Graduation rates raise questions for concern, validity

by Jerry Thomas, staff writer

There is one thing that I pride myself in more than anything else. Something more than the athletic skills, the charm for the ladies, and the good looks. Well, maybe not the good looks, but basically it is at the top of the list. That thing is my honesty.

After an incident with a Lubbock police officer when I was 17, I have learned that you are safe if you tell the truth. As scary as the consequences might seem, not telling the truth seems scarier and more stressful.

So I will be brutally honest here. I hate school. As a matter of fact, I cannot stand going to class. Now, of course my grades suffer because of that notion, but I have to be honest. I worry too much about other things that seem more important, such as paying rent and having gas for the extremely boring 40-minute drive to “flatland,” excuse me, Levelland. I also can’t forget about family concerns, car issues, social interaction, and maintaining a job.

All of that stress has caused me to not perform well in college for the past few years. But I also have to blame myself for being kind of lazy. So even though I don’t plan on it, I could fully understand a person, like myself taking forever to graduate. Or something that could be worse, not graduating at all.

But what about the average college athlete on scholarship? How do you explain the extremely low graduation rates for some college athletes?

According to the NCAA criteria used for determining graduation rates for athletes, men’s basketball players seem to struggle the most. Based on data from a six-year period beginning in 1998-99 school year, 43 percent of male basketball players graduated from their respected institutions.

Only 38 percent who graduated were black players and 53 percent were white players.

That means there was a 15-percent difference between black and white players. How do you explain that? Is it because African American players are just not as smart as Caucasian players? Or, does the answer like within the institution that recruits these players.

Let us think about the issue for a second. The upcoming NCAA Tournament is something that is most often described as “March Madness.” It is something that is nothing short of pure excitement and a beauty to watch. But the proper word that should be used to describe the event is Big Business.

In the 2004 NCAA Tourney, CBS generated $389 million for the NCAA. The NCAA also has a $6 billion contract with the network, which sold $400 million worth of advertisements just for the tournament.

Now, with all of that money that the NCAA is generating off of these basketball players, one would think that they would care enough to at least make sure that these athletes get a college degree. But no, that’s far from the case. They give these players free education along with their scholarship checks. And just wait for the money to come in. These coaches are paid to get these players to the tournament and win, not to get these players their degrees. If that were the case, then the highest page coaches would be the ones who graduated their players.

Former Oklahoma University head basketball coach Kelvin Sampson was reportedly a 0 percent graduation rate a few years ago. He later left the University and became the new head coach at Indiana University.

The reason I explain this is to ask the question, would you hire a basketball coach with that track record when it comes to graduating players? Since IU did hire him, it is fair to assume that graduating players must not be high on that University’s list of priorities.

But the argument does not end there.

A closer look at the NCAA criteria reveals a few flaws. First, if an athlete transfers to a university from another school, he doesn’t count. The same goes for an athlete who transfers out of one school and then graduates. If a junior-college player goes on to a four-year institution and graduates, he doesn’t count either. If a player graduates in six years, he counts, but if he graduates in six and a half years, he doesn’t.

Considering what I have experienced in college, I can assume that it will take me maybe a little more than six years to graduate. But if I was a basketball player, and that was the case, it would be as if I never graduated. Is that reasonable?

With that in mind, how are we ever supposed to know the real deal with graduation rates? All of the things that the NCAA does not factor in when calculation the rates should count. What difference does it make if a player came from a Juco program? If he graduates, he graduates. What difference does it make is a player took an extra semester to graduate? He did earn a degree, which is the main reason people go to college in the first place. I understand that there has to be some type of standard that these players are held to with regard to earning a degree. But I feel that if a player drops out of school and does not attempt to return, then he should count as a casualty.

If a player takes a semester off and returns and earns his degree, then he should count toward the percentage of players that graduate. That can be a problem since the NCAA has to have a cut-off point in terms of years a player is allowed to graduate, allowing the committee to evaluate a specific class. I feel that another percentage should be calculated for players who are in the process of earning their degrees.

But the issue still remains for the areas that do not lie within that gray area, the area that is neither black, nor white but actually is. African Americans still lag behind whites in terms of graduating on time.

The answer to the question of why is characterized with many explanations. My explanation is nothing more than a simple sarcastic quote that is another complex question:

“Who cares?”