21

Good standing

Cal’s football program had a pretty good showing in the Academic Progress Rate report released Tuesday by the NCAA. The Bears ranked in the 80-90th percentile and 50-60th percentile among all sports. Click here to see the NCAA’s official report on Cal.

Jonathan Okanes

Jonathan Okanes is in his fourth year covering Cal's football team. Previously, he covered Cal's men's basketball team for four years. He can also be followed on Twitter at twitter.com/OkanesonCal.

  • toparchitect

    JO:

    Why can’t I leave a response.

  • amythicalprogram

    Good standing
    By Jonathan Okanes
    Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm in off-season stuff.

    Cal’s football program had a pretty good showing in the Academic Progress Rate report released Tuesday by the NCAA. The Bears ranked in the 80-90th percentile and 50-60th percentile among all sports.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    JO – you are a coward. I posted this and you refused to comment but you dare post your propaganda. Please comment on these. I will give you another try.

    FOOTBALL

    Football Graduation Rates: Pac-10
    Stanford 94%
    Washington 66%
    Oregon State 60%
    Oregon 59%
    UCLA 59%
    Washington State 57%
    Arizona State 56%
    USC 55%
    Cal 44%
    Arizona 39%

    And this one…

    Bottom 10 Football Grad Rates: Division I-A
    San Jose State 32%
    Florida Atlantic 33%
    Arizona 39%
    Texas 40%
    Georgia 41%
    Central Florida 42%
    New Mexico 43%
    Cal 44%
    Alabama 44%
    Minnesota 44%
    UTEP 44%

    Your turn JO.

  • Capitaine

    I realize some of you may consider this feeding the troll, but, quite frankly, those numbers are interesting.

    I did my own digging on the NCAA.org website, and here’s what I found (Note, the main website is down, though www2.ncaa.org is still up, so that’s where I’ve obtained my sources)

    Graduation rates are measured by 2 standards: GSR and Fed rate. The former eliminates players who leave school to play professionally, and also takes transfer students into consideration for calculations. There’s some more about the methods at these links:

    http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/gsr/index.html

    http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room/2007/october/20071003_grad_rate_1_rls.html

    The most recent 2007 data was obtained from studying student athletes that started school between 1997 and 2000, and were given 6 years to graduate. Therefore, the study is on those who were to graduate from 2003 to 2006.

    I’ll continue in the next comment.

  • Capitaine

    Now here’s the link to the results of the study:
    http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/gsr/2007/d1_school_gsr_data.html

    If we look at Cal’s numbers only, it would appear that Amy posted the Fed rate numbers; Cal’s GSR number is 52%. However, looking at UCLA’s numbers, they are 56% (GSR) and 51% (Fed). These numbers don’t match Amy’s at all. So, let’s do a comparison using the GSR only, as this rating system was developed by the NCAA specifically for examining graduation rates and takes into account certain important exceptions.

    Stanford 93%
    USC 57%
    Washington 64%
    Oregon State 62%
    Washington State 58%
    UCLA 56%
    Oregon 55%
    Arizona State 55%
    Cal 52%
    Arizona 41%

    While Cal is still second to last, it’s numbers don’t seem as bad anymore, especially when we aren’t provided with the number of football players per team.

    Let’s look at the GSR’s of Amy’s bottom 10, for comparison:

    San Jose State 36%
    Florida Atlantic 53%
    Arizona 41%
    Texas 42%
    Georgia 41%
    Central Florida 46%
    New Mexico 51%
    Cal 52%
    Alabama 49%
    Minnesota 49%
    UTEP 49%

    Some more outside of Amy’s bottom 10:
    Hawaii (Manoa) 45%
    Tenessee (Knoxville) 52% (38% Fed rate!)
    Louisiana State 51%
    Ohio State 53%
    Michigan State 43%
    Michigan 73%
    Brigham Young 53%
    Oklahoma 44%

  • Capitaine

    So, from these GSR numbers, Cal doesn’t look as bad as it initially does. In fact, with 10 schools having GSR’s worse than Cal, Cal isn’t in the bottom 10 anymore. I haven’t looked at all the schools, so there may be even more. Unfortunately, what makes Cal’s GSR look bad is the fact tha Cal is the top rated public university in the nation. This stings my pride a little. It is comforting that the Baby Bears, another top public institution, are only doing slightly better.

