• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

NCAA Academic Reforms (Merged)

"The football team’s graduation rate has risen nearly 40 points since coach Jim Tressel arrived in 2000."

Another factual observation about Tressel's relentless criminalization of the Ohio State football program. Wait until Prince Albert and the May Queen hear about this!
 
Upvote 0
Desertbuckfan said:
The funny thing is at Texas nobody has left early for the draft but the grad rate is still like 33%, what's up with that?
I'm pretty sure Texas has problems with the graduation rate of their entire student population. OSU faces similar problems where many students take more than 5 years to graduate. These students counted on the non-graduate side of the tally sheet. I believe UT they recently proposed requiring students to graduate in 5 years.
 
Upvote 0
Looks like the NCAA took down the previous article I posted, here's a newer NCAA press release that clarifies things somewhat.

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/01_17_05/front_page_news/4202n02.html

APR scores for quarter institutions will be converted to a metric that is comparable to that of semester institutions. That conversion is necessary because the term-by-term calculation of the APR increases quarter schools' APR in ways that are unrelated to academic performance.
I thought this was interesting since I was thinking we were going to have an advantage due to the fact OSU is on the quarter system.
 
Upvote 0
Time to raise some hate and discontent

I'm curious to know what others think about the latest NCAA rulings on academic performance. According to the Columbus Dispatch, the NCAA forumula would put OSU on the bubble for warning and/or sanctions. The same article indicates that 94% of Division I schools would be in a similar situation.

I have always been of the opinion that college atheletes should pursue their degrees, despite the tempatations of the financial rewards offered by professional level sports. Practically, the temptations come from baseball, basketball and football. I choose to focus on football. The average NFL career is 3.8 years for those that make it to that level. Considering that the average NFL salary is $900K (per web research), that doesn't translate into a nest egg that an athlete can rely on after the NFL. There is a need for something else. Sloughing off an education in pursuit of a dream doesn't seem to be a universally wise choice. After their careers these atheletes will need to pursue employment in the private sector just as most of the rest of us do.

The best scenario, as I see it, is that the NFL should not consider for the draft any athlete who has not completed four years schooling after high school. This scenario is best for the student athelete - encouraging them to complete their educations, and best for the NFL, as we willl see. By continuing to consider for the NFL draft student athletes who are just three years out of high school encourages incomplete educations. In turn, this promotes sanctions (under the new guidelines) from the NCAA for failiing to meet graduation requirements. This will result in fewer scholarships that can be offered, and eventually reduce the quality of athlete that can be recruited and made available to the NFL.

Parity across Division IA schools will increase at the expense of quality for the top level athlete. In the long term the NFL will suffer and migrate toward more parity, having to settle for less stellar performers. Personally, I think there's too much parity in the NFL already. The NFL doesn't have the same spitit that the college game has. I'd hate to see the college game reduced to being 'just a job' or have parity similar to the NFL where the top 50% or so teams could be interchangeable.

So, to put it bluntly, should college football progams be considered as professional farm teams with no consideration to the personal development of the individual?

I say no.
 
Upvote 0
The average NFL career is 3.8 years for those that make it to that level. Considering that the average NFL salary is $900K (per web research), that doesn't translate into a nest egg that an athlete can rely on after the NFL.

Uh, that's $3,420,000. Take out 10% for agent fees, and then taxes after that (35%), that's still $2,000,700. If that's not a decent "nest egg" for a 26-year old, something's definitely wrong.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Uh, that's $3,420,000. Take out 10% for agent fees, and then taxes after that (35%), that's still $2,000,700. If that's not a decent "nest egg" for a 26-year old, something's definitely wrong.


Sure, for an everyday normal 26 year old, thats a nice nest egg. But how many of those players will be fiscally responsible with that ? 2Mil won't last very long when you live like a millionaire, especially when you need it to last 50 more years. It all depends on how you live and professional athletes don't live like normal 26 year olds.
 
Upvote 0
Look at it another way. If the players didn't go to the NFL, and made $40,000/year (right around what many high school teachers/coaches make and around the median income in America) for 30 years, their total lifetime income would be $1.2 million dollars. How could anyone tell any kid that if they make an average of salary in a profession for year, they would be coming close to what many Americans make in a lifetime (and more that millions of Americans ever will). Ohio State will always be here, and the athlete will still have a lifetime to pursue other interests.
 
Upvote 0
Brutus1 said:
Sure, for an everyday normal 26 year old, thats a nice nest egg. But how many of those players will be fiscally responsible with that ?

and

ClassOf76 said:
My point exactly. I wasn't fiscally responsible when I was 26. Why should it be different now?

So, you two are saying it would be better for them to make an inflation adjusted $50K a year for the rest of their lives instead of making $2M for four years and then making the same amount (if not more because of even a minor level of NFL "fame") afterwards. That has to be one of most flat out moronic things I have ever heard.
 
