ESPN, get a clue on what you report year after year

[Pa Jayhawk]

Sorry, just have to vent about this as it is the second year in a row they have reported this BS.
ESPN - Report notes disparity between grad rates of top seeds - Men's College Basketball
ESPN - Gaps 'narrowing slightly' in study of NCAA teams' graduation rates - Men's College Basketball

O.K., my beef with this is that both of these articles give the impressions these schools likely have players that are bad on the academic side and flunking out. My question why anyone in their right mind would stay in school when they have offers to make Millions of dollars a year. Does their degree really mean that much in the scope of their life, and furthermore, with the academic record it is not like they do not have the funds or the prowess to finish up if they desire.

I will only speak for KU in the sense that since at least the early eighties they have always had high regard for academics. This was posted earlier this year.
KU athletes set record for grades: 3.02 GPA

KUsports.com - KU athletes set record for grades: 3.02 GPA

... yet you have these idiots that mention them in these articles and make it appear they don't have what it takes to get a degree. To be specific, KU Basketball had a 2.73 average. So again, why is the degree really that important. They should put some emphasis on the quality of the education they received and what they are making as a result of their education.

It peaves me that this happens year after year, and on the flip side they give credit were others graduate 90-100 percent. No Shite, maybe that has something to do with the fact that the players at these school need to rely on their degree to make a living. Since when did it become an uneducated decision to leave college with a 2.73 GPA to make 5 million dollars a year in the NBA as opposed to stay in college and get a degree that may buy you 100th of the earning potential.

Sure, these players are here for an education, but how many student do you know that received their degree in 8 semesters. I believe I know very few. Yet they even state in these articles they give 6 years. So let me get this straight, if they don't make it in the NBA and take 2 more years to finish up at a University of a lower calibur, that is the preferred method? Why is there no mention of GPA, or earning potential?

Personally, I would question if many of these other players would graduate at the University of Kansas or some of the other mentioned schools if they were there simply for academics, and if they did I would question if they would do so with an average of 2.73 or higher after spending the same time away from the books to stay on the team. In the same sense, I still wouldn't say I consider Stanford to be a crappy University with low morals in the Golf program because guys like Tiger Woods didn't graduate. Man, I wonder if he's going to be able to get by in life having not received that degree. Furthermore, it was one of the top schools in the nation, what was he thinking about when he dropped out?

End rant!!!

What do you guys think. Probably some writer from Western Kentucky, Butler, Notre Dame or Purdue (the for mentioned schools from the article) that couldn't make it in the NBA so wants to show the value of his degree, maybe if he were an accountant instead of a writer he could get a job balancing their checkbooks.

 

[Eracer]

The only real criticism of your argument I have is that college athletic programs are intended to be a supplement to an education. If high school athletes could attend a university and get a degree in "Pro Athlete", then I would agree that other scholastic pursuits would be superfluous. But scholar-athletes are role models, and, like hip-hop stars, set a glittering goal for many young people. The truth is that very few make it to the pro ranks. And many fall by the wayside, having spent their dreams ignoring their education. Kids need role models, and a scholar athlete who ends up as a businessman is a lot better role model than one who fails as an athlete and has nothing else to show for it.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Kids need role models, and a scholar athlete who ends up as a businessman is a lot better role model than one who fails as an athlete and has nothing else to show for it.

I fully agree with your entire comment, however your last part is what persuaded me to make this post after seeing this two years in a row where as your comments are likely what caused me not too last year. In these articles, there is no consideration given to the fact that these players and schools for which they are criticizing would likely graduate their players if they did not provide them with a better opportunity. I would even agree with the argument that this would be a serious issue if they provided example to the account the 50+% of the KU players that did not graduate where now living in a cardboard box on the streets, where instead they are all likely more successful than the writer of the article. Some of which are not players in the NBA.

Valid point and likely another point to discuss as to whether the quality of education is more important than the degree. Where at least IMO and even in my case, quality education and degree are not synonymous. Your education is what gives you your earning potential and prepares you to succeed in life, not the degree.

