Not to downplay your analysis, but several other factors need to be considered in this equation. For example, how many inner city kids do we have on the team compared to schools like MIA, FL St, LSU, etc. Those kids are obviously at a disadvantage academically.
NCAA scholarships are for
student athletes. When coaches offer kids who can barely read or write, they're not "giving them an opportunity"; it's simple exploitation. They're essentially paying those kids in a currency they can never hope to cash.
There are a lot of players that don't have the desire to succeed academically.
A lot of that has to do with how seriously the school takes academics. Lots of schools don't require their athletes to even go to class, or if they do, they stick them in worthless athlete majors (Kinesiology, etc.) ND football players are expected to be real students, which is part of the reason we graduate so many athletes with truly valuable degrees.
We have tougher admissions weeding out those kids,...if you qualify here there is a high probability you were academically driven in HS.
You act as if ND is cheating by only offering scholarships to real students. That's how it's supposed to work.
Lastly, and unfortunately not many of our recent black players have left early for the pros. Alabama loses 2 to 3 every year...do those kids come back and graduate?
GSR doesn't penalize a school when athletes leave early for the draft as long as they were academically eligible and on-track to graduate when they left. So no, the draft doesn't unfairly penalize top programs.
So I agree with you, but it's not as simply as pure numbers.
It is that simple. The GSR is a fair measure of how successful a school is at graduating its athletes, and the 30-year return I posted is simply the market value of the undergraduate degree. Combine the two, and you have a good picture of how much value each school offers to prospective athletes.
