Football Factories
 

Sports fans, can you tell me what your definition of a "Football Factory" college is? Trying to have a conversation with Mr. KR and his buddies and I feel like I don't speak their language.

Take a look at programs like Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc.

There are lots of others, those are just the ones I've been closest to.

Florida State University produces more than our fair share of NFL players, and probably more than of the above programs over the last 15 years.

Schools that are among the above mentioned or that have really good football teams and don't have the most stellar graduation rates for athletes.

The University of Miami-Fla. also comes to mind.

Kitso
KS 361

Solid definition - University of Miami also comes to mind for me, as well as Florida State and Ohio State.

Funny you should mention the graduation rate. Just after I posted above, I took a look at the NCAA webpage on graduation rates. You're right, the Florida schools mentioned aren't too good.

Surpirsingly (at least to me), Ohio State is not that bad. As I recall, in the 70% area.

For many years, Ohio University, my Alma Mater had the highest graduation rate in Division One. Of course we couldn't be called a football factory. Doormat came to mind on occassion.

DeltAlum, could you please try to translate this for me if you have a minute?

http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2003/d1/RPT00545.html

I can't figure the damn thing out!

KR,

Wish I could. There's tons of information which I'm sure the NCAA requires -- useful to some, the opposite to most.

I just took a look at the overall averages for several which were at the top:

In the case you linked to:

FRESHMAN-COHORT GRADUATION RATES All Students Student-Athletes #
1996-97 Graduation Rate 63% 63%
Four-Class Average 62% 60%


So, basically at this school, the average student athlete graduation rate is about the same as the overall student body rate.

In a lot of the "football factories" you mention, that rate is fairly dramatically lower.

ETA the info above doesn't format the same on viewing as on input, but bottom line as I read it is that during the 96-97 school year (the class starting in 93-94), the percentage of graduates (I assume from Freshman thru Senior years) were equal between athletes and non-athletes. In an average over four years (as opposed to the four year "class" the athletes don't do quite as well -- although that's a damned confusing explaination) At least that's the way I read it which could be wrong.

The 96-97 graduation rates are the % of those that enrolled in fall 96 and graduated by 2003 (6 years).
The Four Class rate is the average of the graduation % of the classes that enrolled in fall 93,94,95,96 and graduated by 2000,2001,2002,2003 respectively.
Bascially the freshman enrollment at the bottom is unneeded, it has no effect on any of those numbers.

This works fine for those that aren't student athletes. When it comes to student athletes there are too many variables that effect that rate, which to me makes graduation rates unreliable as far as judging the ability of athletes to graduate.

On the subject of football factories - I judge that as the universities that acquire the most football talent from high schools, compete on a high national level and place a lot of players in the NFL(FSU, Miami, Texas).

Thank you. That's what I think I was trying to say -- but didn't remember the six years -- as oppossed to the four we "normally" think of as a college career. Not that very many make it in four these days.

Those graduation rates don't factor in athletes who turn pro early (as opposed to failing out.)

Is that true? I thought they did, but am not sure.

Those guys count against your grad rate. So do transfers.

I thought they counted -- one of the points being that some college athletes take their scholarships, major in something silly, play a few years and then go pro without graduating.

Seems to me it would favorably taint the numbers if they aren't included.

It depends. If I were an AD or a coach recruiting, I'd keep two sets of numbers -- one showing the early exits to the NFL, one showing what the NCAA said our grad rate was.

For places like Oklahoma, Miami or USC, the difference in the #'s would be significant.

You're assuming that all students who go pro early would not have graduated anyway had they been 'forced' to stay in school - while this is not really an unfamiliar assumption, it's really not fair at all, and reinforces negative (albeit somewhat prevalent) stereotypes about these athletes . . . not all of them are Andy Katzenmoyer. It's really not fair to assume this.

Football isn't the only one where grad rates are skewed by early entrants, basketball is also. Especially when considering the 5/8 rule before it changed. If you can only take 5 in a year and 3 turn pro early(40% if the other 2 graduate), they probably won't graduate till several years later, probably after their pro career is over or close to it.

That's the case for several Univ. of Arkansas players who are just now graduating 7-10 yrs. after they went pro and their careers haven't panned out.

That's why I can't stand these rates for athletics. Guys transferring out count against it, those transferring in don't count. Someone who is good enough to jump early counts against it. Someone who is a bad apple and gets kicked out of school rightfully, counts against it. Most factors a coach can't account for when recruiting except for the character issues of some (Willie Williams, Randy Moss, etc.).

Well said. This is why I really get worried for major programs when the NCAA starts talking sanctions for programs that don't meet certain graduation level criteria.

Especially your big programs that have lots of transfers in and out.