UGA 68% grad rate for football players (2nd in SEC)

[coachx]

http://www.ajc.com/sports/ncaa-athletes-improve-overall-695355.html

Georgia had a 68-percent graduation rate in football. It ranked second in the SEC, behind Vanderbilt, in graduation success rate. Georgia Tech’s overall graduation success rate rose to its highest level, the football team, however, posted the lowest score among ACC schools, with a 49.

But in men's basketball, 12 of the teams in the final Top 25 poll produced grad rates of 50 percent or worse under NCAA calculations. Four schools scored in the 30s — California (30), Connecticut (31), Michigan and Georgia Tech (36). Villanova and Illinois each had perfect scores, 100 percent.

Duke, the national champion, and Butler, the national runner-up, were both at 83 percent.

Edited October 27, 2010 by AHF

[dms269]

Good?

[Guest]

If anyone read the article they would see that none of the quoted material is in there. I am calling SEC bias on this one.

[Guest]

OK so for anyone who cares, you can read more about graduation rates here:

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/newmedia/public/rates/

It appears they define cohort to be anyone on an athletic scholarship at any point in time that entered college between 2000 and 2003. The GSR is defined by the NCAA and accounts for players not graduating but going professional. The Federal rate does not account for players going professional. To graduate, one must receive a degree within 6 years of entering a college.

The number's quoted are correct. But what I find very funny is that UGA's basketball graduation rate for this time period was also 36%. So one calls out GT for being bad, but presumably its a UGA fan who fails to recognize they are equally in a bad position.

[coachx]

The number's quoted are correct. But what I find very funny is that UGA's basketball graduation rate for this time period was also 36%. So one calls out GT for being bad, but presumably its a UGA fan who fails to recognize they are equally in a bad position.

Come on now. The article did not mention basketball but specifically metioned football. When it was on the AJC the headline focused on the difference of UGA and GT's football academic rates.

You chose to do the digging to find out the basketball stats which is not suprising considering Felton kicked off 50% of the players he recruited.

[AHF]

The spin I would put on this is that UGA's football players have historically had terrible graduation rates and the current numbers look like things are improving. Georgia Tech has historically had better numbers than UGA but is currently seeing the academic success of these revenue athletes declining.

Edited October 29, 2010 by AHF

[Guest]

Come on now. The article did not mention basketball but specifically metioned football.

But in men's basketball, 12 of the teams in the final Top 25 poll produced grad rates of 50 percent or worse under NCAA calculations. Four schools scored in the 30s — California (30), Connecticut (31), Michigan and Georgia Tech (36). Villanova and Illinois each had perfect scores, 100 percent.

They mentioned basketball right here, presumably. Its right from your post. I understand they are only taking decent basketball programs (top 25) to show, but the article's focus is on GT verses UGA. Its shady reporting to only show GT's bad scores and not show UGA's equally bad scores.

It also makes sense GT would have lower graduate rates than UGA. Holding player intelligence constant, GT is a more rigorous institution and therefore should have less people graduate. Its just the spin thats so awful.

[lethalweapon3]

How are the incarceration rates?

~lw3

[AHF]

It also makes sense GT would have lower graduate rates than UGA. Holding player intelligence constant, GT is a more rigorous institution and therefore should have less people graduate. Its just the spin thats so awful.

On the whole, I definitely agree Tech is more rigorous. Having multiple family members both go to and work for Georgia Tech, I'll be the one to say that isn't exactly the case for all classes and majors there, though.

If the athletes are taking chemical engineering courses compared to english majors at Georgia, that is a no-brainer but that doesn't apply across the board. For example, the business (management) program at Tech is known for being less rigorous and less highly regarded than business programs at Georgia - not to mention some of the hard science programs (when I was offered a PS at Tech and talked to Tech's Biology department about studying genetics they told me to go to Georgia if I was interested because the program was clearly superior). Tech doesn't have the "basket weaving" sorts of programs that a lot of other schools do for sure, though.

The overall numbers certainly don't suggest there is a huge difference. The national average for athletes is 79% and Georgia is at 77% while Tech is at 75%.

[coachx]

They mentioned basketball right here, presumably. Its right from your post. I understand they are only taking decent basketball programs (top 25) to show, but the article's focus is on GT verses UGA. Its shady reporting to only show GT's bad scores and not show UGA's equally bad scores.

It also makes sense GT would have lower graduate rates than UGA. Holding player intelligence constant, GT is a more rigorous institution and therefore should have less people graduate. Its just the spin thats so awful.

2 questions:

Did it show UGA's basketball graduation rates or not ?

Did you have to dig that up for yourself or not ?

Thank You