OT - The College Football Top 25 – As Ranked By Academics - Michigan 21

Not quite.  That is ranking of the current top 25 only.  So being 21st out of 25 isn't exactly impressive.

"the New America Foundation bases its rankings on several factors: how a football team’s graduation rate compares to that of the school’s overall male student body, how a team’s black-white graduation gap compares to the male black-white graduation gap in the general student population, and the spread between a football team’s black graduation rate and the school’s overall graduation rate for black men."

That doesn't sound like it's ranking the quality of a school's academics.

Also:

On the flip side, look at the team from Michigan, a school with a strong academic reputation, yet finishes near the bottom of these rankings. While Michigan graduates 88% of its students, only 59% of Wolverine football players get their diplomas. While the black-white graduate gap on the football team is only four points worse than black-white gap for all male students, just 47% of Michigan’s black football players graduate, compared with 70% of Michigan’s black male students overall.

Read more: http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2012/12/11/the-college-football-top-25-as-ranked-by-academics/#ixzz2EqWFhTha

This metric is deeply flawed (does anyone really believe Boise's football team is better academically than Stanford's?), but that still doesn't excuse that Michigan is near the bottom.

Yeah....that list is bogus. No way 20 of those schools are better institutions than UM. Hell, number four, Boise State, couldn't join the PAC-10(at the time) because of academics. 

There is at least the potential, perhaps even the liklihood in many cases, that a school that is less rigorous academically would come out higher using the article's system.

Thankfully, no one in the real world (for me, medical school admissions) agrees with that, as I'm constantly complimented on the rigor of my undergrad education...there's simply no way that UM isn't one of the top 10 educational institutions in the United States.

not OT.

The attrition from coaching changes greatly affects these rankings.

When Alabama and Florida are ranked higher than Michigan based on academics...yea it's a joke. I lived in Florida and their school system is an utter joke. Even my friends that went to the University said it wasn't that much different from highschool. Sorry if there are any alums here, but just reporting on experience and from people that have graduated.

is rewarded because a huge percent of its student body doesn't graduate and doesn't ever have players leave for the NFL, whereas almost everyone from Michigan does graduate and the team does have players leave for the NFL, hmm...

He went to Boise State....that is all you need to know.

THIS RANKING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACADEMIC QUALITY.  Its a poorly titled article at best, misleading title at worst.  Its about graduation rates. There is not one study in the world that links graduation rates to acedemic quality.  Not a single person would argue that Northern Illinois is a "better" school than over half the schools on that list.

It might not be completely useless to compare player graduation rates to the overall school.  I think a school should be making efforts to help student athletes to get those numbers as close as possible.  But that has nothing to do with quality.  

I just can't believe someone got paid to write about a ranking that is nothing more than a formula that put the schools in an order.  Give me the data, and I can come up with thousands of formulas that will rank these schools.  That doesn't mean it actually has any use. 

Boise State is ranked above Stanford in an academic ranking of some sort.

And we are supposed to take this as legitimate?

Child please.

Doesn't this measure neglect to factor in students who didn't graduate because they went to the pros?

I think. Once we get the Rich Rod years and attrition from coaching transition off the books in 2014, our ranking will rise significantly. Does anyone else feel they did a poor job describing their method/formula in determining these rankings?

According to this document detailing the formula, they used a "federal graduation rate" that does NOT account for transfers (meaning attrition counts as players not graduating). This formula is flawed by that metric.

http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/articles/HEW%20Academic%20BCS%202012%20Formula.pdf

The question is why do our black players graduate at such a low rate? I am betting a big reason might be the attrition that has occurred over the pat few years.



Obviously good academic schools still did well on that list (NW, Stanford, ND toward the top) so us being so low has to do with other factors.

Right next to UCLA and Texas, the other two elite public institutions on the list. Not sure what it means.

TIL the graduation rate at Boise State is only 29%. I guess being locked in to 4 years in Idaho will do that.

What a ridiculous methodology! you should compare it to average of all schools and take into account transfers and early entrants. dumb. NIU ranks so highly because they are really crappy at keeping normal AA students in school! Only graduating 33% vs. 66% or whatever shouldn't give them a high grade....

crying foul because of the racial criteria. But if I read this right, Michigan needs to better by its football players all around. Hardly the end of the world, but I become disappointed in posters when they just need to categorically condemn something like this rather than dig in and sift. 

If a study uses APR, it's fundamentally bunk.

Very proud of my alma mater.