<p>
</p>
<p>I saw a thread someone posted a little while ago of the SAT averages of all D-I football teams. Stanford was the highest at 1070 and Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt were the only other schools above 950.</p>
<p>Oh… this thread is still around… </p>
<p>gellino, I’ve seen that data as well. I don’t think that data really says anything. Let’s be real about this… D1 recruits are there to play football, those schools have high SAT scores for their recruits because they can’t get the top high school recruits(who often have lower SATs), not because they have higher standards. I believe Cal had 877 and Tulsa was I believe 1000.</p>
<p>Keefer you’re wrong. The top private D1 football teams are under tremendous pressure from top schools to keep the average SAT scores above a certain level. The top public schools, with larger student bodies, are less stringent.</p>
<p>I just get sucked so easily into these arguments because “I’m wrong!”. </p>
<p>Was Stanford not going to take Terrell Pryor if he wanted to go there? I don’t know his SAT score, but I’ll bet all of my money that they would. </p>
<p>I’m looking at the Rivals top 100 list, and only 1 verbal to Stanford, with 4-5 with low to medium interest level. Is it because Stanford is not interested in them because of their low scores? or is it because they don’t want to goto Stanford to play football? I’ll let you think about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why are these five schools’ SAT averages distinctly higher than equally poor football programs?</p>
<p>It’s not hard to see why, Cornell made the NCAA basketball tournament last year, but its players probably have higher SAT than most schools that didn’t. Outside of the elite programs, you’ll get many students who have no shot at becoming professional athletes, so they will matriculate to the better academic schools, where they will also likely to get more playing time. And there’s enough of these athletes around for a school like Rice to be picky about their SAT scores.</p>
<p>Look, they do have higher SATs, but when a 4 or 5 star recruit comes knocking…</p>
<p>keefer,
I don’t think you appreciate how the top private colleges approach their football recruiting. They really are trying to attract good players…who are also good students. And the graduation statistics indicate that they have been doing a pretty good job of this. </p>
<p>Rice is a good example of this with an 89% graduation rate for its football players (as well as 93% for its highly rated baseball and 93% for all of its student-athletes) vs. a university-wide rate of 91%. By comparison, a larger public university like U Michigan has only a 68% graduation rate for its football players vs 88% for all students. Schools like Rice are NOT athletic factories, but places where the students are truly students and are incorporated into the fabric of the school and yet still perform in highly competitive leagues and on a national level.</p>
<p>As for your comments about who Rice (or other top privates) will recruit, consider the following statements from Rice’s football coach found in the following link about the challenges of recruiting and competing at a college that demands academic ability from its recruits:</p>
<p>[Rice</a> Official Athletic Site](<a href=“http://riceowls.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/090808aac.html]Rice”>http://riceowls.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/090808aac.html)</p>
<p>“You can take 75-percent of the recruits in the country and they can’t come to Rice, and they probably can’t go to Vanderbilt. It lets you narrow your focus on the ones that are great fits. I really think that’s a positive and that’s how we approach it here. We’re going to get guys that are great fits academically and athletically. If you do your homework–you’re out there on the field. That’s why recruiting is going so well for us: because of our approach. I’ll bet you that’s what Vanderbilt is doing too–they had seven guys last year from Vanderbilt that were either drafted or went into the NFL. That hasn’t happened by accident….You look at Northwestern, you pull for those guys because there are similarities. Vanderbilt [and] Stanford, you pull for those guys too. You do know some of the battles that they and you go through but there are tough things at every job. I don’t think that’s one of the tough ones here.”</p>
<p>Now, as for the competitiveness of Duke football, let’s be kind and just say that they are a minor campus distraction and lead-in to the main event that plays out over the winter months. 
</p>
<p>And as for Cornell making the NCAA basketball tournament, please remember that they qualified by winning their league and thus receiving an automatic invitation. By contrast, schools like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, did not win their conferences, but all were still invited due to their strong, nationally competitive teams that posted excellent seasons.</p>
<p>again, we come to this private vs. public discussion. </p>
<p>I’m more familiar with basketball and a bigger fan, so let me list a few graduation rates for your top privates:</p>
<p>[Scout.com:</a> The Bootleg’s Graduation Rate Analysis](<a href=“Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting”>Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting)</p>
<p>scroll to the bottom to the basketball vs. all students graduation difference section.</p>
<p>Boston College - 31% vs. 88% for all students
Duke U. - 40% vs. 93% for all students
Georgetown - 42% vs. 93% for all students
USC- 27% vs. 78% for all students
Northwestern- 43% vs. 92% for all students
Notre Dame- 53% vs. 95% for all students</p>
<p>While some of these schools produce NBA players, schools like USC and Northwestern, Notre Dame aren’t well represented in the NBA. And there’s so few players drafted in the NBA(2 rounds, 40-50 college players total per year) that it doesn’t really make a big difference. </p>
<p>Better programs–>Lower graduation rate(and probably lower SATs).</p>
<p>keefer,
I think that there may be some discrepancy in the numbers that you are drawing from and the NCAA reported Graduation Success Rate data which has the following for men’s basketball:</p>
<p>64% Boston College (vs bootleg’s report of 31%)
67% Duke (40%)
82% Georgetown (42%)
29% USC (27%)
89% Northwestern (43%)
91% Notre Dame (53%)</p>
<p>Also, for a few of the other colleges that I frequently mention</p>
<p>67% Stanford
83% Vanderbilt
85% Rice
1005 Wake Forest</p>
<p>and a few of the top publics</p>
<p>33% UC Berkeley
80% U Virginia
40% UCLA
57% U Michigan
86% U North Carolina
92% William & Mary</p>
<p>I don’t see this so much as a private vs public thing, but rather the institutional choices that each college makes. Clearly, the above data shows some privates with (IMO) unacceptably low graduation rates (USC is ridiculous!) while also showing several publics with high and very impressive graduation rates. </p>
<p>My point is only that top privates that I often write about (Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame) have good academic standards for their athletes and certainly much higher than is generally accredited to them here on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Before last year, only Princeton and Penn had been the Ivy League NCAA basketball qualifier in the previous 19 seasons.</p>