The (Kentucky) Empire Strikes Back

[billhoward]

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2010/03/24/clinging_to_an_ivy_climber/ Wednesday: Boston Globe column by Dan Shaughnessy Wednesday twits Kentucky, coach K's (Calipari with a hard C is close enough) two final four appearances and two tournaments vacated, the bundles of cash.

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2010/03/25/wildcat_strike_incited/ Today (Thursday, game day): Boston Globe today recounts the Wildcat empire lashing back. "Your [sic] a racist" is a common taunt. Globe takes time out to remind Kentucky grammarians of proper usage:

People. It's "you're'' a racist. Not "your.''
Whoops. There I go, being elitist again.

... A local radio guy named Matt Jones, writing on a website, charged me with racism and elitism, and rallied Lexington. ...

For the record, there are four black players on the Cornell roster. And there are three white players on the Kentucky roster.

[Jones] labeled Boston "the most racist major sports town in America.'' I assume he has data to support this, since he also claims to have gone to Duke Law School (no elitism there).

Boston sports? Racist? Six words: Dee Brown. House hunting. Wellesley police.  


Kentucky fans, players and coaches have gotten tired of the media (not Cornell) portraying Cornell players as bright and Kentucky players as otherwise. The New York Times and the secretary of education (ex-Harvard jock) have this to say:

Duncan's Swipe at the NCAA
Education Secretary Arne Duncan took another swing at the National Collegiate Athletic Association and top college basketball programs Wednesday, reiterating a call he made in January to ban from postseason play teams that fail to graduate at least 40 percent of their players.

If Duncan's proposal were to be carried out, 12 teams in the N.C.A.A. men's tournament would be barred from competing, including Kentucky, a No. 1 seed, which has a graduation rate of 31 percent, according to a study released earlier this week by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida. Six institutions (Brigham Young, Marquette, Notre Dame, Utah State, Wake Forest and Wofford) achieved a 100 percent graduation rate.
 
"If a university can't have two out of five of their student-athletes graduate, I don't know why they're rewarded with postseason play," Duncan said in a telephone conference call. His remarks were nearly identical to ones he made in a speech in January at the N.C.A.A. convention in Atlanta, where he told a crowd of athletic directors and university presidents that leaders in college sports aren't doing enough to graduate basketball players.

The study also found a disparity between the graduation rates of black and white players at many institutions. At Kentucky, black players had an 18 percent graduation rate, while white players graduated at a rate of 100 percent. Other institutions with large disparities between black and white players included Clemson (31 percent of black players graduated, versus 100 percent of white players) and Missouri (black players had a 25 percent graduation rate, compared with white players, at 100 percent).

The study used N.C.A.A. graduation statistics over a six-year period for students who entered their freshmen year from 1999 to 2002.

[dag14]

While I obviously don't have data to support this, I wonder whether it is completely fair to vilify UK basketball based on the results of this study.  

WHY don't their players graduate?  As an example, if you have 10 players in a recruiting class and 2 transfer because of lack of playing time and 3 leave early for the NBA, that reduces your graduation rate to 50%.  If 2 out of the 10 recruits drop out/don't graduate because of poor academic performance, the graduation rate is now 30%.  But as this example illustrates, the 30% graduation rate doesn't mean that 7 out of 10 recruits in a class are "failures."

I get it that some programs in many major sports are factories designed to win championships and not educate students, but to rely on the NCAA graduation rate data without exploring other factors is oversimplifying the issue.

[Robb]

While I obviously don't have data to support this, I wonder whether it is completely fair to vilify UK basketball based on the results of this study.  

WHY don't their players graduate?  As an example, if you have 10 players in a recruiting class and 2 transfer because of lack of playing time and 3 leave early for the NBA, that reduces your graduation rate to 50%.  If 2 out of the 10 recruits drop out/don't graduate because of poor academic performance, the graduation rate is now 30%.  But as this example illustrates, the 30% graduation rate doesn't mean that 7 out of 10 recruits in a class are "failures."

I get it that some programs in many major sports are factories designed to win championships and not educate students, but to rely on the NCAA graduation rate data without exploring other factors is oversimplifying the issue.

I don't have a problem with transfers, but players who leave early for the NBA should definitely be counted against your graduation rate.  Why on earth wouldn't they?  Those players left without graduating - isn't that what a "graduation rate" is all about?

[billhoward]

Here's the data you may want:
53%: Average six-year graduation rate, four-year institution (Dept of Ed). That's 6 of a 15-player team.
40%: NCAA suggested minimm for teams.
18%: Kentucky graduation rate for black players.
100: Kentucky graduation rate for white players

Perhaps the college presidents can decide that, yes, 40% is a minimum the coaches will have to live with. It will mean if a team has players who defect early to the pros, the coach has to balance the team with bookworms who know how to dribble at least in practice. They don't have to start or play, just letter at some point and then walk across the stage in June. It's something the coach has to manage, like foul trouble.

I don't recall if a transfer counts as a six-year graduation back at his original school. (Is Jeff Foote hurting St. Bonaventure if he counts as a player there?) If it does, it's something else for the coach to manage.

Out of every 15 players, the coach can afford to lose 2 or 3 to the pros or dropout and still make the 40% rate.

Most likely effect: A coach can't stockpile marginal players.

[ugarte]

While I obviously don't have data to support this, I wonder whether it is completely fair to vilify UK basketball based on the results of this study.  

WHY don't their players graduate?  As an example, if you have 10 players in a recruiting class and 2 transfer because of lack of playing time and 3 leave early for the NBA, that reduces your graduation rate to 50%.  If 2 out of the 10 recruits drop out/don't graduate because of poor academic performance, the graduation rate is now 30%.  But as this example illustrates, the 30% graduation rate doesn't mean that 7 out of 10 recruits in a class are "failures."

I get it that some programs in many major sports are factories designed to win championships and not educate students, but to rely on the NCAA graduation rate data without exploring other factors is oversimplifying the issue.

I don't have a problem with transfers, but players who leave early for the NBA should definitely be counted against your graduation rate.  Why on earth wouldn't they?  Those players left without graduating - isn't that what a "graduation rate" is all about?

"Graduation rate" is supposed to be a proxy for "making students employable." If they are voluntarily leaving college to make six/seven-figure salaries in the NBA, it is ridiculous to penalize the school. I'd be willing to compromise and say that players who aren't drafted or otherwise signed to pro contracts should count against the school.

[sockralex]

I don't think schools, NC$$, and especially (most) fans of big school teams would want anything to do with that, let alone care how the graduation data is interpreted.  They do not care who graduates, who flunks out, and who goes pro - they just care about wins today.

From a reply to article on http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Cornell-and-Kentucky-basketball-couldn-t-be-more?urn=ncaab,229428&cp=2

35. Posted by Tony Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:54 pm EDT
I am a student at Kentucky, and I personally know several of the basketball players. The idea that they are dumb is absurd. The ones that I know are all intelligent. So they don't get good grades; big deal. They work just as hard (or harder) than anyone I know, just not on school.

[rant]
'Don't get good grades, what's the big deal?? Just win me basketball games so I have something to smile about.'  I think this is a prevalent attitude and Arne Duncan is climbing a very steep hill.  One that the NC$$ will gladly push him back down.  

The solution is a delineation between students and athletes.  It already exists, let's just be honest about it.  Start putting their grades next to Free Throw % and FG% or a wink face next to majors like Park Management.  I am sure there's plenty of Cornell athletes that wouldn't be supportive of this, but at least it sheds more light on what caliber "student-athletes" (read: athlete-student) these individuals are.

[/rant]

[JasonN95]

While I obviously don't have data to support this, I wonder whether it is completely fair to vilify UK basketball based on the results of this study.  

WHY don't their players graduate?  As an example, if you have 10 players in a recruiting class and 2 transfer because of lack of playing time and 3 leave early for the NBA, that reduces your graduation rate to 50%.  If 2 out of the 10 recruits drop out/don't graduate because of poor academic performance, the graduation rate is now 30%.  But as this example illustrates, the 30% graduation rate doesn't mean that 7 out of 10 recruits in a class are "failures."

I get it that some programs in many major sports are factories designed to win championships and not educate students, but to rely on the NCAA graduation rate data without exploring other factors is oversimplifying the issue.

I don't have a problem with transfers, but players who leave early for the NBA should definitely be counted against your graduation rate.  Why on earth wouldn't they?  Those players left without graduating - isn't that what a "graduation rate" is all about?

"Graduation rate" is supposed to be a proxy for "making students employable." If they are voluntarily leaving college to make six/seven-figure salaries in the NBA, it is ridiculous to penalize the school. I'd be willing to compromise and say that players who aren't drafted or otherwise signed to pro contracts should count against the school.

I disagree. Schools' have a traditional classroom education mission with stated criteria at which you are considered to achieve such. I could land a job at the end my third semester; that doesn't mean the school has provided me with a full education and should give me a diploma and a pat on the back.  Conversely, if someone completes their degree and then enters a profession completely unrelated to it or simply doesn't work at all (lousy trust fund babies!), the school hasn't failed.  The court/rink/athletic field is not a classroom. You might learn valuable skills and acquire other positive attributes while playing your sport, but that isn't what schools reward degrees for.  If a college or university wants to stick their neck out and say that athletics is a degree program for which you can receive grades and a diploma after one year and a successful draft by a professional team, well, that would certainly be novel and I'd watch it unfold with great curiosity.

[2]

The statistics don't count players who leave early for the pros.  The Globe prints a column on the topic every year.  This year's column (www.boston.com) says:

This is particularly outrageous as the NCAA no longer penalizes schools in graduation-rate reports for players who leave early for the pros, as long as they were in good academic standing.

[Robb]

While I obviously don't have data to support this, I wonder whether it is completely fair to vilify UK basketball based on the results of this study.  

WHY don't their players graduate?  As an example, if you have 10 players in a recruiting class and 2 transfer because of lack of playing time and 3 leave early for the NBA, that reduces your graduation rate to 50%.  If 2 out of the 10 recruits drop out/don't graduate because of poor academic performance, the graduation rate is now 30%.  But as this example illustrates, the 30% graduation rate doesn't mean that 7 out of 10 recruits in a class are "failures."

I get it that some programs in many major sports are factories designed to win championships and not educate students, but to rely on the NCAA graduation rate data without exploring other factors is oversimplifying the issue.

I don't have a problem with transfers, but players who leave early for the NBA should definitely be counted against your graduation rate.  Why on earth wouldn't they?  Those players left without graduating - isn't that what a "graduation rate" is all about?

"Graduation rate" is supposed to be a proxy for "making students employable." If they are voluntarily leaving college to make six/seven-figure salaries in the NBA, it is ridiculous to penalize the school. I'd be willing to compromise and say that players who aren't drafted or otherwise signed to pro contracts should count against the school.

That's not at all what graduation rate means to me.  Graduation means you completed the level and quality of work required to indicate that you are a college-educated person.  There are plenty of magna cum laude graduates who have trouble finding a job, and loads of dropouts who excel in the working world.  Colleges already track job placement rates separately from graduation rates, so there's no reason why either should be a proxy for the other.  They each tell a different part of the story, and I think graduation rate is the correct one to use for grading whether the athletic programs are detrimental or helpful to the schools' academic missions.

[ugarte]

The statistics don't count players who leave early for the pros.  The Globe prints a column on the topic every year.  This year's column (www.boston.com) says:

This is particularly outrageous as the NCAA no longer penalizes schools in graduation-rate reports for players who leave early for the pros, as long as they were in good academic standing.

This works for me.

[Trotsky]

Graduation means you completed the level and quality of work required to indicate that you are a college-educated person.

There goes all of Engineering.  ::bang::





;-)

[KeithK]

Graduation means you completed the level and quality of work required to indicate that you are a college-educated person.

There goes all of Engineering.  ::bang::

:-P

[dag14]

I didn't realize that student-athletes leaving early to turn pro [if in good academic standing at the time] were not part of the NCAA graduation rate mix.  That does undercut my argument.

My point was more that what percentage of a recruiting class graduates is less relevant than the quality of the academic experience that a school offers its recruited student-athletes.  If athletes are acing bogus courses and hit the real-world with no skills other than those they demonstrate on the ice/field/court, the school should be taken to task.  If they are asked to take the same curriculum as other enrolled students but don't do as well academically because of all the various reasons student-athletes are not A+ students, it is hard to blame the institution if it is making a good-faith effort to educate all its students.

[upperdeck]

The study only counted kids who stayed and didnt graduate.. quiting/leaving/transferring dont count.. can you really stay for 4-6 years andf not graduate unless the school isnt trying or you probably shouldnt have been admitted.

[KeithK]

I didn't realize that student-athletes leaving early to turn pro [if in good academic standing at the time] were not part of the NCAA graduation rate mix.  That does undercut my argument.

My point was more that what percentage of a recruiting class graduates is less relevant than the quality of the academic experience that a school offers its recruited student-athletes.  If athletes are acing bogus courses and hit the real-world with no skills other than those they demonstrate on the ice/field/court, the school should be taken to task.  If they are asked to take the same curriculum as other enrolled students but don't do as well academically because of all the various reasons student-athletes are not A+ students, it is hard to blame the institution if it is making a good-faith effort to educate all its students.

Of course you can blame the school if the athletes are not doing well academically.  If the reason is because of the many other pressures on student athletes then the school can reduce some of these (fewer mid week games, for instance) or provide support.  If it's because athletes are admitted who do not have the academic talent to succeed in the academic environment then the school can stop admitting such "students".