And again, your character is what will decide the value you have as a role model. Look at Tiger. Where if you give a degree to someone like Michael Vick or Ray Lewis, it is not going to give him positive role model status. Actually another point is that many of these players are now turning into successful coaches.

edit 1 - it would also be a sad mistake to portrait that the only education you receive is in the classroom. Maintaining a 2.73 GPA while maintaining the rigorous schedule of a ranked college basketball players shows me far more in ability to succeed as opposed to picking up a degree in 6 years from with a fairly lax schedule. In the same sense, you will notice many companies love the aspect of hiring military, because they know they will not have to teach them discipline. Which is not always necessarily a requirement in obtaining a degree.

 

[Irish]

I fully agree with your entire comment, however your last part is what persuaded me to make this post after seeing this two years in a row where as your comments are likely what caused me not too last year. In these articles, there is no consideration given to the fact that these players and schools for which they are criticizing would likely graduate their players if they did not provide them with a better opportunity. I would even agree with the argument that this would be a serious issue if they provided example to the account the 50+% of the KU players that did not graduate where now living in a cardboard box on the streets, where instead they are all likely more successful than the writer of the article. Some of which are not players in the NBA.

Valid point and likely another point to discuss as to whether the quality of education is more important than the degree. Where at least IMO and even in my case, quality education and degree are not synonymous. Your education is what gives you your earning potential and prepares you to succeed in life, not the degree.

And again, your character is what will decide the value you have as a role model. Look at Tiger. Where if you give a degree to someone like Michael Vick or Ray Lewis, it is not going to give him positive role model status. Actually another point is that many of these players are now turning into successful coaches.

edit 1 - it would also be a sad mistake to portrait that the only education you receive is in the classroom. Maintaining a 2.73 GPA while maintaining the rigorous schedule of a ranked college basketball players shows me far more in ability to succeed as opposed to picking up a degree in 6 years from with a fairly lax schedule. In the same sense, you will notice many companies love the aspect of hiring military, because they know they will not have to teach them discipline. Which is not always necessarily a requirement in obtaining a degree.

does it specify what degree's these kids are maintaining a 2.73 GPA in. I'm not certain but I'd wager its not astro physics, chemistry or engineering...more likely communications et al...

look at Drake this year....there's a kid there with a 3.98 and he's going for a quadrouple degree or something unreal like that...

I'm pretty sure that most All american recruits do not pick universities based on their undergraduate degrees or academic facilities...

on the flip side is a make up degree any use to talented kids who will make a living either in the NBA or in Europe playing basketball or coaching basketball...

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

does it specify what degree's these kids are maintaining a 2.73 GPA in. I'm not certain but I'd wager its not astro physics, chemistry or engineering...more likely communications et al...

See this is the danger I see in reports such as this, with the information provided, it would lead you to that assumption. Actually, with the information they provided, it would likely lead you to assume they had a 1.0 GPA in shoe tieing 101. I provided the 2.73. The point is, KU is a highly regarded academic university, for which they have a 2.73 GPA.

Again, Did Tiger Woods just take classes in communication, et al.

It also draws into question the acceptance policy and curriculum of the University. I can personally say from the time frame of these reports KU did have players with Double Majors in fairly complex fields such as engineering and likely fell a semester short of fulfilling the double major. However they had to interrupt their education because they were offered 5 million a year in the NBA because they were drafted in the first round.

Again, this is a part of my point, if they want to publish this garbage, then provide the full information to allow people to make an educated decision, and not simply make a blanket statement and leave it open to make assumptions such as your own simply for lack of information. That is a big part of my disgust with these articles, that and the fact that I do know during the majority of the last 20 years, the majority of their players were also serious when it came to academics. They deserve better than this and I fail to see how I can criticize them for leaving for a far more profitable venture. ESPN should know better IMO.

 

[Irish]

I'd agree that its lazy reporting....they should obviously account for NBA draft leavers etc, and other reasons for not graduating...

still the fact that somewhere like Tennesse can only graduate 8% and these are there on scholarships...surely this defeats the point of NCAA athletics...

