Thursday, June 11, 2015

Brian Kelly Is Wrong. And He's Right, Too

Caught an interesting quote from Notre Dame head football coach Brian Kelly in this story from ND Insider (h/t: SB Nation). In it, Kelly states that basically, all of his football players are probably at-risk students:


I think we recognized that all of my football players are at-risk — all of them — really. Honestly, I don’t know that any of our players would get into the school by themselves right now with the academic standards the way they are. Maybe one or two of our players that are on scholarship.
So making sure that with the rigors that we put them in — playing on the road, playing night games, getting home at 4 o’clock in the morning, all of the demands that we place on them relative to the academics and going into an incredibly competitive academic classroom every day — we recognize this is a different group.
And we have to provide all the resources necessary for them to succeed and don’t force them into finding shortcuts.
I think we’ve clearly identified that we need to do better, and we’re not afraid to look at any shortcomings that we do have and fix them, and provide the resources necessary for our guys. Our university has looked at that, and we’re prepared to make sure that happens for our guys.
There's quite a bit to unpack there. Some hyperbole, and some truth.


I sincerely doubt that all but two of the 85 scholarship receiving players  on Notre Dame's roster would have been ineligible if they had applied as regular students at Notre Dame. It might not be outside of the realm of possibility, but if I had to hazard a guess, he would be wrong on that count.

Notre Dame's profile of the class that enrolled for Fall 2014 reflects that 98 percent of the students they enrolled were in the top ten percent of their high school class. It is probably safe to assume that that number would carry over for previous years. 

Notre Dame's middle 50 percent had SAT scores that fell in the 1380-1510 range (not counting Writing section) and ACT scores in the 32-34 range. They enrolled 2011 students.

Which means that 500 students or so fell below the range. A full one quarter of the class did not meet those numbers. But given that there is a whole range of things that schools look at when admitting students, not meeting these numbers doesn't mean that the student is unprepared or would not be admitted otherwise.

That's the hyperbole I was talking about; I am sure more than one or two of the Notre Dame football players would be admitted on their own merits and application.

On another point, though, Kelly is spot on.

His students ARE at-risk players simply because athletes in general are not given the time necessary to, in most cases, be a productive student.

I refer you to the infographic that Alligator Army posted the other day. That graphic, taken from the University of Florida's recruiting materials, outlines how a day is structured at the institution for their football players.

It's a 13 hour day if that player rises exactly at 6am.

And, as my years of experience in academic advising and retention tells me, there is not nearly enough time spent on studying in their day. Rule of thumb is for every hour in class per week, two to three hours outside of class studying/preparing. Granted, the day only list through 9pm, so more time COULD be spent on studying.

But come on. We all know that after 9pm, it's most likely dick around time. Gotta blow off some steam.

So, yeah, Kelly is dead on. Travel to away games. Travel back home from away games. Demands of time including media requests and community service. The beat goes on. How much of a commitment can the student athlete make to actually being a student while in-season. 

And keep in mind, football only plays one game a week and anywhere from 12-16 games during the season. Basketball players play two times a week and 40 games in their season; diamond sports play 60 times or more. 

It's ridiculous. And that's where the student athlete becomes at-risk.

It's why, on some level, that "year of readiness" isn't the worst thing in the world.

No comments: