.
Schools, including UT, need to do better. Making freshman ineligle would help (to get them accustomed to school and studying without worrying about playing), but that won't happen for lots of reasons. But, there are a lot of factors with these kids and a lot of criteria to arrive at figures which are not obvious in the final number.
I love rebuttals that support the premise under rebuttal.
"For example, if you sign a kid to a scholarship and you end up kicking him out for fighting, not going to class or some other valid reason, that's counted against the class and reduces the graduation rate."
You signed the player.
"Same for those who may graduate, but who take a semester longer to do so"
That's right. You only get 5 to 6 years worth of scholarship. If you are a National Merit Scholar do you get 5 to 6 years worth of money. No.
"If a scholarship athlete comes in and doesn't graduate within a set amount of time for any reason, your rate gets reduced."
No kidding.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I'm with Chad on this one. The Lady Vols basketball team, whom I follow closer than any other team, has occasional transfers. Every single player who has stayed all four years has graduated. Every. Single. One. And of the transfers (that I know about), every single one has gone on to graduate from another school (or is making progress toward that goal). Why should Pat Summitt be denied a 100 percent graduation rate because of a rule that makes it easier for bureaucrats to count on their fingers?
Almost all of these transfers do so for reasons involving playing time, homesickness or a boyfriend in some other place. And every one of them has been academically sound (ie, where they should be, in terms of credit hours and GPA) when they left.
Why should Pat Summitt be denied a 100 percent graduation rate because of a rule that makes it easier for bureaucrats to count on their fingers?
Apparently she wasn't.
Why should Pat Summitt be denied a 100 percent graduation rate because of a rule that makes it easier for bureaucrats to count on their fingers?
Apparently she wasn't.---
Yes, she was.
This story isolated one single year, when there were no transfers. In other years, like the freshman class of '04, when Sybil Dosty and Sa'de Wiley-Gatewood transfered; or '05, when Lindsey Moss transferrd, or '06, when Nicci Moats transfered, Summitt will be penalized. In fact since the latter two classes only had two members@, she'll be tagged with a 50% graduation rate.
Oh, sorry. I was just looking at the 2007 report I linked to.
the Freshman Cohort standard is the one most commonly used.
I was also trying to make a point that Pat Head Summit can hire great athletes who can also excel as scholars and graduate from college and still win a National Championship. Not to mention raise the UT graduation rate.
I was also trying to make a point that maybe Phil Phulmer should take a cue from the UT Women's Basketball Coach and start hiring guys who can read and understand the playbook and speak semi-intelligently in class and in press conferences, and maybe then he could win another National Championship and graduate more players.
That's all I was trying to say.
I'd really like to see a graduation rate for football that doesn't count transfers or dismissals or players who leave early to go pro. It would at least give you an idea of how well the players actually in the program are progressing academically. And I'd like to see separate graduation rates for 4 years, 5 years, and 6 years. There are some actual Engineering students in the football program, and no amount of NCAA regulation can make a student in a 5-year program graduate in four years.
You can make the argument that the choice of players or the atmosphere they are living in is what is causing them to leave, and, of course, the reason for including those stats in the GSR is to keep coaches from kicking kids off of the team because they might lower the graduation rate, but there is still a separate question of whether the University is providing the academic support that these players need or bringing in student-athletes that are not over their heads before they even get hear. The stats as currently defined don't really answer that question.
"Waaaaaahhhh!!!! Anything that threatens or casts unfavorable light on things that I like is not fair!! Rules are for everybody else."
Sounds like a Republican.
"If a scholarship athlete comes in and doesn't graduate within a set amount of time for any reason, your rate gets reduced."
I should have added 'regardless of the reason'. So, if a kid gets admitted, but once in school refuses to go to class, gets in trouble and the coach kicks him off, that's a fair to penalize the team's graduation rate? The school, coaches, teachers and administrators all did their job. Some kids just can't make the transition or refuse to do the work. Some 19 year olds make stupid decisions.
Likewise, some kids figure out that Tennessee (or whatever school) isn't for them and they transfer. Voluntary transfers over which the school has no control also count against a school's graduation rate. That makes no sense.
Anyway, I would expect nothing less than these comments from professor Toby who dislikes major D-1 sports (are you still protesting against Rutgers expansion?) and 'Factchecker' who complains anonymously and likens all evil to Republicans. You don't support UT athletics to begin with, so Randy just throws up a pinata for you with this thread. Whack away.
I don't dislike Division 1 sports. I dislike the misrepresentation of a university's mission by people who only see the football team, not the school. If UT football were to disappear tomorrow, UT will still exist. Sorry. That's a fact.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Oh, BTW, I do pull for the Volunteers. It is hard to do what with the amazingly poor coaching, but I do pull for them. I think Ainge has had a very good year despite the handicap of playing in an archaic offensive system. The offensive line has been great, but the lack of a running game nullifies this point.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Met - How do you judge the Coaching ? Been a Coach ? Just wondered how you grade, based on ?, or evaluate Coaching . Unless its based on Your Opinion with no experience ? Or, have experience and just dont agree ? Just curious. Thanks
The overall graduation rates were higher than I expected.
The overall graduation rates were higher than I expected.
Hotel & Restaurant management, and Sports management, has helped to bring the rates up.
Just so everyones knows, I never graduated college. My major was engineering and I dropped out during my second year.
If UT football were to disappear tomorrow, UT will still exist.
Well, yes it would. Same for most any other school. Some fans who have no other connection to a school see only athletic teams. But, athletics is part, to one degree or another, of most colleges and universities.
There will always be those who see athletics as causing the glass to be half-empty, rather than filled with opportunities for students (to play or simply attend games), connection to the community, fundraising for academics and promotion of the school. I choose the latter.
Finally, I believe the general student population graduation rate is less than 40% for 4-years and less than 50% for 6 years. So, students-athletes at UT overall perform far better than non-athletic students. As for football, it's close to average.
I sense some jealosy here ??? Why even go there ? UT Football IS and will always be a Large Part of the "Tradition", NOT, as you assume - LIFE . Your point is irrelelant and I am guesssing, feel left out. Your welcome to attend any football game with me, so you can at least try ....Education IS why the Students are there - NOT football. It's called School SPirit, Alumnus, Excitement and Class. Why ANYONE would want to even touch on ANY negatives associated with those words above, HAS an alterier motive. Smile !!!
The NCAA Graduation Success Rate (GSR) does NOT penalize a program's "success" when a student transfers in or out. Nor does it count student athletes when they leave a program for whatever reason (kicked off or voluntary) as long as they have eligibility remaining. So, players who go pro early and those who decide they'd rather smoke weed than play football or basketball during their sophomore years aren't counted against the program.
Not surprisingly, as a creation of the NCAA, the "GSR" is the most generous, most forgiving method possible to calculate a graduation rate because it factors out all the usual negative variables of student retention. It's a ridiculous criteria, but not the way CBT thinks it is.
UT's four-class average rate (according to the link at top) for student-athletes would be 57% for the 00-01 year compared to 59% for all students using the same criteria. That's probably the red flag in the entire report. It seems to be rare for scholarship athletes to have a lower graduation rate than the entire student body at four-year schools.
* disclaimer: I'm not an expert on student retention... I just read the report and this year-old ncaa press release which explains more about the GSR.
What Randy says about hiring athletes who are a good fit for the school, and not just the team is important. Students who don't have the academic background or the work ethic or the extended support that is needed for any college student not just athletes, are going to have trouble once they get to campus.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Let me guess, Al.
You are (or were) an English major.
Visit us at
The Home
Geez, I hope to God not.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Post new comment