Notre Dame's Ultimate Recruiting Tool

[Whiskeyjack]

As most of you are aware, I'm a huge proponent of Businessweek's 30y ROI ranking for undergrad programs. As a recruiting tool, it has the potential to clearly demonstrate the superior value of a Notre Dame degree compared to virtually every other school we recruit against.

The last step of Payscale's methodology (which is conveniently explained toward the bottom of the site linked above) discounts the 30y ROI for graduates by the school's 6-year graduation rate for the entire undergraduate population. Since I'm mainly interested in using this data for recruiting purposes, I set out to tailor it to football programs specifically.

Thus, I took the 30y ROI for graduates of every school in the AQ conferences (along with the relevant non-AQ teams) and produced a new set of rankings using each school's football GSR. The results are astounding.

30y Football ROI (the list is sortable for every category)

Observations:

• ND is #1 in Football GSR (Overall), Football GSR (African-American), Expected 30y ROI for African-American Football Players
• ND is #2 in 30y Return for Graduates and Expected 30y ROI for Football Players.
• ND is #3 in Expected 30y ROI for Caucasian Football Players.
• ND is #10 in Football GSR (Caucasian).

Go down the list and look at how much more value ND offers African-American athletes than some of the top programs in the country: SCar (x 12), FSU (x 6.5), Oregon (x 5.5), Nebraska (x 5), Oklahoma (x 4.5), OSU (x 4.5), 'Bama (x 4), Georgia (x 4), Texas (x 3.5), Auburn (x 3.5), LSU (x 3), USC (x 3), Miami (x 3), Washington (x 2.5), Michigan (x 2.5), Cal (x 2.5), Florida (x 2.5), PSU (x 2).

Even against our closest academic rival, Stanford, ND's 100% GSR for African-American football players beats the hell outta their 75%, and it shows in a 15.5% higher expected 30y ROI for ND.

UPDATED:

• Added "Football GSR (White)"
• Added "Expected 30-year Return on Investment for White Football Players"
• Added "Racial GSR Disparity"

Averages:
30y Return for Graduates- $933,928
Football GSR (Overall)- 67%
Expected 30y ROI for Football Players- $643,345
Football GSR (Caucasian)- 81%
Expected 30y ROI for Caucasian Football Players- $756,620
Football GSR (African-American)- 60%
Expected 30y ROI for African-American Football Players-$573,944
Racial GSR Disparity- 21%

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

I really hope the coaching staff is using something like this as a recruiting tool. Just highlight ND and our closest competitors for that recruit's services, and hand the chart to the parents. #GG

If they're not, maybe they can now. Great job man, reps.

 

[NDPhilly]

.

 

[NDPhilly]

That's awesome stuff right there. So we are the top ROI with black athletes because then?

Reps for the time and great effort

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So we are the top ROI with black athletes because then?

By a lot. Not even Stanford is close; ND's 30y ROI for black football players is $193,250 (15.5%) higher.

 

[jason_h537]

Isn't this like what Stanford did last year? Only they showed the top 10 teams only

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Isn't this like what Stanford did last year?

Similar, though they didn't bother to discount the figures presented with graduation rates. Slightly misleading.

 

[NDPhilly]

I remember that. I thought it showed the top 25 at the end of the year last year and showed how much they less the other schools gained by doing like say Auburn -40,000 or something like that. Remember it was really misleading

 

[jason_h537]

I remember that. I thought it showed the top 25 at the end of the year last year and showed how much they less the other schools gained by doing like say Auburn -40,000 or something like that. Remember it was really misleading

Why was it misleading? It was brilliant. A Stanford degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than an Auburn degree.

 

[NDPhilly]

Why was it misleading? It was brilliant. A Stanford degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than an Auburn degree.

Of course but the way they put it was how much less all the other top 25 schools gained opposed to Stanford and used negative numbers where as Stanford was the only positive one.

 

[NDinFL]

Wow.... Thanks Whiskey.

I've seen you post the ROI before, but the depth of it is astounding

We just need LAX to tweet this, lol

 

[irish4ever]

Similar, though they didn't bother to discount the figures presented with graduation rates. Slightly misleading.

Goes to show you ... figures don't lie, liars figure!

 

[BobD]

Awesome and interesting information! Thank you.

This information should be shared with every recruit.

Personal note: My hope is that someday we eliminate having statistics by race.

 

[BeauBenken]

Whiskey...you freak. lol Well done.

 

[woolybug25]

Can one of you Tweet-bombers please tweet this over to Kelly?

Thank You,

~Bug

ps - Good work, Whiskey!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Here's the fact sheet Stanford sent to its recruits in 2010.

They're providing a much more basic analysis by citing 15-year average salary for graduates. It doesn't account for cost of investment, nor does it discount the numbers for graduation rates... which makes sense. Football recruits don't care about the former, and including the latter would have actually inflated Stanford's advantage against the listed schools at the expense of complicating the explanation.

Gotta keep the message simple and easy to understand.

Why can't we do something similar?

 

[jason_h537]

Why can't we do this?

Notre Dame is not in the top 25. That is why.

Also I hope that if the team wins out heading into Stanford that there are no threads complaining about why the Notre Dame is not ranked.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Notre Dame is not in the top 25. That is why.

I didn't mean, "Why can't Notre Dame produce this exact same list?" I meant "Why can't Notre Dame create a similar chart comparing its 30y ROI to the schools it recruits against?"

But thanks for yet another overly literal, irrelevant, and negative post, Debbie Downer. You're a regular ray of sunshine around here.