Upvote 0
ClassOf76 said:
You're still focusing on the smalll percentage of college athelets who make it to the next level. My point is that for the majority who don't progress that far, they need to be prepared to face reaility.

That I agree with 100%...absolutely. I think Tressel is doing a great job in making his players work harder academically, as evidenced by the dramatic rise in the graduation rate in the football program, not to mention the fact that they've been kicking ass and taking names in the Academic All-Conference area (twice as many as the next highest two schools combined).
 
Upvote 0
ClassOf76, I don't have any problem with a student leaving one year short of a degree if the career options are there, since I think both student and university can check that off as a success in preparing a student to earn his way after school. The degree is still important, though, and I'd hope it would be completed eventually. Now, if we had 85 guys not taking academics seriously because they're counting on making it at the next level, that's a problem - which is why you need a good guy at the helm to stress the importance of a quality education. Nice to know we're covered there.

BTW, I grew up in Stafford and was up in Woodbridge often. Is it officially part of DC yet? :)
 
Upvote 0
400 D-IA teams in trouble...

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/3426458
Preliminary academic report not good news
Michael Marot
/ Associated Press
Posted: 8 hours ago <!-- esi: /nugget/4000_3426458--> INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - More than 400 sports teams at the nation's Division I schools could lose scholarships next year under the NCAA's new academic standards, according to a report released Monday.
<!-- esi: /widget/story/videoAndPhotoGallery?contentId=3426458--> Most of the scholarship losses, which would be for one year, were expected in football, baseball and men's basketball. Of the 5,270 Division I teams, about 410 risk penalties. About half of the nation's 328 Division I schools have at least one team facing sanctions, according to the preliminary report.

"We hope the behavior changes and the number of teams will actually go down over time," NCAA president Myles Brand said in a conference call.

The NCAA estimates 25 percent of football programs, 23 percent of baseball teams and 19 percent of men's basketball programs could be penalized if improvements are not made before new figures are released in December.

The NCAA's new calculation generates a score between 0 and 1,000; penalties are assessed beginning with teams that drop below 925. The number is determined by a points formula that rewards long-term eligibility and retention of student-athletes. Programs can lose points when athletes transfer, drop out, leave for the pros or become academically ineligible while still at the school.

Football, baseball and men's basketball were the only sports with averages below the 925-point cutline. Baseball teams averaged 922, while football and men's basketball were at 923.

Penalties, however, will not be imposed unless an at-risk school loses a player who would have been academically ineligible. Some schools could lose scholarships in the fall. The NCAA also will use a statistical adjustment for teams with fewer players to prevent anomalies, and schools can appeal decisions through a waiver process.

The most prominent programs that appeared in trouble were the men's basketball teams at Fresno State and Baylor. Fresno State received a 611, while Baylor scored 647 - a figure affected by the transfer of several players after the 2003 shooting death of Patrick Dennehy.

"Our basketball number is an outgrowth of what the program was prior to coach (Scott) Drew's arrival," Baylor athletic director Ian McCaw said. "What we're most excited about, we had a perfect score of 1,000 in men's basketball (last semester)."

Officials from some schools expressed their concerns with the scores.

At Maryland-Baltimore County, the men's indoor track team scored a 600 - a figure athletic director Charles Brown had already told NCAA officials was wrong.

"To be considered well below the cutline is very embarrassing and it hurts our recruiting," he said. "It's extremely upsetting that the NCAA released something when they know there are some flaws."

NCAA officials acknowledged some low scores may have been the result of teams with as few as one athlete or other errors.

Two other men's indoor track teams, at Eastern Michigan and Seton Hall, scored zeroes. Houston's women's cross country team also received a zero.

University of Hartford president Walter Harrison also had a women's cross country team that failed to meet the standard. Hartford scored a 500, a number that upset Harrison, who is chairman of the committee that helped establish the guidelines.

"I asked our athletic director to come in and asked her to give me a report why it happened and what can be done to correct that," Harrison said. "I'd encourage my fellow presidents and chancellors to do the same thing."

Schools still can submit amended forms in March and the corrected figures are expected to be released in April.

Under the formula, athletes receive one point each semester for staying academically eligible and another point for staying in school. For instance, a perfect score for a 13-member basketball team at a semester school would be 52.

The total number of points a team actually receives is divided by the maximum possible total to get a percentage, which is converted to the 1000-point scale. No team can lose more than 10 percent of what it offers.

"This represents the implementation of the most far-reaching academic reform in decades," Brand said. "It holds schools accountable for the performance of their student-athletes."

Monday's report only indicates how schools are doing based on data collected from the 2003-04 academic year. No penalties will be enforced until data from the 2004-05 school year are included, but teams must take the penalties as early as possible.

Stronger sanctions, such as postseason bans for consistently poor long-term academic performance, are expected to be enforced by the fall of 2008.
I like certain portions about this enforcement, like the last part. I just hope they approach appeals intelligently, so "shooting-related transfers" and other extenuating circumstances don't cause damage to programs.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top