I'll admit it. I love the BCS. Not that I think it's the best way to handle things in college football (I'm in favor of a 6-team playoff), but I also don't think it's as horrible as critics make it out to be. They whine about an unfair system, as if the system
before the BCS was fair ("Grandma, what a short memory you have!" "The better to rant and bitch at you, my dear!"). They knock the involvement of computer polls, even though the current rankings were overwhelmingly determined by human voters. They express their outrage at the National Championship match-up, without giving valid reasons for preferring a different one. I love the BCS because it will never get things exactly right and it will always infuriate people... just like a playoff system inevitably will. :-)
By the way, for purposes of full disclosure, I am an Ohio State alum (as some of you readers may already know). But don't give me any BS about bias. I don't think they're the best team in the nation either, and I am already dreading the beatdown my beloved Buckeyes will receive from LSU. So there.
But now to the topic I really want to discuss. Even more annoying than the non-stop bitching of analysts about the BCS, is the non-stop bitching of some analysts about the poor academic performance of major college football programs and "student"-athletes as a whole. And not necessarily because of a holier-than-thou, elitist attitude among some of these critics (though that certainly doesn't
help), but primarily because I feel that there are holes in the research that are rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.
Take this study, for instance, which a friend forwarded to me recently:
Academic BCSNow, in general, I think this is a very interesting study, but there are a few flaws that I feel are keeping us from getting at the whole truth. I'll start with the little nitpicky stuff.
(1) Their data are a bit old. The study includes only students who entered school between 1997-2000. Now, I can't directly fault the authors for this. It's the best data available, and I like the fact that they allow up to six years for graduation. My only beef here is that they're using
this year's Top 25 in their analysis. Very few (if any) of the students in their sample have set foot on a college field in (at the very least) three years.
(2) There is no way to determine which majors these students had. Knowing the difference between the Chemistry majors and those who specialized in Back Nine Studies or Comparative Studies of Couches and Recliners would be very helpful. But like I said, I'm really being nitpicky here... the authors disclose that this is an issue (and elaborate on the problem
here), and I know that their hands are tied due the data available.
(3) OK, so putting the little stuff aside, here's my big issue. Taking this quote from their section describing why this research is important:
"...the future of most players depends on getting a college degree, not securing an NFL contract."
Agreed. Relatively few college players make it to the NFL (or the CFL, Arena League, etc.) But what about those who
do land a career as a pro football player? Should they be lumped in without dropouts who couldn't handle the books
or the game?
Failing to take this variable into account may skew the data. It's no surprise that many of the schools that fared poorly in this analysis are also huge NFL pipelines. The graduation rates used in studies like these could very well be counting students who go pro early as failures despite the fact that they actually succeeded. I'm not dismissing the notion that getting a good education is important - I'm just saying that it's not the
only path to success. Pro athletes do pretty well for themselves in general, even if they leave school early to do so.
So here's my solution, overly simplistic as it might be: take players who leave school early to go pro out of the equation entirely, and recalculate the graduation rates. You know the old joke about jocks "majoring in football?" Well, let's take it seriously. If a football player came to college primarily for athletic opportunities, then successfully obtaining an NFL contract (or a career in another pro league, announcing/radio/TV opportunities, paid speaking engagements due to football fame, etc.) should count as succeeding in that person's "major." Who knows... maybe including this variable won't change a thing, but at least acknowledging that this
could be important is enough for me.
In other words, I agree with the authors that the NFL isn't the best option for everybody. But for some, it is a better (and more lucrative) option than getting a degree. Would I prefer to see all athletes graduate, even those who go pro? Absolutely. Would I encourage my own child to achieve academically, even if they were athletically gifted? You bet. But this isn't a one-size-fits-all world. If you're an athlete facing a limited amount of years to play a sport, that contract may open up more doors and provide you with more opportunities than a college degree... like it or not.