    Ah, aha, it seems that I’ve found why Amy’s numbers are off; they’re from last year.
    http://www.fanblogs.com/texas/006616.php

    Those numbers deal with players graduating from 2002 to 2005. In otherwords, it’s the 2006 NCAA study. Here’s the link to those documents:

    http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/grad_rate/2006/d1_school_grad_rate_data.html

    Looking at those numbers, we see that Cal has improved by 8% points For comparison, UCLA has dropped 3% points, USC has improved 2% points, and the Vols have dropped 6%. So, you know what, as long as we continue to see increases like that exhibited between 2006 and 2007, I’ll be a happy camper.

  • BluenGold

    You can download the APR reports for all Division 1 schools from the NCAA website. I got the reports for both Cal and $C. If you do a side-by-side comparison, you see that Cal outranks the spoiled children in football as well as most other men’s sports. So either Amy is not being truthful, is delusional, or, as is most likely, simply does not know what the h*ll she is talking about.

  • Paulonosul

    So what will the mouth in Palo Alto have to say now?

  • amythicalprogram

    BluenGold Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 9:30 am
    You can download the APR reports for all Division 1 schools from the NCAA website. I got the reports for both Cal and $C. If you do a side-by-side comparison, you see that Cal outranks the spoiled children in football as well as most other men’s sports. So either Amy is not being truthful, is delusional, or, as is most likely, simply does not know what the h*ll she is talking about.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    These are lies!!!! Who cares about the APR. The OP was about GRs. The APR is used as the basis for penalties, but it’s not true that the NCAA has “ditched grad rates.” The NCAA requires coaches to give graduation rate reports to all recruits and their parents at the earliest opportunity after the first meeting with the recruit. Evidently, the NCAA believes graduation rates have value in evaluating an athletic program.

  • amythicalprogram

    Capitaine Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
    Unfortunately, what makes Cal’s GSR look bad is the fact tha Cal is the top rated public university in the nation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There is the problem. You claim to be the #1 public university in the country and yet your GSR is deplorable. Then you turn around and say “but we are still better than others.” However the others you cite – schools like Hawaii, LSU, OU never claim to be the #1 public U. The fundamental question is “How do your football players stay eligible to play when only 52% of them graduate?” and “What’s wrong with either the football program or the university that graduates only 52% of their STUDENT ATHLETES?” Could there be a double standard in play?

  • amythicalprogram

    JO – will you be responding to this article by your own colleague at the CCTimes?

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/danielborenstein/ci_9200766?nclick_check=1

  • ReggieBushFan

    I normally don’t advocate troll-feeding, but post 9 tried to make a legitimate point. I’m all for advocating that kind of discussion.

    First of all-A University with a double standard for athletes and regular students!? My world is crumbling. Fact: If you’re good enough, you only need an 1100 SAT (old scale) to play WOMEN’S HOCKEY in the Ivy League, as per a head coach at a recruiting camp who shall remain nameless. As romantic as the notion of a “scholar-athlete” is, lets stop pretending like it happens anywhere with regularity. Graduation does not at all entail hard work in the classroom. Athletes failing to graduate is a reason for players not to come to Cal. It’s not a reason that Cal is not an elite university. I know for a fact that one of our traveling players was taking Organic Chemistry during football season. You have scholar-athletes everywhere, and you have athletes taking mickey mouse courses everywhere. Get over it.

    Next: Cal is the #1 public university in the world because of its faculty and the research coming out of it. Cal is a research institution first, and an educational institution second. I don’t think anyone believes Cal is the #1 University for undergraduates. So our claim to excellence isn’t really predicated on the caliber and success of our undergrads (although there is a correlation between the two), let alone of a small subset of our undergrads.

    Glad I could clear up the confusion.

