GSR?

[cincyhoya]

Hmm.. maybe time for all of us to take a mighty step back, swallow our pride and re-evaluate our derision of UCan't, Cuse and the 'Nati. A GSR of 50 for hoops - ugly... God knows we haven't had enough guys leave early for the NBA to account for that. Here's hoping JTIII works on that as well as on court results.

[SFHoya99]

I'm not sure exactly what the GSR is. Is this the APR the NCAA was talking about? If so, you lose points for players that transfer out in good academic standing even if they graduate elsewhere.

Which would explain some things.

EDIT: www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/faq.html

"The GSR is an alternative graduation-rate methodology the NCAA will launch this fall. The new rate, which will supplement and not replace the federal methodology, credits institutions for incoming transfers who graduate. This will not adversely affect the team rate for outgoing transfers who leave the institution as long as they would have been academically eligible had they returned. The new rate also accounts for midyear enrollees and will be calculated for every sport. Data collection on four cohorts (1995-96 through 1998-99) will be available in March, with data due from institutions by mid-May."

[SFHoya99]

Players from 1995-96 thru 1998-99

3 Allen Iverson '98 6-0 165 Guard*
4 Joseph Touomou '99 6-2 195 Guard
10 Eric Myles '98 5-10 185 Guard
11 Daymond Jackson '99 6-4 195 Guard
12 Dean Berry '99 5-10 170 Guard
13 Brendan Gaughan '97 5-9 185 Guard
14 Cheikh Dia '97 6-9 225 Forward
22 Boubacar Aw '98 6-7 220 Forward
25 Jerry Nichols '98 6-4 210 Guard/Forward
32 Godwin Owinje '97 6-8 205 Forward
34 James Reed '97 6-0 190 Guard
42 Jerome Williams '96 6-9 205 Forward*
44 Victor Page '99 6-3 205 Guard*
50 Othella Harrington '96 6-9 240 Center*
55 Jahidi White '98 6-9 270 Center*
15 Shernard Long '00 6-3 180 Guard
30 Ed Sheffey '00 6-0 185 Guard*
40 Jameel Watkins '99 6-10 240 Center
50 Shamel Jones '00 6-8 210 Forward
00 Trez Kilpatrick '99 6-6 220 Forward*
3 Kenny Brunner '01 5-11 185 Guard*
20 Demian Bolden '99 6-3 180 Guard
25 Nat Burton '01 6-4 205 Forward
32 Rhese Gibson '00 6-7 210 Forward
44 Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje'01 6-11 245 Center
3 Kevin Braswell '02 6-2 190 Guard
5 Anthony Perry '01 6-3 185 Guard*
10 Gharun Hester '01 6-4 205 Guard
14 Willie Taylor '02 6-5 185 Forward

[kchoya]

jerzhoya said:

Hmm.. maybe time for all of us to take a mighty step back, swallow our pride and re-evaluate our derision of UCan't, Cuse and the 'Nati. A GSR of 50 for hoops - ugly... God knows we haven't had enough guys leave early for the NBA to account for that. Here's hoping JTIII works on that as well as on court results.

What players have been at Georgetown for four years and not graduated? I think that's the real issue. I don't think that an institution should be penalized for players leaving early for the pros or transferring to another school.

[DFW HOYA]

Georgetown's basketball GSR is not acceptable--then, now or in the future. Period.

[SFHoya99]

dfw said:

Georgetown's basketball GSR is not acceptable--then, now or in the future. Period.

If that is the stance, then the Thompson policy of taking chances on players but requiring them to do work or leave will have to change.

I think a lot of people agree with that policy and many are proud of that policy.

I do not think that Georgetown's GSR is low because we do not academically support our players, fail to put emphasis on graduation or do anything that encourages them not to graduate.

What is costing us is also not early entrance to the NBA (yet - two in the last ten years is hardly damaging and Mike might have been in good academic standing).

It is players who leave, and specifically players who leave because of academics/are in poor academic standing.

