Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

ISU's FB Graduation Rate

Clones33

Clones33

Member
Jan 15, 2009
562
16
18
40
Ankeny, IA
I was reading TMQ on espn.com (direct link to the article: Stanford and TCU prove that academics and athletics can coexist, so why aren't more schools held to that standard? - ESPN ) and thought to check out this website: NCAA Education and Research Data - APR, GSR, Federal Graduation Rates, ASR

If you search for the BigXII in 09/10 and for football you'll see this order:

Mizzou - 71% Graduation Rate
K-State - 69%
Texas Tech - 69%
Nebraska - 68%
Baylor - 64%
Iowa State - 64%
Colorado - 59%
Oklahoma State - 59%
Texas A&M - 57%
Kansas - 56%
Texas - 49%
Oklahoma - 44%

While it's not surprising to see Texas and Oklahoma on the bottom of that list, I was surprised to see ISU near the middle. Then I did some more digging and saw that the all student average graduation rate is 63% and the student-athlete graduation rate average is 64%.

Since we all like to complain about people like Auburn and the NCAA being in it "just for the money" shouldn't we strive to be better than just average when it comes to graduating our own student athletes?
 
I think part of the issue with the graduation rate is that any transfers hurt you, even if they eventually graduate. They have to graduate from your school.

With the recent transitions in teh FB program, there have been a decent number of transfers.

Also, Juniors leaving early for the draft have hurt OU and UT a bit too.
 
Transfers happen at every school. I think we at Iowa State lean on that and act like it is our excuse for everything. We wouldn't have "the greatest scout team since sliced bread" if other schools didn't have transfers as well. Comparing these statistics to the general graduation rate and the student-athlete graduation rate of the other schools is a fair comparison, with or without transfers.
 
Clones33 said:
I was reading TMQ on espn.com (direct link to the article: Stanford and TCU prove that academics and athletics can coexist, so why aren't more schools held to that standard? - ESPN ) and thought to check out this website: NCAA Education and Research Data - APR, GSR, Federal Graduation Rates, ASR

If you search for the BigXII in 09/10 and for football you'll see this order:

Mizzou - 71% Graduation Rate
K-State - 69%
Texas Tech - 69%
Nebraska - 68%
Baylor - 64%
Iowa State - 64%
Colorado - 59%
Oklahoma State - 59%
Texas A&M - 57%
Kansas - 56%
Texas - 49%
Oklahoma - 44%

While it's not surprising to see Texas and Oklahoma on the bottom of that list, I was surprised to see ISU near the middle. Then I did some more digging and saw that the all student average graduation rate is 63% and the student-athlete graduation rate average is 64%.

Since we all like to complain about people like Auburn and the NCAA being in it "just for the money" shouldn't we strive to be better than just average when it comes to graduating our own student athletes?
Click to expand...

Go back and read what you wrote. You are asking why we shouldn't have a graduation rate for student athletes that is better than the rate for our overall student body right after you say that student athletes graduate at 64% and the general student bodygraduates at 63%.:confused:
 
abcguyks said:
Go back and read what you wrote. You are asking why we shouldn't have a graduation rate for student athletes that is better than the rate for our overall student body right after you say that student athletes graduate at 64% and the general student bodygraduates at 63%.:confused:
Click to expand...

I know it can be a bit confusing, but No, I am saying that I would like Iowa State to be better than average at graduating our student athletes.

I included the general student #'s for comparison sake and because I thought they were interesting as well.
 
Clones33 said:
I'm not suggesting that anyone strives to finish at 64%. But there must be some measures that some programs opt to take where they are consistently above average.
Click to expand...

Some schools might take a few less "chances" on kids with poor academic standing, but a lot of it is beyond the schools control. If ISU refuses to recruit any kid who is a qualifying risk or barely qualified, they will be missing out on a lot of talented recruits. Right now the risky kids are some of the ones that might be able to help ISU succeed at football.

If ISU was on the bottom of the conference list, that would be a problem.
It would be nice to be in the upper portion of the Big12 and I think, with some consistency in the program, we can do that. You will always have attrition that will hurt the percentages though.

