Started By
Message
College Football Top 25, Ranked by Academics (Time Magazine)
Posted on 12/19/14 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 12/19/14 at 1:54 pm
Article:
LINK /#
Rankings (Academically - only applied towards teams in the Top 25 of the playoff poll):
#1 TCU
#2 UCLA
#3 Alabama
#4 Clemson
#5 Arizona St
#6 Ohio St
#7 Georgia
#8 Utah
#9 Arizona
#10 KSU
#11 Auburn
#12 Louisville
#13 Mississippi State
#14 Oregon
#15 Mizzou
#16 Baylor
#17 Georgia Tech
#18 LSU
#19 Michigan State
#20 Wisconsin
#21 Minnesota
#22 Florida State
#23 Boise St
#24 Ole Miss
#25 USC
Methodology used:
LINK /#
Rankings (Academically - only applied towards teams in the Top 25 of the playoff poll):
#1 TCU
#2 UCLA
#3 Alabama
#4 Clemson
#5 Arizona St
#6 Ohio St
#7 Georgia
#8 Utah
#9 Arizona
#10 KSU
#11 Auburn
#12 Louisville
#13 Mississippi State
#14 Oregon
#15 Mizzou
#16 Baylor
#17 Georgia Tech
#18 LSU
#19 Michigan State
#20 Wisconsin
#21 Minnesota
#22 Florida State
#23 Boise St
#24 Ole Miss
#25 USC
Methodology used:
quote:
To compile the rankings, New America started with each school’s football graduation success rate (GSR). The GSR is an NCAA metric that, unlike the federal graduation rate, doesn’t penalize schools for having players who transfer or leave for the pros–as long as those players depart in good academic standing. The higher the school’s graduation success rate, the higher they start out in New America’s rankings.
But New America penalized schools for graduating football players at different rates than the overall male student body at the school. To compare players to students, New America relied on federal rates, since there’s no GSR for the general population. The bigger the discrepancy, the harsher the penalty. It’s important to note that even if a school graduated football players at higher rates than the overall male student population — four schools in the top 25, TCU, Arizona State, Arizona, and Boise State, did so — the difference was counted as a penalty. Why? “We were not going to reward schools with really low overall graduation rates,” says Holt. In fact, schools got an added bonus for having high overall rates.
TCU, for example, has a 77% federal graduation rate for football players, and a 73% federal graduation rate for all male students. This four point difference is relatively minor. But Boise St. has a 70% football graduation rate, and a 31% graduation rate for all the male students. The low overall rate hurts the school tremendously in these rankings: despite a strong 85% graduation success rate for football players, Boise State fell to 24th in these rankings.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 1:55 pm to skrayper
quote:
#3 Alabama
quote:
#17 Georgia Tech
Posted on 12/19/14 at 1:57 pm to skrayper
quote:
#3 Alabama
Kicking arse on the field and in the classroom.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:01 pm to skrayper
Cool, that has nothing to do with which one has better academics.
And yes, I'm fully aware that the article you linked in the OP takes in different metrics like graduation rates and whatnot. That has nothing to do with which school is better.
And yes, I'm fully aware that the article you linked in the OP takes in different metrics like graduation rates and whatnot. That has nothing to do with which school is better.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:01 pm to skrayper
Can't take TCU seriously knowing goldennugget went there
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:03 pm to WG_Dawg
Alabama #3
Clemson #4
Holy shite!!!
The same guys did prep football in Louisiana:
John Curtis #2
Jesuit#16
Newman #24
Clemson #4
Holy shite!!!
The same guys did prep football in Louisiana:
John Curtis #2
Jesuit#16
Newman #24
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:03 pm to craigbiggio
From the publication that brought you Vladimir Putin as its "Man of the Year".
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:04 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Cool, that has nothing to do with which one has better academics.
And yes, I'm fully aware that the article you linked in the OP takes in different metrics like graduation rates and whatnot. That has nothing to do with which school is better.
It has at least some impact in regards to the academics of the actual players. Not the institution as a whole, but the football program and its relation to it. What's better, a degree from Alabama or no degree from Tech?
But no, I would never make the argument that Tech is below Alabama academically as an entire institution. That would be absurd. Tech is one of the top institutions in the country.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:07 pm to skrayper
How is GT #17 when they're a top 10 public in the USNWR and an AAU member?
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:10 pm to Korin
quote:
How is GT #17 when they're a top 10 public in the USNWR and an AAU member?
Because they don't care about their football players.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:11 pm to WG_Dawg
Wouldn't the shittier school graduate their players at a higher rate? Sticking with our existing comparison, it's a hell of a lot easier to graduate from Bama than it is from GT.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:11 pm to Korin
Because their football players aren't graduating. That obviously has a lot to do with the high standards at GT, but no degree is no degree.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:13 pm to Old Hellen Yeller
Do players that get processed, but remain on medical hardship scholarship (thereby having only school to focus on, without the added workload of a football player) count?
Ugh that sentence is a mess. Whatever.
Ugh that sentence is a mess. Whatever.
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:14 pm to skrayper
This is like using acceptance rate to say that one school is better than the other.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:14 pm to LegendOfCobb
quote:
Wouldn't the shittier school graduate their players at a higher rate? Sticking with our existing comparison, it's a hell of a lot easier to graduate from Bama than it is from GT.
By that logic, one would also conclude that it's harder to get in to Tech, and therefor have smarter people and should balance out. I mean, that's what we hear all the time, right? That the students are smarter? If the only difference is one is "easier" than the other, but smarter kids are going to the "harder" universities, then it should balance out.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:15 pm to Korin
frick you I come to these boards for low brow debate regarding each member institution's relative academic merits!
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:15 pm to Korin
quote:
This is like using acceptance rate to say that one school is better than the other.
I wouldn't know, I've never used that metric to determine which school is better or worse.
Honestly, with how expensive it is to go to school these days, any student that gets their degree is impressive.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 2:16 pm to skrayper
Skrayper, I think your post is spot on for the average student, but fails to take into account the fact that athletes are generally getting into schools they have no business being in.
Eta: the one about the relative rigor of schools balancing out the relative achievement of entrants.
Eta: the one about the relative rigor of schools balancing out the relative achievement of entrants.
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 2:19 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News