Depends on what you believe the purpose of a college education is. If you believe its for a degree, then yes, you're right. If you believe it's to improve your future job prospects or earning potential, then I think you would count NFL players as "graduates". I'm not a big believer that the purpose of an education is a piece of paper.
You have to remember that Roy Williams was one player on a team of 100. What about the rest of the players who majored in basket weaving and are now not in the NFL? They're screwed. A college degree will serve 99% of athletes better than their "hoop dreams" or their NFL aspirations ever will. You can't just look at the NFL superstars in this equation.
But your point was that Major shouldn't exclude players who went pro from the data, was it not? I would argue that the players who went pro and didn't blow their money (which anyone can do) are just as successful as a "graduate". Are you now changing your point?
Additionally, wouldn't you have to look at how many students would/wouldn't be in college if it weren't for their athletic ability? I think Major has shown that the rate at UT including players who go pro (who I would deem as successful since the average starting salary is extremely high) isn't that far behind the regular school ranking (although his numbers aren't official).
Pfft, Major's numbers were a farce. If he's going to adjust for UT's numbers, he needs to adjust every other school's numbers, also. He just pulled numbers out of thin air.
This thread is hilarious. Evolution: When the original premise of the thread is about two potential criminals on the team is shown to just be blown out of proportion, it degenerates into "Vince is stupid" and "UT doesn't care about graduating players." First, I find it odd that you have UT buddies, given your general disdain for the university. And since many are quick to point out the slanted, pro-UT demographs, it is odd that this has never come up on this BBS. But bigtexxx, Rice students would brag about their fake ID making ability, right?
Why do I need to adjust other school's numbers? I don't care what other schools do. The measure used to determined grad rates here isn't worth much, and I indicated a study that *would* be worth something that would compare school's graduation rates. Learn to read.
major.. That 40% rate has been adjusted to give credit to players that transfer and graduate from other schools. That 70% overall grad rate for students would also have to be adjusted in such a way to make it a fair comparison. Also,I would tend to compare them to the other students that are getting scholarships. I would certainly expect a higher % of students on scholarship to be graduating.
So again, are you changing your point...or are you arguing that an athlete getting paid millions to do what they love is unsuccessful because they don't have a college degree...kinda like that Bill Gates guy.
Rocket Fan, I agree with your first point but not the second. You can't compare the two type of scholarship students because the school is clearly making money off of the athlete. In UT's case, I doubt you want to argue that those extra 100 student slots (counting basketball and football) are worth more to the school than the revenues received due to their athletic programs.
icehouse.. you said universities exist to education people, but need funds to do it. Are these profits from football are all going to the universities quality of education.. and not right back into the athletic programs? I would imagine that most of the profits from football end up just helping the athletic department have more money to spend... and not so much help the university have money to spend on education in general. This is a topic we will have to agree to disagree on. You said yourself that the university cares more about money from the athletes then they do them graduating... and that concerns me. No use arguing we won't agree on this. Now I have to go do some shopping, since I'm finally home from school for the break. Merry Christmas.
icehouse. true, UT probably is making more money off their players than the money they are giving them is worth. Ut probably isn't the best example... but my understanding is that only like a dozen schools make serious money from athletics. The majority lose money... A better example would probably be a school like UH, I would think they have trouble making a profit off of sports.
Why? I would think it would depend on the reason for the scholarship. I see no reason why financial need scholarship students would graduate at higher rates, while I do think academic excellent scholarship students would. Besides, those athletic scholarships are not being financed by the public or the university anyway - they are being financed by the self-sustaining athletic department.
I agree - I have no idea how the 70% UT graduation rate is calculated. My point is that these numbers are misleading in that anytime you compare a subset of students, the numbers will and should be different from the overall graduation rate. I don't see why its particular surprising that if you take a subset of students that are lower-than-average academically, you'd have a lower-than-average graduation rate. This isn't an athletic department issue, and my suspicion is the graduation rate of UT football players is similar to that of non-football players of the same caliber.
major.. you are absolutely right, I should have made that more clear. I was thinking more the ones that are getting the money for academic reasons, not financial reasons. I have a habit of using the word grants for financial aid money.. so I wasn't thinking of that. Again, UT isn't the best example because their athletic department probably does pay for itself. A state school that has an athletic department losing money would be a better example. I believe i read that the University of Tennessee athletic department had to get a loan from the University recently to finish paying a coach that they got rid of... so it seems even the schools you expect to make huge profits.. don't always
Major, sometimes it is hard to compare the football players to other students of their calibar. some schools have football players with SAT scores 400 pts below the average student... and thus there aren't really any other students of that level at the university to compare them to.
I believe the monies for athletic programs go back to the athletic programs, and not the schools. However, I also believe the monies for the major athletic programs help fund the other programs that would not exist if they had to fund themselves. I believe a school is better off with athletic programs (they unite the students, give them something to do, etc). I also believe funding is higher in years that athletic programs are doing well. I know plenty of graduates that don't give anything back to the university until a "good feeling" time comes along (something they can brag about). I have NO DATA to back that up....but I think it makes sense. Edit: If a school's athletic program can fund itself and the school doesn't have to pay anythign for it, isn't that saving the school money?
ok, I'm leaving for real now. I'll be back later. Major and others, I really do like UT. UT is the state school I bring up because I think they have the most potential. As UT's quality continues to go up, the quality of students also goes up. I'm just bringing it up because over the next 10 years if the Ut student qualifications continues to go up, the graduation rate will continue to worsen if the academic quality of athletes doesn't also go up. Good luck to UT in the Rose Bowl. My friends will all be there, so I hope they do well.
Sorry Rocket Fan, but this lacks substance. Most other scholarship recipients receive their scholarships on the basis of their academic abilities. These athletes receive the scholarships on the basis of their athletic abilities. Hell, that is the primary distinguishing factor between Division I and Division III athletics. Should we compare my performance on the football field with Ramonce Taylor's because we're both receiving scholarships? Regarding Major's numbers, here are the actual number of players drafted out of Texas... 2005: 3 2004: 4 2003: 4 2002: 2 2001: 3 2000: 1 1999: 3 1998: 1 1997: 6 1996: 2 That's 29 over the past 10 years, so the number is actually closer to 3 per year, but that doesn't account for undrafted free agents. In 2006, Scott, Wright, and Huff are all virtual-lock certain day 1 picks.
Icehouse, Probably Depends if funding themselves also includes paying for the construction of the stadium. And in case where alumni donated to the athletic department.. it depends if they would have otherwise donated. In other words, if they were going to either donate a million to general university or a million to the athletic department.... the university would have gotten that money anyways Interesting that you bring up the donation thing when the school does well at athletics. I actually looked in a sports economics class at a similiar topic. Very surprising .. of "top schools", the donations actually go down when athletics does well. The alumni at top 20 schools don't want all their money being spent on athletics. I believe that is what it said, I don't have the report in front of me so I hope my memory is correct. I'll have to see if I can find it, it was from a class from last year. I'm not sure about the donations from a general state school. I would think you are right that they might go up, but I'd like to see if that is increased donations to the athletic department or the general university as a whole or both.