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

To give a little more perspective on this year alone. Of the 3 Seniors that regularly play, 2 of them are 2008 Academic All-Big 12 players. Both of which have started many games. Although they did have 3 seniors selected with that designation, although you do not hear much about the third, nor do I see much of their other 2 Seniors on their team that will likely get degrees and do quite well outside of the NBA. Although they could likely have 8 players that if they left next year, would likely be drafted in the NBA. 2 of their underclassmen considered leaving last year with the one they did lose, one as a sophmore and one as a freshman.

So again, if these 2 of 3 All-Big 12 Academic seniors get drafted by the NBA and fall just short of their degree this year, I am sure that ESPN will be jumping to point out they were simply among the vast list of players at KU that did not graduate.

Let me add, that is 3 of the 20 All-Big 12 players, representing 12 decent University. To go even further, Texas, who was at the top of the ESPN Shite list led in selections with 6 players that were All Big 12. "Two of the No. 2 seeds, Tennessee and Texas, graduated only 33 percent of their players for the period studied. "
2008 Academic All-Big 12 Men's Basketball Team Announced

So to be clear, of the 2 Big 12 teams mentioned in ESPN's list, they accounted for almost 1/2 of the All Big12 Academic Team.

 

[PhillyEagle]

ESPN is saying how a high percentage of athletes don't graduate with a degree. What's wrong with them reporting that? The NCAA isn't intended just to be a platform for the pros, and it's showing how that's exactly what is becoming.

Big props to ESPN here from me.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

ESPN is saying how a high percentage of athletes don't graduate with a degree. What's wrong with them reporting that? The NCAA isn't intended just to be a platform for the pros, and it's showing how that's exactly what is becoming.

Big props to ESPN here from me.

They are not reporting all the facts, but simply providing a platform of speculation. They are using data that is aproximately 8 years old. They are using Degree and not academic achievement as a basis for their conclusions.

Again, you are holding students to a higher level than you are hold regular students. They are giving the assumption that because these players earn a scholorship to the University, that for some reason they must either obtain the degree or stole the money and where a failure. They are further making leading to the assumption that these students have no academic interest, but are only there for basketball.

The students that ESPN refers to where in many cases as successful in the classroom as they were on the court. If the NCAA is not just a platform for the pro's, then perhaps they should not be benefiting to the degree of Billions of dollars each year but this has nothing to do with my initial arguments..

They are given credence to some guy that did a study based on data that exceeds the academic life of the players they are criticizing, yet fail to provide enough information to support the claims but are trying to fuel the assumption that these are Universities and players of poor character and academic prowess. You wanna debate the NCAA as a platform for professional athletics, then why don't you bring in the NBA and talk about pressuring the players to leaving prior to their degree. That has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Actually that doesn't even address my arguments from the initial thread, which is they are using a degree as a basis for the validity of the Universities curriculum, and a basis for the players academic success.

What's wrong with the old adage that farming is bad for your health. Without mention the fact that it is based on the concept that they fed a tractor to a mouse and it died. Simply put, if they want to make blanket statements, unsupported by all the fact, great, but don't be saddened when people who hold you to a higher level consider you no better than any other rag that does so for a simple method of sparking a media frenzy.

They admitted in the 2007 study it was based on 1996-99 freshman, what does that have to do with players that started no earlier than 2003 and how does it reflect their academics? You think we should hold players accountable from expired data and use it as a basis to reflect their character. The importance of education is to prepare you for life and give you the tools you need to succeed in your desired field, not give you a piece of paper with the name of the University boldly scribed. How did they did not succeed at that task? Please explain your specific criteria for academic success, I know alot of people with degrees that can't find a decent job. I guess once you get a degree, you can just end it all, because you have obviously reached your highest level of success.

If ESPN want to criticize education, at least provide enough information for the readers to make an educated decision and not simply make one side blanket statements based on ancient data from someone with an axe to grind. At least give information on the curriculum of the the universities you choose to criticize. Since when does a student owe it to a university to get a degree?

 

[PhillyEagle]

They are further making leading to the assumption that these students have no academic interest, but are only there for basketball.

Well if you don't believe a high percentage are actually there for only the basketball, then I have nothing else to say.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Well if you don't believe a high percentage are actually there for only the basketball, then I have nothing else to say.

