http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-15-march-madness-academics_N.htm

Here's how the bracket shakes out if the schools with the higher APR (Academic Progress Rate) are advanced.



I'm definitely surprised at how much the Big 12 dominates.
One Big Ten team makes it past the 2nd round, but the Big Ten schools dump all of their money into graduate research, so it makes sense... they're not the greatest for undergraduates (and specifically undergraduate athletes, as much as they like to pretend to).
Big East holds its own for a while, SEC gets whacked about as fast as the Big Ten for the most part.

Any other surprises?

Cornell should get further.

^^^this

and Baylor beating ND???

Cbus I agree interesting to see Texas over Cornell but I can believe I really thought that Duke would be the champion though.

Teams that have athletes that leave early (say for the NBA) are penalized. Only in the instance of a tie using the APR, does the use of the NCAA's rating system get utilized, and it does not penalize teams for using transfers and early departures. So it's a take it FWIW scenario, in my mind, not very much. Why not just use the NCAA's version?

The winners were determined using the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, a nationally comparable score that gives points to teams whose players stay in good academic standing and remain enrolled from semester to semester. When teams had the same Academic Progress Rates, the tie was broken using the NCAA's Graduation Success Rate— which, unlike the federal rate, considers transfers and does not punish teams whose athletes leave college before graduation if they leave in good academic standing.

Kida makes statements like this...

One Big Ten team makes it past the 2nd round, but the Big Ten schools dump all of their money into graduate research, so it makes sense... they're not the greatest for undergraduates (and specifically undergraduate athletes, as much as they like to pretend to).

...appear as though there's an agenda behind them. Hmmmm

Really all depends on what kind of rankings they are using.

Not really fair to compare monstrous research universities like Texas to a place like Cornell.

Also, Purdue should have beat Sienna, IMO.

But, these sorts of things are always hard because, as i said, they are all different institutions, all strong and weak in different areas.

For graduate studies, of course Texas is going to do well, but as far as an undergraduate experience is concerned, i would think Duke and Cornell would be amongst the top.

Fun to ponder, though.

ytownfootball wrote: Teams that have athletes that leave early (say for the NBA) are penalized. Only in the instance of a tie using the APR, does the use of the NCAA's rating system get utilized, and it does not penalize teams for using transfers and early departures. So it's a take it FWIW scenario, in my mind, not very much. Why not just use the NCAA's version?
Kida makes statements like this...

One Big Ten team makes it past the 2nd round, but the Big Ten schools dump all of their money into graduate research, so it makes sense... they're not the greatest for undergraduates (and specifically undergraduate athletes, as much as they like to pretend to).

...appear as though there's an agenda behind them. Hmmmm

No, Big Ten schools do spend most of their money on graduate research. I would have loved to gone to a place like OSU for grad school, but never for undergrad (and the professor who oversees me here at OU, who got his MS and Ph.D. at OSU has said the exact same thing).

Big Ten schools are academically oriented, but they try to come off like they are when it comes to undergrads (and therefore athletes). The bulk of their efforts are not made in that realm... they're research institutions.

Honestly, I don't think the "one and dones" skew the results for that many teams in this bracket either. Sure, OSU and other schools with a bunch of them is one of them, but by and large I doubt the results would sway that much here, especially considering how many athletic juggernauts went quite deep in this exercise. Are you suggesting Cornell "lost" to Texas in this exercise because of people leaving? I'm thinking not.

Also the APR is an "NCAA version" just as much as the Graduation Success Rate, they are just 2 different versions that they use. APR is what the NCAA uses when they revoke scholarships.

LOL...ts you're far from an OSU apoligist, I understand that. I also understand the authors use of the ranking system he used rather than the one that does not penalize one and dones and transfers that the NCAA uses, it furthers his hypothetical situation. I'm sure he ran the numbers in both the APR and the NCAA's version and used the one that best illustrated his hypothetical. So to say that the numbers would not be much different is a hard assertion to back up. The author used the numbers he did for a reason.

Remember, my beef with is their idiot sports fans that have nothing to do with the school, not the school itself

I wasn't trying to start anything with the thread, just thought this was interesting because some of the trends.

have fun

ytownfootball wrote: I would have loved to gone to a place like OSU for grad school, but never for undergrad (and the professor who oversees me here at OU, who got his MS and Ph.D. at OSU has said the exact same thing).

I'm at Ohio State for undergrad and I feel like I've been getting a great education....Ohio State has changed a lot in the last 10 years.

That was ts krazie, not me

krazie45 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: I would have loved to gone to a place like OSU for grad school, but never for undergrad (and the professor who oversees me here at OU, who got his MS and Ph.D. at OSU has said the exact same thing).

I'm at Ohio State for undergrad and I feel like I've been getting a great education....Ohio State has changed a lot in the last 10 years.

I agree. I did two years worth of research at the undergrad level in pharmaceutical sciences. A high level undegrad education is at OSU for the taking if you want it. Some don't.

ytownfootball wrote: That was ts krazie, not me

Sorry, I knew that too I just mis deleted in the quoting