Kudos to the football players (97%)

[GODUKEGO]

The Blue Devil football players were tied for for third place at a 97% graduation rate. The basketball players were at 83% and Kentucky 44%, ouch!!!


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...y_N.htm#charts

[CameronBornAndBred]

The Blue Devil football players were tied for for third place at a 97% graduation rate. The basketball players were at 83% and Kentucky 44%, ouch!!!


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...y_N.htm#charts

Those are some mighty old stats.

* Average four-year graduation rates for players entering school from 2000-03

It's an interesting article, but why are they so behind the times on their data? Also...how on earth can those schools that have less than a 50% graduation rate even put a team on the field? You would think they'd all be on academic suspension.

[Olympic Fan]

Those are some mighty old stats.

It's an interesting article, but why are they so behind the times on their data? Also...how on earth can those schools that have less than a 50% graduation rate even put a team on the field? You would think they'd all be on academic suspension.

They are not that far behind -- the formula measures athletes that graduate in six years, so that someone who enters in the fall of 2003 had until the spring of 2009 to graduate. They update this every year with the four most recent classes ... so the next one that comes out next fall will cover the classes from 2001-2004.

As for the low graduation rates, that's one of the dirty secrets of the NCAA and why Duke will always be at a disadvantage -- as long as we maintain a high graduation rate.

At a football factory (as UNC has come to be -- check the Butch Davis waiver wire even before the scandal broke), you bring in 25 players a year and redshirt most of them. That gives you five classes at a time -- or a total of 125 scholarship kids. But the NCAA allows you just 85 scholarships at one time (and redshirts DO count against that total).

What happens is that the football factories run off at least a third of every class -- the guys they get and see can't play. That opens up space for 25 guys next year. Then you run 10 of those off and bring in 25 the next.

See what happens? When you run off 40 percent of each class, that means you have maybe 60 percent who stay four-five years. If you graduate two-thirds of those who stay, your overall graduation rate is closer to 40 percent.

At the same time, you're putting a better football team on the field than the people who keep their recruiting mistakes on campus and graduate them.

[CameronBornAndBred]

What happens is that the football factories run off at least a third of every class -- the guys they get and see can't play. That opens up space for 25 guys next year. Then you run 10 of those off and bring in 25 the next.

Thanks for the clarification on the graduation timeline. I wonder if this guy's lawsuit (if he wins) will make a difference for those folks that are getting "run off".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102703766.html

-- A former Rice University football player is suing the NCAA over its policy to limit athletic scholarships to one-year renewable awards.

[Bluedog]

Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's the graduation rate for ALL athletes combined at Duke, not just football players. That 97% figure for all Duke athletes has already been released. At least, it's sounds very familiar to me as I've seen that exact number previously. So, this thread title should be changed to "Kudos to Duke athletes."

Schools with the highest and lowest NCAA "graduation success rates," tracking scholarship athletes — in all sports — who arrived from high school or transferred in from other colleges from 2000-2003:

Schools in the nation's 11 major football-playing conferences that are doing the best and worst jobs of graduating athletes in all their sports*:

[GODUKEGO]

Actually this study is referencing just the football players. The link below shows a similar article about this and references some basketball stats.
When you read below, it should make us all that much prouder of this team and the University.

"But in men's basketball, 10 of the teams in the final Top 25 poll produced grad rates of 60 percent or worse based on the NCAA calculations. Three schools scored in the 30s -- Maryland (31), Temple (33) and Baylor (38). Connecticut, which is under NCAA investigation, was at 31 percent.

Villanova and Brigham Young each had 100 percent. Duke, the national champion, and Butler, the national runner-up, were both at 83 percent."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/...=ESPNHeadlines

[CameronBornAndBred]

Villanova and Brigham Young each had 100 percent. Duke, the national champion, and Butler, the national runner-up, were both at 83 percent."

I wouldn't put as much weight behind the stats with the elite teams (although Villanova having 100% is surprising and applaudable) due to the fact that they lose a larger majority to the draft. When you look at teams like Kentucky had last year, Duke in 2002, UNC in 2005 it makes more sense...each lost a bunch of players at the end of the season because they went pro, not because because they failed academically. (Although Kentucky would have had at least one player up the creek if he stayed.) So when I see Duke basketball with %83 percent in that time period, take a look at who went pro. Did any of our players between 2003 and 2009 not graduate due to academics?

[SharkD]

I wouldn't put as much weight behind the stats with the elite teams (although Villanova having 100% is surprising and applaudable) due to the fact that they lose a larger majority to the draft. When you look at teams like Kentucky had last year, Duke in 2002, UNC in 2005 it makes more sense...each lost a bunch of players at the end of the season because they went pro, not because because they failed academically. (Although Kentucky would have had at least one player up the creek if he stayed.) So when I see Duke basketball with %83 percent in that time period, take a look at who went pro. Did any of our players between 2003 and 2009 not graduate due to academics?

Outbound transfers also penalize the original school, as they count against the graduating percentage, but incoming transfers do not help the percentage.

Of the scholarship players who matriculated between 2000 and 2003, the following left early:

• Andre Sweet (2000, Transfer)
• Shavlik Randolph (2002, Draft)
• Luol Deng (2003, Draft)

[SCMatt33]

Outbound transfers also penalize the original school, as they count against the graduating percentage, but incoming transfers do not help the percentage.

This is only partially true. There are two sets of graduation data, NCAA numbers and federal numbers. The NCAA data does account for transfer students who leave in good standing, but the federal numbers do not. This is why the federal numbers are consistently lower than NCAA numbers. This difference will likely become more pronounced for the Basketball team in two years, when Jamal and Boateng are included, and even more so 5 years down the road when players entering 2005-2008 are considered, Duke will have the transfers of Boykin, Boateng, King, and Czyz all considered, which will likely bring down the federal number considerably.

All of this is a big reason why the NCAA developed the APR to help account for these factors and not penalize teams for players who leave in good standing.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the federal numbers also do not count walk-ons, which help boost NCAA numbers at many schools.

[snowdenscold]

Outbound transfers also penalize the original school, as they count against the graduating percentage, but incoming transfers do not help the percentage.

Of the scholarship players who matriculated between 2000 and 2003, the following left early:

• Andre Sweet (2000, Transfer)
• Shavlik Randolph (2002, Draft)
• Luol Deng (2003, Draft)

And didn't Michael Thompson transfer too?

Assuming the 83% is the NCAA and not federal #, how did they get it? I'm counting that would be 7 out of 9, whereas 83% sounds like 10 out of 12.

[SCMatt33]

And didn't Michael Thompson transfer too?

Assuming the 83% is the NCAA and not federal #, how did they get it? I'm counting that would be 7 out of 9, whereas 83% sounds like 10 out of 12.

I haven't checked, but did you count walk-ons. The federal numbers count scholarship players only, but the NCAA numbers count everyone.