 

[NDPhilly]

I didn't mean, "Why can't Notre Dame produce this exact same list?" I meant "Why can't Notre Dame create a similar chart comparing its 30y ROI to the schools it recruits against?"

But thanks for yet another overly literal and grumpy post, Debbie Downer. You're a regular ray of sunshine around here.

+1

 

[jason_h537]

So you start a thread wanting Notre Dame to do something that Stanford has already done then get upset when I point out the flaw.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So you start a thread wanting Notre Dame to do something that Stanford has already done

I obviously don't want ND to do the exact same thing, but yes, I think this recruiting strategy could work very well for us.

then get upset when I point out the flaw.

The only "flaw" was your overly literal interpretation of a single sentence from one of my posts on the 2nd page of this thread, which you immediately followed up with an irrelevant kvetch about something that might not even happen 5 weeks from now.

I started this thread to discuss if and how ND should use the figures I compiled as a recruiting tool. If you're not interested in that discussion, kindly dump your irrelevant negative comments on another thread.

 

[jason_h537]

I obviously don't want ND to do the exact same thing, but yes, I think this recruiting strategy could work very well for us.



The only "flaw" was your overly literal interpretation of a single sentence from one of my posts on the 2nd page of this thread, which you immediately followed up with an irrelevant kvetch about something that might not even happen 5 weeks from now.

I started this thread to discuss if and how ND should use the figures I compiled as a recruiting tool. If you're not interested in that discussion, kindly dump your irrelevant negative comments on another thread.

Wow. I made a comment on your post then followed it up with a general comment aimed at several posters who often complain about a lack of respect from the media. The "flaw" is that as great as the idea is, it does not mean much without winning.

Sorry for being a downer on "your" thread" I will happily leave "your" thread and keep my irrelevant and grumpy posts from any other threads you create. I certainly do not want to hurt your feelings.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Wow. I made a comment on your post then followed it up with a general comment aimed at several posters who often complain about a lack of respect from the media. The "flaw" is that as great as the idea is, it does not mean much without winning.

Sorry for being a downer on "your" thread" I will happily leave "your" thread and keep my irrelevant and grumpy posts from any other threads you create. I certainly do not want to hurt your feelings.

No need to get butt hurt about it. Your snarky and uniformly negative posts just get a little tiresome sometimes.

If you've got some constructive feedback on the subject matter of the OP, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Updated the 30y Football ROI ranking.

Previously, I based my rankings off the 30y Net Return for Graduates, which subtracts a school's Total Cost to Graduate from the 30y Return for Graduates. Scholarship athletes are unlikely to care about the cost of tuition, so I added Payscale's Total Cost to Graduate back to the 30y Net Return for Graduates for every school and derived my rankings from the resulting figures.

This didn't shake up the rankings that much, but there are a few notable changes. Schools with a high total cost of attendance moved up a little, and less expensive schools dropped.

For anyone inclined to help proof check the list, the "30y Return for Graduates" column is supposed to be the sum of Payscale's "30-year Net Return for Graduates" and "Total Cost to Graduate".

After Chris Brown's father reacted somewhat negatively to my presentation of this data, I'd appreciate any input on ways to improve it. My goal is not to spotlight the exploitation of black athletes by many top football programs, but rather to offer a concrete method for comparing the value of the education being offered to top recruits. I included a separate ranking for black football players because (1) many top programs have a shamefully large disparity between their overall GSR and their GSR for black players; and (2) ND's excellence in graduating its black athletes helps to further separate the value it offers versus its chief competitors.

I use the term "black" because that's how how the Federal Graduation Rate reports it. Would African-American be less controversial? I could use the term "minority", but that would be somewhat misleading as blacks are the only ethnic group included in the data.

I chose to present an "Overall Football GSR" and a "Football GSR (Black)" in order to de-emphasize the controversial racial issues the figures inevitably bear out; though I'm a little bothered by the fact that the "Football GSR (Black)" is subsumed in the "Overall Football GSR". Instead of the current GSR categories, should I be more explicit about the issue by presenting a "Football GSR (White)" against "Football GSR (black)"?

Feedback is appreciated.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Really good stuff WJ, thanks for putting this together, I'm sure this kind of info will find it's way into the right hands.

 

[GreatGolson]

how did Mr. Brown react negativley to your presentation?

 

[BobD]

I would suggest just using information for all athletes, don't break it down by race.

As I mentioned in my previous comment on this thread, I hope someday we eliminate all statistics done by race.

 

[NDPhilly]

how did Mr. Brown react negativley to your presentation?

Didn't like how he broke it down by race. I think it's important because at some schools there is a large difference between white and black.

 

[irish1958]

WJ,
I think your information is invaluable and should be presented with the race difference.
There are many (most?) schools which really give the black athletes a really crappy deal and pointing this out gives the families a heads up and and a dose of reality.
All three, four and five star recruits KNOW that they will be stars in college; and they will be drafted in the first round or two, going on to be successful in the pros.
Pointing out to them that the chances are slim for this to happen and their future depends on their success in real life is important. And pointing out to them the difference between how ND deals with all athletes, including black athletes, and some other schools (?SEC??) do should wake a few of them up.
Someone not wanting to hear it is not a reason not to present the information. (Wow, a triple negative)

 

[BobD]

WJ,

There are many (most?) schools which really give the black athletes a really crappy deal and pointing this out gives the families a heads up and and a dose of reality.

Wow, thats a pretty heavy accusation. You really think "many (most?) schools" discriminate? Does anyone else feel this way?