  • amythicalprogram

    ReggieBushFan Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    Next: Cal is the #1 public university in the world because of its faculty and the research coming out of it. Cal is a research institution first, and an educational institution second. I don’t think anyone believes Cal is the #1 University for undergraduates.

    Glad I could clear up the confusion.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Glad you could clear up the confusion too. Now can you go over to the Scout board (Bearinsider) and post the same thing but don’t be surprised if you get BANNED.

  • ReggieBushFan

    You’re not getting banned for your interesting and somewhat challenging content-based posts. You’re getting banned for being ridiculous the rest of the time.

  • Capitaine

    amythicalprogram Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
    “What’s wrong with either the football program or the university that graduates only 52% of their STUDENT ATHLETES?” Could there be a double standard in play?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    To be fair, the GSR of all the student athletes who were to graduate from Cal in 2003-2007 was 75%. UCLA had 73%, Stanford 94%, USC 68%. UCLA is the #2 public school in the nation, so I wouldn’t say this problem is restricted to Cal. Furthermore, the 8% point increase in football athlete graduation rates from the previous batch indicates that the situation is improving.

    Lastly, Cal’s ranking as #1 public university is based on numerous factors that US News uses to generate their ranked list. While the research oriented environment is challenging for undergraduates, I wouldn’t necessarily say this is a bad thing. Given that a student is motivated, that student can succeed. It certainly isn’t the case that the teaching is inferior to other institutions. Furthermore, students pursuing research oriented careers would HAVE to find it the #1 public institution for undergraduates, especially when one takes into account the numerous opportunties students at Cal have to participate in research laboratories. The most debatable bit is whether or not this would be beneficial to student athletes. #1 public university for student athletes? Probably not.

  • amythicalprogram

    ReggieBushFan Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
    You’re getting banned for being ridiculous the rest of the time.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Lies!!!! I have not posted once since 2004 on that site. It is a waste of time. Not only do I not want to but I also don’t need to since your fans have started up a new hobby business following me around the internet. I dare you post some of this material on that site and watch as you will be banned.

  • BluenGold

    These are lies!!!! Who cares about the APR. The OP was about GRs. The APR is used as the basis for penalties, but it’s not true that the NCAA has “ditched grad rates.” The NCAA requires coaches to give graduation rate reports to all recruits and their parents at the earliest opportunity after the first meeting with the recruit. Evidently, the NCAA believes graduation rates have value in evaluating an athletic program.
    *******************************************************
    Of course you claim not to care about the APR! Because the stats contradict all the garbage you keep oosting! But the NCAA cares and that is what counts. The opinions of a brain dead troll with no life matter not a whit!

  • Big D

    I guess after O.J. Mayo’s mess, U$C’s grad rate just plummeted, not to mention probation for MBB and hopefully they will finally address the Reggie Bush cheating too. I guess this gives a new meaning to, “pay to play”…

  • BluenGold

    U$C = University of $ports Corruption

  • amythicalprogram

    BluenGold Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    U$C = University of $ports Corruption

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Is that what you learn at the #1 public university in the country?

  • BluenGold

    # amythicalprogram Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    BluenGold Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    U$C = University of $ports Corruption

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Is that what you learn at the #1 public university in the country?
    ********************************************************
    Its what I learn from all the bad press sleazy U$C has been getting lately.

  • amythicalprogram

    BluenGold Says:
    May 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
    Of course you claim not to care about the APR! Because the stats contradict all the garbage you keep oosting! But the NCAA cares and that is what counts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    King Kaufman of Salon.com has a great column today about the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate, detailing why the whole thing just doesn’t add up at all.

    APR, for those lucky enough not to know all the gory details, is the NCAA’s way of judging schools’ ability to keep their athletes in school and make sure they graduate. Schools that fail to keep enough athletes in school, and schools with low graduation rates, can be punished by losing scholarships.

    So what’s wrong with that? The key point is this, from Kaufman’s column: “Schools have always pushed their athletes into taking easy classes and avoiding challenging majors. The APR creates more incentive to push more of them that way. More kids graduating doesn’t necessarily mean more kids are getting more education.”