We spent some time recently browsing the arcana of the NCAA's 2001 Graduation Rate Report.  Yeah, we know, we need to get a life.  But hey, Cardinalmania is our life, and we will pursue stories involving the Cardinal wherever that leads us --even if we have to shake the electrons off the dustiest volumes of cyber-knowledge on the 'net.

We started off just looking at graduation rates for Pac 10 schools.  But one thing led to another, and we couldn't stop there.  We just had to check out the rates at some of Stanford's competitors on the field and on the recruiting trail.  Know thy enemy, right? So we added a few more schools to our list.  Don't like our choices?  Too bad, it's our analysis.

And so, here are the results of the Bootleg's first-ever Graduation Rate Analysis:

Bootleg comments:  Not surprisingly, our beloved Cardinal is well out in front of the rest of the Pac 10.  USC may be # 2, but USC is closer to 8th than 1st on this list.  Don't forget to look for Cal, down there among all the schools named "State."  And what's up with Georgia Tech's 33%?  Can't they at least graduate more players than Sannizay State?

Bootleg comments:  The Bootleg offers kudos to the first 5 schools on this list, which don't have a significant difference between African-American and Caucasian grad rates.  But look at the huge gaps at the last 5 schools... what in the world is going on there?  Somebody call Al Sharpton quick!  Wait, on second thought, let's not be rash...

Bootleg comments:  OK, just about everyone would expect to see schools like Auburn and Florida on this list, right? But who would have thought respectable academic schools such as Michigan and Cal would be among the biggest sell-outs in major college football? Anybody? Anybody?  As for BYU, which holds down the top spot on the list, it's been pointed out to us that a lot of their guys go on missions, which can delay their graduation.  But still... other male BYU students go on missions too, but they have a much higher graduation rate (74%) than the Cougar football team (21%).  It's one of those things that make you go hmmm...

Bootleg comments:  Turning to hoops, we find exactly what we expected:  a Grand Canyon-sized gap between Stanford and its competitors (especially the ones in the Grand Canyon State).  The Cardinal's 100% graduation rate is at risk now (though the Cardinal still can maintain its perfect record if Borchardt and Jacobsen graduate within the next 3 years), but even at 90-something percent, Stanford's rate still impresses the heck out of us and blows away the competition.  Aside from Stanford, though, the Pac 10 schools' graduation rates in basketball are, in a word, pathetic.  And don't blame it on players entering the draft, because that doesn't come close to explaining the Pac 10's dismal showing...

Bootleg comments:  The numbers of basketball players are much smaller than the numbers of football players and it's hard to draw firm conclusions with a small sample.  But still, we wonder what's going on out there, especially in the state of Oregon...

Bootleg comments:  Memo to college presidents -- do you people have any freakin' idea what's going on in your athletic departments?  The underperformance of basketball players at these schools is shocking -- and we don't shock easily, ever since the Annihilation in Austin.  And of course, we would be remiss is we didn't mention some familiar names near the top of this chart . . . yup, Michigan and Cal again.  Gotta hand it to them -- at least they're applying the same standards across the board (if you can really use the word "standards" here).

Bootleg comments:  Because all baseball players are draft-eligible after their junior year, there are significant forces pushing baseball graduation rates lower, especially at schools that produce a lot of draft prospects (such as Stanford).  Still, Stanford leads every school on this list.  And inquiring minds want to know:  which Dirtbag player had to go graduate and mess up Long Beach's perfect record?

Bootleg comments:  Stanford is well ahead of the rest of the Pac in student-athlete graduation rates, but you knew that.  The Bootleg notes that at seven of the ten schools, the graduation rates for athletes and for the overall student body are quite close (a difference of 7% or less). The three exceptions are the three Stanford wanna-bes -- USC, UCLA, and Cal.  They have high non-athlete graduation rates, but they just can't bring themselves to recruit athletes who can graduate at those same rates. Which is one reason they're only wannabes...

Bootleg comments:  Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Golden Bear athletes...

Notes on the data:

All figures are taken from the NCAA 2001 Graduation Rates Report.  The NCAA measures the percentage of scholarship athletes who graduated from the given school within 6 years after enrolling as freshmen at that school.  Scholarship athletes who transfer into the school are not counted in this report (there is a separate report for incoming transfers). Scholarship athletes who transfer out are counted as non-graduates of the school, regardless of whether they graduate elsewhere.

The rates given above are a cumulative total for the 4 entering classes from 1991-92 through 1994-95.  Because the graduation rate cannot be calculated until 6 years after a class enrolls, there is necessarily a lag in reporting.  The athletes covered by this report would have been in the graduating classes of 1995 through 1999 if they graduated on a normal 4 to 5 year track.

We looked at the "negative differential" in graduation rates, that is, the situations in which athletes graduate at a lower rate than the overall student body.  Those figures are an indicator of which schools are bringing in athletes who do not really belong there, or who are not given enough support to succeed.  We did not compare schools with "positive differentials," that is, where athletes graduate at a higher rate than the overall student body.  Positive differentials are skewed in favor of schools with very low overall graduation rates, which leads to silly results.  For example, UTEP graduates only 37% of student athletes, but graduates an even lower 23% of the overall student body, so UTEP has a differential of +14%.  That's much better than, for example, Duke's differential of -1% (91% of athletes graduate, vs. 92% of all students). But come on, at 37% vs. 91%, there's no way UTEP is doing a better job than Duke of graduating athletes.   We don't think positive differentials are a good yardstick for comparing schools.