Is Michigan Too Smart for College Football?
Grantland asks and answers the question (with some excerpts from posts around here)...
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/36030/is-michigan-…
Their answer is...
This is a pretty shaky argument. The NCAA has minimum grades and test scores its football players must achieve in high school. Most football powers take the minimum standard as their own. Where schools like Michigan say they exercise discretion is by turning down marginal students who might have trouble staying eligible. But a 2008 Ann Arbor News investigation found that over a three-year period, one Michigan psychology professor taught 251 independent-study courses to athletes. The players earned a GPA in his courses that was a full point higher than their other courses. So even if Michigan admits better students on average, it’s not above using SEC-style (or Big 12–style ... or MAC-style) tricks to keep them eligible.
September 4th, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^
Good thing he didn't say "ACC-style."
September 4th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^
September 4th, 2012 at 1:52 PM ^
I was a BGS major... I work in IT Consulting now. I wasn't an athlete though :(. Although I was on a softball team (shout out to my fellow Buckfutters.)
Interesting that MGoBlog is referenced:I saw a good deal of academic smack talk after Alabama beat Michigan, 41-14, on Saturday night. A Wolverines fan named “MGlobules” took to the excellent MGoBlog and complained of an uneven playing field. “Brent Musberger is never going to give a shit that we graduate more kids or have a school attached to our football factory,” MGlobules wrote. He/she added, “Should we just go all Ivy League and not give a crap about the SEC?” I think that part was a joke.This kind of makes us out to be whiny bitches.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
The Buckfutters!
And what do we do?!
We come from behind!
Best late inning rally cry in all of sport
September 4th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^
Haha, Amen. We definitely lived up to the name!
September 5th, 2012 at 8:23 AM ^
Im LOLing
September 4th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
Double post
September 4th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^
In all seriousness, I do wish that we would join the Ivy Leauge and step away from the arms race of big time college football. But unfortunately I don't think they'll be inviting our poor, public school asses over there any time soon.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^
Graduation rates are a strange stat though.
http://stanford.scout.com/2/1066657.html
It is not as hard to graduate from Auburn as it is Ohio State but all people will see is the percentage. In fact Vandy is the hardest school in the SEC but they top the list in graduation rates.
That and there is a huge divide between white and black player rates, particularly at Auburn.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^
Vandy's private. As the old saying goes, you can't flunk out of a private school.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^
I am assuming you forgot you /s. So Private schools don't deserve the rankings they have because "you can't flunk out"?
September 4th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^
I couldn't agree more!
I guess we'll spend the next week, or until we win again, digressing and coming up with excuses (and then we'll claim they aren't excuses), about why we lost. Academics. Injuries, refs, MSU, Saban, etc, etc..
Alabama is a better football team. There are others out there like them, that could manhandle MIchigan also, right now, on talent alone. OUr coordinators need to put together a better game plan than they did Saturday night, or it's going to be a long season. I trust, they will..
September 4th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
September 4th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
September 4th, 2012 at 2:39 PM ^
You went to Michigan BECAUSE you're better than everyone else
September 4th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
Look, Michigan tends toward the better end of the spectrum in terms of how they apply the rules of NCAA eligibility and academics, but don't be naive about whether or not we make exceptions for footballs players in terms of entry into the university and have means by which to shepherd them through the system to graduate........we do.
Most people here call BS when Notre Dame or Stanford or Northwestern employ the academic standard argument, I would do the same in our case.
Agreed it makes us sound like whiny bitches.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^
I don't necessarily like the metric, but if you look at graduation rates for student athletes (or even specifically Football athletes) Stanford and ND fare better than we do.
RE: whiny bitches...In all honesty, compared to other fanbases, or other blog sites, i think we handled the loss pretty well.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:36 PM ^
Quite true, but we also handled that loss worse than any loss in recent memory, as well. Something like 25 individual post game threads created in the last 4 days along the lines of "what does this mean" "bad refs" and "the aftermath." It's unlikely, but possible, that we've reacted more to this one (expected) loss more than the entire 2008 implosion.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:15 PM ^
It's starting to sound like Notre Dame in here, about 15 years ago, what have u done for me lately?
September 4th, 2012 at 8:00 PM ^
I'm just references comments that point to some disparity in academics as rationale for the loss.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
Nobody who has had a class with a football player can even remotely refute that. Sure as in life of course there are outliers, but it's impossible to argue that the football team is full of Rhodes Scholars.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
September 4th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
"the prof you HAVE to take." Hell every class does. That's why you go on ratemyprofessor.com and find the easiest prof. The fact that the football players know this somehow makes it bending the rules? Everyone knows you take the easy prof over the tough-grading prof.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
Michigan is too smart for Einstein.
Michigan is too sexy for Kate Upton.
Michigan is too cool for the Fonz.
any others?
September 4th, 2012 at 3:00 PM ^
if anyone under 25 has any clue who The Fonz is. I was recently informed of this by my nieces (18 & 14). Sorry, but we are old now. In the new vernacular, might I suggest someone more "jiggy" like that Jayzee fella or Snoopy Dog?