Again, not that this has anything to do with my point, but how is this a bad thing? Actually I was basing it on a University where I know from experience that the students are held to high academic standards to maintain their scholarship. But this was never discussed. They maintained the high academic standards of the University, they brought in millions of dollars to a University in return for a scholarship. Again that is the point, ESPN is leading people to believe that because the person did not graduate then the University must have less than credible academic standards. This is simply an idiotic assumption on their part. Actually I would tend to believe that the higher the academic standards, the harder it would be the average student to obtain a degree in 4 years, if you want to get technical. Again, having gone to the University, I know of few student in general, many on academic scholarship, that obtained a degree in 8 semesters. Why should we hold the athletes to higher standard.

Although this report uses 6 years as a criteria, which is idiotic in itself for making an accurate conclusion. Where there is little incentive over a multi-million dollar contract to continue the additional 2 years. So again, how can you use this as a criteria of the academic nature of the University. Why is such little thought given to the success rate of the student athletes. The idea to an education is to become a success in your field. I have little doubt that if many of the players portraited in this did not make it in the NBA, or in a similar related field, they would have no problem completing their degree and being successful elsewhere. But are you of the impression they should give up proceeds of their talent to prove their point?

Based on ESPN's article, we should be of the opinion that because these players did not graduate, the program obviously must have low academic standards. The main point to my argument, while they seemed to have succeeded with their goal in many cases, it was certainly not based on respectable reporting on their part. Again, fed a tractor to a mouse and it died. Farming must be really hazardous. I thought the idea behind the credence of an academic institution was based on the success rate and achievements of their students. Why is the success rate not even mentioned, and why should we hold basketball players to a different standard if in your opinion is their objective to being at the university. Again, there was nothing presented as far as the academic curriculum of the the University, but instead just graduation rate. So that ship has sailed.

 

[Eracer]

Be sure you don't eat too many of the top ocean predators, like shark, tuna, grouper. High Mercury levels.

Of course, the data was gathered by macerating the entire fish, including bones and internal organs, all parts of the fish that contain 50 times more Mercury than the muscle.

Same with ESPN's study. Crappy data intended to sell their product.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

College = Degree = Career = $$$

Basketball = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If a kid who was good enough to play in the NBA decided he'd rather get his degree and makes FAAAAR less money, that'd be proof to me that THAT university offered a sh*tty education. Economics 101. Play in the NBA as soon as possible for 9 years, then enjoy your life doing whatever you want to do.

 

[Irish]

College = Degree = Career = $$$

Basketball = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If a kid who was good enough to play in the NBA decided he'd rather get his degree and makes FAAAAR less money, that'd be proof to me that THAT university offered a sh*tty education. Economics 101. Play in the NBA as soon as possible for 9 years, then enjoy your life doing whatever you want to do.

absolutely but what percentage of NCAA kids make it to the NBA...there are only 2 rounds of NBA drafts and their are High SChool Kids and internationals there too.

the problem is that percentage of graduates is way lower than just taking the professional ball players out of the equation...

also PA makes a good point that they scholarship kids should be compared to the graduation rate of the institution...

ESPN's data is not concise enough to really get its point across however there is certainly an issue with sports scholarship graduation rates although this has apparently improved over the last ten years. (I think Barnes has been decent at graduating his kids)

again I think the main point of the thread is that ESPN does not have enough accurate data to go casting dispersions on certain schools

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Be sure you don't eat too many of the top ocean predators, like shark, tuna, grouper. High Mercury levels.

Of course, the data was gathered by macerating the entire fish, including bones and internal organs, all parts of the fish that contain 50 times more Mercury than the muscle.

Same with ESPN's study. Crappy data intended to sell their product.

After todays game, I'm expecting them to run a follow up that homosexuality is out of control on the Xavier and Georgia campuses and basketball teams, on top of this, you should have seen them hugging and holding hands after their tournament wins. I mean Jesus, this was during the game and captured on film, what more proof do you need? While I don't really care if there are homosexuals at these campus and "not that there is anything wrong with that", but I don't feel the NCAA and the schools should endorse it through their programs.

From the ESPN Website: