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.

"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.

The overall graduation rates were higher than I expected.

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.

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

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.

Let me guess, Al.

You are (or were) an English major.

Visit us at

The Home