/gets off OWN lawn
September 4th, 2012 at 3:04 PM ^
Kids not knowing who the Fonz is, is a HUGE sign that our society is in a steady decline. There must be some MGoHollywood types around here. Bring back Happy Days. Puhleeze.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:04 PM ^
And definitely know who The Fonz is; he's the guy that jumped over the sharks on the water skis (SARCASM, SARCASM, don't kill me "old people").
Also, it's Snoop Lion now. Gotta get jiggy with the ultra-important news these days.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:28 PM ^
You mean Snopp Lion...you need to get up to speed...now get off my lawn you kids.
September 4th, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^
Shit, I thought I was in the know.
September 4th, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^
notice the get off my lawn comment, I am old and snarky and know who the fonz is... Sarcasim is hard in text only.
September 4th, 2012 at 4:49 PM ^
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the good news is at least there's no one here that's so old that they don't know who Fonzi is. Except for maybe Herm...
September 4th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^
The article referenced (originating from Ann Arbor News) brings up an excellent point though: to what extent can we expect athletes to compete in the classrooms? Many of these kids are not as academically prepared as the majority of the student body. On top of that, now try balancing their training, practices, games, with finding time to study. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be like Zoltan Mesko.
And to the point regarding Reuben Riley, he specifically states his career path was to be a professional athlete... that was his goal, so he made that decision. My viewpoints on College Athletics may not jive well with most on this board, but I will say, there is a huge problem with college athletics. The academic expectations the public in general has are not realistic for the majority of athletes (primarily in revenue sports). And really, it stems from educational gaps that exist from K-12.
September 5th, 2012 at 12:20 AM ^
Wayne Deneff was good. Then there was Jason Whitlock, Rich Thomaselli, Jim Carty, assholes all. The Carty "expose" on academics was last attempt at journalism. Sort of a Freep job Section 1. Then they became a wire service paper. I worked there for almost 26 years. Am I pissed? Ya think? Used to have great M coverage then they gave up. If it was locally owned it would still be going but the way it was they gave up a couple years before it's demise.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^
Grantland seems to have taken a special interest in us, with UM stories heading their "triangle" section for the last several days.
As someone who doesn't like that pompous bluster is a part of Michigan's image to outsiders, there aren't many websites I'd like talking about us less than freaking Grantland.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^
Dave Brandon creating the future
September 4th, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^
The end point is money. Academic smack talk depends on and reinforces the idea that big time college football is somehow tied to college. It's not, but it's a fiction we have to keep up so that we can pretend we are doing something other than underpaying kids to ruin their lifelong health in order to make already-rich unviersities and ESPN a crap-ton of money.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
Honestly, there are some pretty dumb and/or underprepared students in the general population at Michigan. Unfortunately, that's one of the problems with a large university. Stereotyping athletes as dumb doesn't really make much sense.
Having said that, the time constraints placed on athletes does make them a different breed of student, so to speak, so really there shouldn't be too much consternation about the extra efforts used to help them along academically. And even for the weakest academic performers, once they are on campus, it's really in everybody's interest that they aren't simply left behind.
September 4th, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^
Strongly Agree with your comment regarding the severe time constraints placed on college athletes. Already with my 6th grader, I have to really stay on top of him with his homework. With 2 hour practices Tuesday - Thursday, plus about 4 hours given to warm up, pregame, and games on either Saturday or Sunday, that's a big chunk taken out of every week. And I have to believe it is ten times more in college. It is just a different world than most students experience.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^
I think it is important to always question what the true goals of college athletics are. To be honest with you all, I'm not certain what that goal is. This is a topic which I have discussed at some length with a multitude of people, each of whom has given me a different response. Although Michigan is a large school which makes it easier to "hide" athletes, some smaller schools still employ a similar number of varsity sports (and, as a consequence, athletes) even though their student population is miniscule compared to Michigan. Take Wake Forest. The school benefits from athletics by helping to raise their national profile. But that is only true for a select few sports. Does having a softball team or men's swimming team really add any value to the school? With such a small student body, it more obviously eliminates spots in the student body usually reserved for academics-only students. Would Wake Forest be better served dropping sports altogether?
I have also heard the argument that sports enable children who normally wouldn't be able to go to college to have a chance. Perhaps that is the case for some athletes, but should say, a water polo player, from an economically-advantaged setting really be included as evidence in such an argument? Perhaps they wouldn't normally be given the opportunity (thanks to grades, standardized testing scores, etc), but I doubt that is what one envisions.
Or is the goal of athletics to improve school spirit and influence donations? Perhaps, but it seems as if many smaller schools (think the Ivy League, Washington and Lee, and others) have managed to maintain high levels of alumni support, donations, and huge endowments (granted they have long and fruitful histories) without maintaining a massive sports-industrial-complex.
I understand that Michigan is a different animal to some extent. We are a highly successful academic institution, with a huge alumni base, massive endowment, great history, etc etc. Michigan can afford to have a huge athletic department. But imagine if you were paying tuition to a school whose sports were third-rate, drew no additional applications, barely raised the school's national profile, and admitted many more (possibly) under-qualified student athletes.
I understand this may be ripped to shreds (as most of you are sports fans), but with the recent news out of North Carolina and numerous other academic and ethical problems arising from sports (combined with the almost apparent need to cheat to win), I think it is time to completely re-examine the question of, what are the goals of college athletics?
~Herm
September 4th, 2012 at 3:01 PM ^
For one, it gives students a chance to compete at a high level in their extracurricular activity of choice. Now I realize Denard didn't show up at Michigan and decide to play football during August 2009, but the fact remains that all of these athletes are students. In addition, I don't see much difference between the number one rated football recruit choosing Alabama and the number one "acting recruit" choosing Julliard.
For another, they're exposing these students to a lifetime of benefits just by allowing these sports to take place. Whether those resources are best used on fields and balls and charter busses and hotel rooms for a select group of elite athletes is another discussion, but the benefits from playing on a varsity sport (especially at the D1 level, and even more-so at the major D1 level) are huge in terms of learning to network, work as a team, deal with rigorous schedules while having other responsibilities, ect.
Lastly, this might sound ridiculous for the amount of money that goes into sports like softball, water polo, or swimming team (the three you mention) but they at least partially serve to provide entertainment for the student body and alumni, as well as local sports fans and fans of the sport in general.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^
I understand and respect all of your points, but I have also qualms. I understand that American universities are different in that they are probably the only institutions of higher learning in the world that place such emphasis and give such support to athletics, and I am beginning to wonder if that is a good thing. One might suggest that it is a question of "sound mind sound body", yet I see millions of dollars being spent on a select group of students (who have God knows how many state of the art athletic facilities and dining halls), while the vast majority of students are still relegated to a few gyms (I don't believe another student gym has been built or even remodelled in recent years).
In regards to the Julliard assertion, I for one, would prefer it if Michigan would use some of the athletic scholarships for lesser sports to "recruit" some of the best engineers, actors, math students, writers, etc, away from MIT, CIT, UChicago, etc. In my mind, that would be a better use for at least some of the scholarships.
I admit your second point.
Though I do question the third. The overall CBA of say, field hockey, is much different than football in terms of the fans, recognition, and prestige it brings to the school (even though one sport may spend much less than another).
~Herm
September 4th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^
In regards to your first paragraph, I honestly just think it was a case of things blowing up very quickly. Ann Arbor's population was under 8,000 in the first census taken since football started at Michigan; I'm guessing a lot of people were looking for live entertainment and got it. Once football blew up, people started lobbying for their sports and it snowballed all the way into Title IX decades later, which now has culminated in an "arms race" for facilities, stadiums, uniformz, ect. I'd guess you're right (sound mind, sound body) about why this caught on in the US, while the athletic and rowing clubs at Oxbridge remained fairly small. The culture over here is just different.
In terms of Julliard, I would think more money goes out to "normal students" at the vast majority of universities than goes to athletes. Whether that should be allocated to a full ride for an engineer or a place kicker is a matter of preference and culture. The Little Three, Chicago, NYU, WUSL and others are good examples of schools choosing the former.
Lastly, if you want to just do a straight CBA, you're looking at it the wrong way. With Title IX in play, the question isn't "is softball worth $3m per season?", the question is, "is it worth spending $30m to keep a $100m football, hockey and basketball publicity monster going?" (realistic numbers, by the way*). I think a lot of people in Ann Arbor would answer in the affirmative, with softball, swimming and water polo as nice extras to have.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:34 PM ^
A lot of the whole point of recruiting elite athletes is to boost giving - both to the athletic department and university at large. Winning athletics boosts pide, fandom, and donations - just ask Butler or VCU. Attracting a star dancer or engineer has no outwardly exposure the way a Cam Newton or an RGIII does.
As a result college athletics is never going away. Ever.
September 4th, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^
A Michigan Grad did decide to schedule an NFL team the first week of the 2012 season, so no I would say that Michigan isn't too smart.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
Sadly we are Alabama's App. State.
September 4th, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^
September 5th, 2012 at 6:34 AM ^
September 4th, 2012 at 2:30 PM ^
that my point, even in the bit he quotes (that Brent Musberger is never going to notice that M has a great university attached to its football factory) was HIS: you can't play the virtue game if you are going to get on that stage in the first place. (He missed the part where I acknowledged that we were in some degree a football factory, too.)
I do think these are social questions the whole country faces, not just Michigan. There's little that's fair about college football to begin with, but when you climb into the ring with Alabama. . .
Who knows, the reduction in oversigning, four-year schollies--maybe these will change things a little. Most fans, as I realize, just want us to shut up and get better. A quarter of me appreciates that; as an alumnus with an appreciation for the academic side, I would also be cool with the B1G just refusing to play the SEC.
Not gonna happen, I know.