<p>That I don’t know. But if every Div. I school did as well with economically poor/minority students who are not football players as they do with football players, it would be great.</p>
<p>Of course, the main reason for this is the football players, because of scholarships, are less likely to face financial stresses, the #1 reason students from poor families drop out.</p>
<p>That was a lovely story about the President of Holy Cross and John Thompson, but apart from implicit name-calling it didn’t actually include any response to Thompson’s claim that his players were better off for the experience in a meaningful, respectable way.</p>
<p>I wonder how many of the people here decrying the current system for big-time college revenue sports consider themselves conservative Republicans? Where is your faith in market solutions? The current system does not exist, much less thrive, because a bunch of middle-class drama and kinesiology students are being forced to subsidize luxury training facilities for 6’-9" fake students. The system exists and thrives because it generates positive returns, in many different forms, to the vast array of institutions that participate in it one way or another. (And when it doesn’t generate returns over time, the institutions drop out – that happens all the time.) </p>
<p>It would take some massive governmental or quasi-governmental regulation to change the things we are talking about. And as much as I don’t, personally, give much of a crap about big-time college athletics, and despite being a government-loving liberal Democrat (mostly, sort of), I have no confidence at all that such massive regulation would produce a better world than we have now.</p>
<p>Hunt-- the record is better with football players than basketball players. Partially because none of the NFL teams really draft football players before they are seniors, anyway. It is actually higher than 50% with football players, and I believe, with the exception of one team with a bowl bid this year, the football players are graduating at or above 60%, which is higher than the general population for public or privates, including those who are NOT economically disadvantaged. Basketball, since it has the one year out of high school before you can get drafted rule in the NBA, sees a lot of the top players leave to play professionally (most really), before they graduate. But, it makes no sense, given the risk of injury, for them to continue to play college ball. It’s actually irresponsible to ask them to do so, frankly.</p>
<p>I know at many schools, however, UNC-CH in particular, the ones who leave early, see: M Jordan and crew, come back in the summers ever after they have gone pro and finish up their degree. It is very, very common in chapel hill, btw. (But they have a high grad rate for their athletes, anyway)</p>
<p>A bigger question, relevant to a larger part of the population, might be why it is okay with us that our state universities are graduating the general population after 5 years at 39%-ish. I’m not talking athletes.</p>
<p>I think that you also have to look at the other side of the equation–the ball teams. </p>
<p>Pro football teams seem to put a premium on college students who are a little older and more physically mature. You rarely hear of a “one and done” freshman jumping to the NFL. (Is there a rule in the NFL that they can’t draft anyone younger than a certain age?) By foregoing only their senior year, many football players have had 4 years of college under their belts (many redshirt for one year). And the money offered isn’t as good as other sports offer to the rank and file…</p>
<p>Pro basketball will draft anyone, including kids just graduated from high school (think LeBron and Kobe). And the money offered is very good.</p>
<p>So yes, I think the colleges have more time with football players than with basketball players to progress them towards a degree.</p>
<p>[Hunt beat me to it…]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I believe there is. I think they have to wait until after their 3rd year. In baseball, there is. You are not “draft eligible” in baseball once you arrive on the campus of a 4-year university until after your junior year. That’s why you’ll see many of the “stud” baseball players who sign right out of high school or going to a junior college instead of a 4-year school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe LeBron might have been the last one drafted out of high school. Now the NBA requires at least one year out of high school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty of programs out there for those students. There is all kinds of tutoring, etc available to all students. The difference is that the coaches mandate their athletes attend. Regular students don’t have those mandates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m guessing part of it has to do with the schedule. Basketball definitely goes into the both semesters whereas football normally is just in the fall semester. Yes, the football teams have weights and such in the spring, but they don’t have the travel schedule that exists in basketball…</p>
<p>The reason the students aren’t doing well isn’t lack of tutoring. It is lack of money.</p>
<p>I’m confused by your argument Mini; which students?</p>
<p>And I realize that while sport scholarship students have most, if not all, of their school-related expenses paid for them, often they have little money for pleasure or incidental expenses, which is why some of them have no compunction about selling “will call” tickets and team paraphenalia.</p>
<p>The single most common reason for ALL students to leave school early is lack of income/emergency needs at home. Needless to say, that is more common among low-income/minority students. And yes, scholarship students often have no extra money, and do stupid things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there really are not many scholarship athletes who get all of their school-related expenses paid for. Your FBS football players do and a variety of your female athletes do. But many of your male sports are “pay to play.” They may get some scholarship money, but not like what people think. For example, Division I baseball a team is allocated 11.7 scholarships for a 35-player roster…</p>
<p>
Then why, exactly, do the athletes do better? Do they get more money to solve these problems? Or is it that they function in a more disciplined environment? I’m certainly willing to believe this is true–I would suspect that the same thing is true for high school graduation–and there I think it’s not about money, but about motivation to maintain eligibility, and the influence of the coaches.</p>
<p>D1 athletes have access to tutors, early registration, and during their season, a lighter class load. They have to stay rested, and have good nutrition in order to perform and they get a lot of oxygen. There is a mind-body connection, for whatever that is worth. But, above all, I just think it’s the structure and the fact that there are people interested in how they are doing and in what they are doing. KInd of like when parents come on here and complain about not being able to get any information? But, coaches can and do get regular academic updates, and so there are adults who are aware and pushing them to hand things in, get things done, talk to professors. All the things that would doom one to the dreaded helicopter status is just in the day’s work of a coach.</p>
<p>Money, I suppose, is also an issue. Though very few athletes have full scholarships.</p>
<p>Oh, and while I’m tempted to say that having people like this in place for other students would “help,” I think the reason the coach is effective in this helicopter parent role is because he/she holds the key to the all-important playing time, which, finally, really, really matters to a D1 athlete.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No lighter than 12 credit hours. That is the minimum to be a DI athlete unless it is their final semester. There were a lot of students who only took 12 credit hours…</p>
<p>Yes, 12 credit hours.</p>
<p>Also, and this just occured to me, the athletes, in general spend less time away from school. They are on campus for much more of the year, keeping their head in the game, pun intended. Might help keep them focused. Though, no evidence.</p>
<p>“Then why, exactly, do the athletes do better? Do they get more money to solve these problems?”</p>
<p>They have more money (scholarships) that allow them to stay in school, and more mentoring on financial issues that enables them to do so, and, in some cases, more ability to access “emergency scholarship pools” when problems arise. </p>
<p>(No denying they have coaches, and etc. What I stated was that the most common reason for ALL students to leave school was financial/emergency situations at home.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true. And, I would argue, it is also true that it is very rare for an athlete, in this day and age, to have been recruited without a significant involvement of time and energy by the parents, in terms of getting them places, etc… So that it is much less likely for a student like this to feel any extra pressure from home in terms of coming home under those circumstances, too.</p>
<p>There is a common belief that student-athletes have full 4 year scholarships. They are in fact one year renewables, and many players lose them every year. </p>
<p>The athletes I have personally known to leave an institution were due to same reasons most students leave…too immature, homesick, lost merit $$ due to gpa, or in an athletes case, poor performance or level of commitment, some just cant handle the demands, and are sent packing.</p>
<p>Unlike basketball, most football players, don’t start college with the belief that they are NFL caliber players, they just arent physically ready…most just hope to be productive college players. With approx 100 players and only 22 positions, majority only wish to play in a college game.</p>