In the end, too much is riding on having success in football. The entire budget of the athletic department hinges on football revenues.
The future of every female scholarship athlete is dependent on football success. We can't afford to take the moral high ground and not take any academic risks.
 
Clones33 said:
I'm not suggesting that anyone strives to finish at 64%. But there must be some measures that some programs opt to take where they are consistently above average.
Click to expand...


I agree, and student-athlete graduation rates should be higher than that of the general student population. Coaches get to hand-pick recruits, as opposed to the university having to accept whoever qualifies above the bottom standard, regardless of those students' motivation levels or personal issues that might affect their acadmic progress. In addition, student-athletes have a ton of resources available to them that the average student does not.
Will Iowa State ever have the graduation numbers of Northwestern (100%), Boston College, Penn State, etc.? No. But we should strive for that.
 
cyhiphopp said:
Some schools might take a few less "chances" on kids with poor academic standing, but a lot of it is beyond the schools control. If ISU refuses to recruit any kid who is a qualifying risk or barely qualified, they will be missing out on a lot of talented recruits. Right now the risky kids are some of the ones that might be able to help ISU succeed at football.

If ISU was on the bottom of the conference list, that would be a problem.
It would be nice to be in the upper portion of the Big12 and I think, with some consistency in the program, we can do that. You will always have attrition that will hurt the percentages though.

In the end, too much is riding on having success in football. The entire budget of the athletic department hinges on football revenues.
The future of every female scholarship athlete is dependent on football success. We can't afford to take the moral high ground and not take any academic risks.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't want to post it here because it will be too easy for a troll from a certain school to the East to take and rub in our faces, but schools can succeed and recruit a certain type of player that is more likely to graduate.

To me, and trust me I am not trying to point a finger at you or call names, your line of thinking is the lazy way out and just provides an easy excuse for people.
 
Clones33 said:
I disagree. I don't want to post it here because it will be too easy for a troll from a certain school to the East to take and rub in our faces, but schools can succeed and recruit a certain type of player that is more likely to graduate.

To me, and trust me I am not trying to point a finger at you or call names, your line of thinking is the lazy way out and just provides an easy excuse for people.
Click to expand...

Do you think ISU can improve in football without taking academic risks?

Schools can succeed by recruiting a certain type of player that is more likely to graduate, but they are rare. I don't think ISU is good enough at football to not take a kid because he may or may not be motivated enough to graduate. In the end, the livelihood of the athletic department does not hinge on the percentage of football players who graduate. It depends on how many games they win.
The football program is going to continue to do everything it can so that players who want to graduate, can, but you can't force the players to make the effort beyond staying eligible.
 
While we should strive to be near the top of the conference, the difference between a 64% graduation rate and a 69% graduation rate is around 1 student per football class. Assuming a graduating class has around 25 student athletes in it. Based off of %s the conference average is 55.9%. That would mean that ISU is closer to the top of the conference than the average conference graduation rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyhiphopp
cyhiphopp said:
Do you think ISU can improve in football without taking academic risks?

Schools can succeed by recruiting a certain type of player that is more likely to graduate, but they are rare. I don't think ISU is good enough at football to not take a kid because he may or may not be motivated enough to graduate. In the end, the livelihood of the athletic department does not hinge on the percentage of football players who graduate. It depends on how many games they win.
The football program is going to continue to do everything it can so that players who want to graduate, can, but you can't force the players to make the effort beyond staying eligible.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and it is a great argument. However, you bring in the can ISU succeed in FB without taking academic risks question when I think you first must ask can ISU succeed in FB.

If ISU were to succeed in FB would you prefer we went the troubled JC route a la K-State and old man Snyder? Or how about the route of Miami in the early 90's when they were known as "convicts"? Or would you prefer that we run a clean program with an emphasis on recruiting kids who are interested in school AND football like Mizzou, TCU, Wisconsin, Stanford, Virginia Tech, etc. and succeed that way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom