was trying to find out graduation rates for football and basketball players last year.only site i found had bc number i and duke 6th for the best.the worst in the whole country had texas at coming in at 19% for all players.they did beat out pitt at 16%.might as well be in a semi pro league if they don't go to class and graduate.
scott what about usc
- Thread starter lowell
- Start date
Good question and I wish I had the answers. I knew the answer during bowl season and I forgot it. They were talking about it on TV. Northwestern was the #1 bowl team with graduation rates, and USC was right up there. I "think" USC was in the 65% range, LSU was 45% range, and OU was 30% range. I do know for fact USC was ahead of both LSU and OU because they compared the 3 schools. Plus it is a joke to compare OU and LSU academically to USC.
This brings up another great point. USC academically is so far superior than the other schools competing for National Championships. That just makes the success of USC even more impressive. OU for example can take more kids with bad grades than USC. USC has to reject many talented athletes because of grades and studying at USC is very hard academically.
Look at the top 4 academic programs for the Pac 10. They also rank tops in the COUNTRY AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!! (not sayin 1-4 in country)
Stanford
USC (average frosh SAT score above 1400 and 3.8 GPA)
CAL
UCLA
All 4 schools are elite academic schools in the country, and all 4 are elite in competing in sports. Simply amazing and should be recognized. They are truly elite student athletes.
From the top of my head, these other non pac 10 schools are very academic too and compete well in sports. All these schools have disadvantage in recruiting although for the smart high school athletes they can sell the importance of their degree.
ND
Michigan
Northwestern
Duke
BC
Vanderbilt
There are a lot in basketball, but there are not many who compete well in football and in the classroom.
This brings up another great point. USC academically is so far superior than the other schools competing for National Championships. That just makes the success of USC even more impressive. OU for example can take more kids with bad grades than USC. USC has to reject many talented athletes because of grades and studying at USC is very hard academically.
Look at the top 4 academic programs for the Pac 10. They also rank tops in the COUNTRY AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!! (not sayin 1-4 in country)
Stanford
USC (average frosh SAT score above 1400 and 3.8 GPA)
CAL
UCLA
All 4 schools are elite academic schools in the country, and all 4 are elite in competing in sports. Simply amazing and should be recognized. They are truly elite student athletes.
From the top of my head, these other non pac 10 schools are very academic too and compete well in sports. All these schools have disadvantage in recruiting although for the smart high school athletes they can sell the importance of their degree.
ND
Michigan
Northwestern
Duke
BC
Vanderbilt
There are a lot in basketball, but there are not many who compete well in football and in the classroom.
Last edited:
If Scott were forced to rank schools graduating rates, I'm sure USC would be #1 on his list.
That's all you need to know. :SIB
That's all you need to know. :SIB
Felonious Monk
Not sure if you could get into any of these fine academic Universities with that last comment. You have a poor reading comprehension because I said Northwestern was the #1 bowl team with graduation rates and I said USC was higher than both LSU and OU. That is a fact.
Not sure if you could get into any of these fine academic Universities with that last comment. You have a poor reading comprehension because I said Northwestern was the #1 bowl team with graduation rates and I said USC was higher than both LSU and OU. That is a fact.
Those graduation rates are about three - four years behind, The ones for 2004 won't come out for another three or four years. The ratings that Scott is claiming are from the period when USC fans and their alumni thought that there was no way that USC could ever be a national power again and keep it's academic prestige and only recruited kids that were as qualified as any other USC applicant.
The kids that are at USC now won't come close to that graduation rate because they recruit kids now that Stanford and Cal wouldn't. But they got a new year's bowl win, so everyone should be happy, except the professors.
When you get a chance, Scott, please point out the 5-star recruits that SC got that scored 1400 on the SAT.
The kids that are at USC now won't come close to that graduation rate because they recruit kids now that Stanford and Cal wouldn't. But they got a new year's bowl win, so everyone should be happy, except the professors.
When you get a chance, Scott, please point out the 5-star recruits that SC got that scored 1400 on the SAT.
BobbyBlueChip
I never said the USC football recruits have the average 1400 SAT score and 3.8 GPA. I said the average incoming freshman at USC has that. USC has passed UCLA and CAL but not Stanford for incoming freshman.
I do know that USC has a higher limit for entrance for incoming athletes than the NCAA min. USC along with other top notch academic universities set their own standards for incoming athletes. In addition, USC does not accept partial qualifiers.
Stanford, UCLA, and lets say ND for example, min. requirements are "slightly" higher than USC min. requirements. And USC min. requirments are higher than the NCAA min. requirements. Academically, USC is "almost" on par with Stanford. USC president SAMPLE is trying to put USC on caliber with Stanford academically. I must say, he is doing a very good job and do not be suprised to see it happen within the next 5-10 years. However, the downside is it hurts USC athletically because USC cannot recruit everybody that lets say OU can.
That statement is 100% false. No way USC could field a football team if they recruited athletes who were as qualified as any other applicant. How many high school football players (who are good) have a 3.8GPA and 1400 SAT score? Remember, USC year in and year out always had a top 10, top 15 recruiting classes every year prior to Carroll. USC always had talent, but no coaching.
That statement is 100% false too. CAL takes partial qualifiers and makes exception on athletes who do not make their min. set requirements. USC does not. Stanford's min. requirements are just "slightly" higher than USC, and that hardly makes a difference with recruits who both schools go after.
Remember, we are not talking about many recruits, just a few every given year per school. Plus these higher academic schools do not target athletes they know will not get in while teams like OU will. But the disadvantage comes when a super talented athlete wants to go to say Stanford, but cannot get in, so he goes to say OU, a school that does not care as long as he meets NCAA MIN. REQUIREMENTS.
I never said the USC football recruits have the average 1400 SAT score and 3.8 GPA. I said the average incoming freshman at USC has that. USC has passed UCLA and CAL but not Stanford for incoming freshman.
I do know that USC has a higher limit for entrance for incoming athletes than the NCAA min. USC along with other top notch academic universities set their own standards for incoming athletes. In addition, USC does not accept partial qualifiers.
Stanford, UCLA, and lets say ND for example, min. requirements are "slightly" higher than USC min. requirements. And USC min. requirments are higher than the NCAA min. requirements. Academically, USC is "almost" on par with Stanford. USC president SAMPLE is trying to put USC on caliber with Stanford academically. I must say, he is doing a very good job and do not be suprised to see it happen within the next 5-10 years. However, the downside is it hurts USC athletically because USC cannot recruit everybody that lets say OU can.
That statement is 100% false. No way USC could field a football team if they recruited athletes who were as qualified as any other applicant. How many high school football players (who are good) have a 3.8GPA and 1400 SAT score? Remember, USC year in and year out always had a top 10, top 15 recruiting classes every year prior to Carroll. USC always had talent, but no coaching.
That statement is 100% false too. CAL takes partial qualifiers and makes exception on athletes who do not make their min. set requirements. USC does not. Stanford's min. requirements are just "slightly" higher than USC, and that hardly makes a difference with recruits who both schools go after.
Remember, we are not talking about many recruits, just a few every given year per school. Plus these higher academic schools do not target athletes they know will not get in while teams like OU will. But the disadvantage comes when a super talented athlete wants to go to say Stanford, but cannot get in, so he goes to say OU, a school that does not care as long as he meets NCAA MIN. REQUIREMENTS.
BobbyBlueChip said:
They are out - I only know because I graduated from Bucknell last year, and we had 100% graduation rate for student-athletes, ranking first in the nation. USA Today gave the school a lot of coverage - and they made a huge deal about it at graduation. My coach had a detailed breakdown of the %'s, in categories by school, sport and sex. It was interesting, I wish I had a copy to share.
I've been looking online for it but my search has produced nothing. I'll post anything I find.
On a side note, I do remember the Cincinnatti basketball team was in the single digits over the past decade, I didn't see how that can could be right, but I guess a lot of players used up their 4 years and just never get the degree.
They certainly may be out if all the kids graduated in 4 years. But the stats that were quoted in bowl season were for for athletes that started from '94 to '97 as graduation rates are calculated after 6 years have passed.
Scott,
I know you weren't talking about the athletes that had a 1400 SAT score, but then why was that stat brought up in a thread about student athletes. Almost no athletes will take advantage of the school's strong programs, so it doesn't even matter where USC ranks compared to OU, LSU or any other program that plays for national championships.
Is there a recruit in the last two years that Slimy Pete didn't look at because of grades? His reputation tells me that he takes a shot at the kids regardless of grades or character.
Scott,
I know you weren't talking about the athletes that had a 1400 SAT score, but then why was that stat brought up in a thread about student athletes. Almost no athletes will take advantage of the school's strong programs, so it doesn't even matter where USC ranks compared to OU, LSU or any other program that plays for national championships.
Is there a recruit in the last two years that Slimy Pete didn't look at because of grades? His reputation tells me that he takes a shot at the kids regardless of grades or character.
Bobby - to be honest it might not have been released to the public yet the more I think about it. I know that the school got a ton of $$$ for it in grants and stuff, so maybe they had the numbers before it was released.
BobbyBlueChip
You could not be more wrong again. What is it you have against USC? For starters, USC has many athletes who take advantage of the schools strong programs. I agree, many prob. major in communication or sociology (easy majors), but just a degree from USC is better than a degree from majority of colleges in the nation. SO IT DOES MATTER. I do know of at least 5 athletes that are in the Marshall School of Business (where I am in) which is ranked top 10 in the nation.
Why you call Carroll slimy???? You could not be more wrong and I can give you an example of a recruit THIS YEAR!!
Randy Estes, #1 Safety in the country, 5-star recruit, wanted to come to USC, well he got arrested at Burger King for drugs, immediately USC withdrew their offer. He signed with Washington St.
Willie Williams, #1 LB in the nation, been arrested 10 times since he turned 14, was recruited and verballed to Miami. What a joke Miami is. Williams this week found out he violated her parol 3 different ways and might be heading to jail. WHY DID MIAMI RECRUIT THIS KID???? :nono: I have no respect for COKER or Miami. If you call PETE SLIMY, what is Coker?
Another example is 4star WR BUMPUS verballed to USC, he did not have his grades in order, and USC withdrew their offer and said they are not going to wait for him to get it in order. He promised Carroll he would have his grades set and he did not keep his end of the bargain. Bumpus now verballed to Washington St.
USC is very high graduation rates compared to other college football programs. Is that not impressive? Remember, USC academics is a lot tougher than majority of other colleges yet still has higher graduation rates.
USC recruited and are current players on the team........
#1 RB in the nation, Bush 4.2 GPA high school
#2 TE in nation, Alex Holmes, close to 4.0 GPA, Marshall School of Business
DB's Ting twins, each had 4.0 GPA in High School
Top 10 FB in nation, Brandon Hancock, 4.0 GPA in High School
That is from the top of my head (i am sure there are more). So I think that is impressive. So i have NO IDEA why you have this opinion of Pete Carroll. Maybe you think Pete Carroll is slimy because he out-recruits everyone in the nation. That is not fair.
Did you know the day after USC beat Michigan and won the NC, Carroll was on a plane the next morning recruiting. Did you know the day after signing day (#1 recruiting class ever) Carroll visited 6 high schools to talk to 2005 recruits, because there is a 5month period where you cannot contact recruits. That is not slimy, that is hard work.
You could not be more wrong again. What is it you have against USC? For starters, USC has many athletes who take advantage of the schools strong programs. I agree, many prob. major in communication or sociology (easy majors), but just a degree from USC is better than a degree from majority of colleges in the nation. SO IT DOES MATTER. I do know of at least 5 athletes that are in the Marshall School of Business (where I am in) which is ranked top 10 in the nation.
Why you call Carroll slimy???? You could not be more wrong and I can give you an example of a recruit THIS YEAR!!
Randy Estes, #1 Safety in the country, 5-star recruit, wanted to come to USC, well he got arrested at Burger King for drugs, immediately USC withdrew their offer. He signed with Washington St.
Willie Williams, #1 LB in the nation, been arrested 10 times since he turned 14, was recruited and verballed to Miami. What a joke Miami is. Williams this week found out he violated her parol 3 different ways and might be heading to jail. WHY DID MIAMI RECRUIT THIS KID???? :nono: I have no respect for COKER or Miami. If you call PETE SLIMY, what is Coker?
Another example is 4star WR BUMPUS verballed to USC, he did not have his grades in order, and USC withdrew their offer and said they are not going to wait for him to get it in order. He promised Carroll he would have his grades set and he did not keep his end of the bargain. Bumpus now verballed to Washington St.
USC is very high graduation rates compared to other college football programs. Is that not impressive? Remember, USC academics is a lot tougher than majority of other colleges yet still has higher graduation rates.
USC recruited and are current players on the team........
#1 RB in the nation, Bush 4.2 GPA high school
#2 TE in nation, Alex Holmes, close to 4.0 GPA, Marshall School of Business
DB's Ting twins, each had 4.0 GPA in High School
Top 10 FB in nation, Brandon Hancock, 4.0 GPA in High School
That is from the top of my head (i am sure there are more). So I think that is impressive. So i have NO IDEA why you have this opinion of Pete Carroll. Maybe you think Pete Carroll is slimy because he out-recruits everyone in the nation. That is not fair.
Did you know the day after USC beat Michigan and won the NC, Carroll was on a plane the next morning recruiting. Did you know the day after signing day (#1 recruiting class ever) Carroll visited 6 high schools to talk to 2005 recruits, because there is a 5month period where you cannot contact recruits. That is not slimy, that is hard work.
Since I can't find anything on USC withdrawing either of those offers, I guess I'll just have to rely on your "inside info"
Going after the 2005 recruits? Probably just had to use this year's bribe money so he doesn't have to ask for it in next year's budget.
Going after the 2005 recruits? Probably just had to use this year's bribe money so he doesn't have to ask for it in next year's budget.
How does USC's athlete graduation rate compare to the SEC's bottom-dwelling Vanderbilt? Just wondering...
