Factoring in academics for College Football Playoff -- Tuesday Morning Quarterback - ESPN
Interesting ESPN article:
Editor's note: The ESPN Grade formula below uses 2013 NCAA data, the most recent available at publication. Minutes after the column went live, the NCAA released 2014 data. Next week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback will update all numbers to 2014 data.
TMQ CHEAT SHEET
Gregg Easterbrook on …
Stats of the Week
Let the lineman throw
NFL is more interesting than NBA
The football gods chortled
Who joined the 500 club
Today, the new College Football Playoff selection committee releases its first rankings, a hint at the four power schools that will square off in the inaugural football factory elimination tourney. Records, schedule strength, quality of victory and even quality of defeat will be debated.
What if graduation rates were considered, too?
In August, ESPN introduced ESPN Grade, a new way to think about college football rankings. ESPN Grade combines football graduation rate with standing in The Associated Press and USA Today Coaches polls. The standing of the top teams, when ranked by graduation rate, gets the same weight as position in each of the leading conventional polls. The lower the total, the better.
Here's what would happen if ESPN Grade were applied to the CFP: Right now, the top four seeds, in order, would be Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia and Auburn.
College Football, the ESPN Grade way
Notre Dame: 6 in A.P., 7 in USA Today, 1 in graduation = 14
Alabama: 3 in A.P., 3 in USA Today, 11 in graduation = 17
Georgia: 9 in A.P., 8 in USA Today, 4 in graduation = 21
Auburn: 4 in A.P., 4 in USA Today, 14 in graduation = 22
The CFP's initial No. 1 seems likely to be Mississippi State, which is first in the major, victories-only polls. Factoring in the classroom causes Mississippi State to plummet, given that its football graduation rate is an unimpressive 59 percent, 21st among the Top 25 colleges. Florida State plummets, too, with an embarrassing 58 percent football graduation rate, which is 23rd of 25. Ole Miss plummets as well, with a 55 percent football graduation rate, 24th of 25.
Early entries have almost no effect on these statistics -- for instance, only one Mississippi State player left early for the NFL in the group being assessed. Also, ESPN Grade uses the generous Graduation Success Rate calculated by the NCAA, not the stringent Federal Graduation Rate calculated by the Department of Education. This more than compensates for early departures to the NFL.
[+] EnlargeGreg Bryant, C.J. Prosise, Everett Golson
Jonathan Daniel/Getty ImagesNotre Dame is No. 1 in ESPN Grade.
Suppose Mississippi State or Florida State go on to win the first big playoff title. A champion that graduates barely more than half its football players would be terrible for the sport, to say nothing of the young men not receiving degrees.
In contrast, an inaugural CFP championship by Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia or Auburn would reflect well on collegiate athletics, as these schools combine success on game day with success on commencement day.
Perhaps you are thinking: "Why bring this up? All we want is great games." At the NFL level, that's a fair view. The sole purpose of professional sports is entertainment; the NFL has no edifying or character-building role in society.
But the core purpose of college is education. Providing sports entertainment, a secondary mission, gains legitimacy only through results on commencement day. Unless you'd prefer the big conferences become semipro leagues that have nothing to do with universities -- with the lore and excitement of college traditions instantly lost -- you need to care about graduation rates. All universities say they educate their athletes. The ones that do a better job should be rewarded in the rankings.
On a related point, the University of North Carolina scandal just keeps getting worse. According to a new report, for 18 years, the Chapel Hill school offered "paper" courses that handed out an average 3.62 GPA (that means the average grade was an A) to about 3,100 students, about half of whom were NCAA athletes. Wait. The courses were merely "irregular," in the report's choice of words. "Irregular" in the sense that classes never met, had no requirements and handed out A's for zero work. "The inflated grades from the paper classes had a significant impact on student and student-athlete GPAs and academic standing," the report concluded.
This isn't the only recent academic scandal at Chapel Hill. In 2008, the Raleigh News & Observer began reporting some University of North Carolina football players were enrolled in ersatz classes. Eventually, head coach Butch Davis was fired and a player was banned by the NCAA in a blame-the-messenger exercise; other players were banned around the same time for involvement with agents. A 2012 report by James Martin, the former governor of North Carolina, detailed extensive cheating and paper classes.
This past winter, when CNN reported a University of North Carolina instructor warned about continuing extremely poor academics in Chapel Hill sports, new chancellor Carol Folt, says they could not verify the information.
Buried in the new report (see page 40): A University of North Carolina official named Jan Boxill asked another Chapel Hill official to raise an athlete's term-paper grade from an F to a D. The second official protested the paper listed no sources, "has absolutely nothing to do with the assignments" and "seems to me to be a recycled paper." The student, who no longer had athletic eligibility, needed the improved grade to graduate. It's one thing to argue that a student's work merited a higher grade -- that's a normal conversation. But the paper in question sounds entirely bogus, and no educational institution with integrity should give anything other than a failing grade in that situation.
Who is Jan Boxill? At the time of the seemingly "irregular" request, she was academic counselor for the women's basketball team. Then she was promoted: Until a few days after the report was released, she was listed by the college as director of the school's Parr Center for Ethics, identified as someone who "teaches courses in ethics." A University of North Carolina professor of ethics urges department head to cut corners! The report details other instances of Chapel Hill's ethics director seeking raised grades for athletes who turned in failing work. Suddenly, the Center for Ethics has an interim director. So it appears Boxill was punished, but what about higher-ups?
The new scandal is not about athletic eligibility -- it runs much deeper than that, going to paper courses and fake grades for a broad range of students. The University of North Carolina has in recent years attempted to portray itself as among the "public Ivies." The latest report calls into question whether the University of North Carolina should even retain its accreditation. Thousands of students in fake classes would embarrass even a sleazy online school.
Where is the accountability? The new report throws lower-level instructors under the bus but concludes top management at the University of North Carolina -- Folt and Thomas Ross, president of the statewide university system -- knew nothing, had no responsibility and should not be punished.
It's unlikely even a child would believe systematic fake courses could be going for nearly two decades, yet people at the top knew nothing. But suppose that's actually true -- that despite repeated warnings regarding academic fraud in athletics, top officials of the University of North Carolina actually were in the dark. Then they must be incompetent. That's the best-case scenario.
People at the top of institutions often justify their high pay and perks -- Folt earns a taxpayer-subsidized $520,000 a year -- by saying the buck stops with them. Then, when something goes wrong, they claim they were not responsible and should not face accountability. There will be no consequences? Looks like character education is not on the curriculum at Chapel Hill.