Of the list above, Page, Long, Sheffey, Brunner -- I can guess they were all risks that are probably killing us right now. Maybe Willie Taylor.

But we've had risks that pay off, as well -- Ewing, Perry, DJ Owens.

I'd like to see a player graduation rate -- in addition to this -- that excludes players who leave.

[Jack]

sfhoya99 said:

dfw said:

Georgetown's basketball GSR is not acceptable--then, now or in the future. Period.

If that is the stance, then the Thompson policy of taking chances on players but requiring them to do work or leave will have to change.

I think a lot of people agree with that policy and many are proud of that policy.

I do not think that Georgetown's GSR is low because we do not academically support our players, fail to put emphasis on graduation or do anything that encourages them not to graduate.

What is costing us is also not early entrance to the NBA (yet - two in the last ten years is hardly damaging and Mike might have been in good academic standing).

It is players who leave, and specifically players who leave because of academics/are in poor academic standing.

Of the list above, Page, Long, Sheffey, Brunner -- I can guess they were all risks that are probably killing us right now. Maybe Willie Taylor.

But we've had risks that pay off, as well -- Ewing, Perry, DJ Owens.

I'd like to see a player graduation rate -- in addition to this -- that excludes players who leave.

I don't know specific players academic profiles either in HS or in college, but I do know that there is a difference between taking a few calculated, educated risks and simply taking anyone you feel like taking and then justifying it by saying you were giving a poor kid a chance. I believe that the pendulum has moved back toward the former, but I think the last few years of Pops' tenure may have been an example of the latter.

[DFW HOYA]

sfhoya99 said:

If that is the stance, then the Thompson policy of taking chances on players but requiring them to do work or leave will have to change.

OK then, change.

(It's that kind of day, I guess.)

[SFHoya99]

Taking the players, and classifying:

Walk-ons (5):
12 Dean Berry '99 5-10 170 Guard
13 Brendan Gaughan '97 5-9 185 Guard
34 James Reed '97 6-0 190 Guard
20 Demian Bolden '99 6-3 180 Guard
10 Gharun Hester '01 6-4 205 Guard

Left Early (9):
3 Allen Iverson '98 6-0 165 Guard*
10 Eric Myles '98 5-10 185 Guard
25 Jerry Nichols '98 6-4 210 Guard/Forward
44 Victor Page '99 6-3 205 Guard*
15 Shernard Long '00 6-3 180 Guard
30 Ed Sheffey '00 6-0 185 Guard*
3 Kenny Brunner '01 5-11 185 Guard*
14 Willie Taylor '02 6-5 185 Forward
50 Shamel Jones '00 6-8 210 Forward

Stayed Four (12):
4 Joseph Touomou '99 6-2 195 Guard
11 Daymond Jackson '99 6-4 195 Guard
14 Cheikh Dia '97 6-9 225 Forward
22 Boubacar Aw '98 6-7 220 Forward
44 Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje'01 6-11 245 Center
5 Anthony Perry '01 6-3 185 Guard*
50 Othella Harrington '96 6-9 240 Center*
55 Jahidi White '98 6-9 270 Center*
40 Jameel Watkins '99 6-10 240 Center
25 Nat Burton '01 6-4 205 Forward
32 Rhese Gibson '00 6-7 210 Forward
3 Kevin Braswell '02 6-2 190 Guard

Transferred In (3):
00 Trez Kilpatrick '99 6-6 220 Forward*
42 Jerome Williams '96 6-9 205 Forward*
32 Godwin Owinje '97 6-8 205 Forward

Here's the thing. Even if walk-ons don't count, and everyone who left was academically ineligible, that means we had 24 players likely counted - 12 of them "not graduating."

Nine of those could be the crew that left, and that leaves THREE of the SIXTEEN who stayed to be seniors not graduating.

That's the number I'd sit on, and that is somewhat unacceptable. Two to Three of 13 to 16 players - only 80% if you stay. That's pretty mediocre and nowhere near Thompson's historical 97% .

[Jack]

Godwin Owinje was a JUCO transfer. Shamel Jones left after his sophomore year, I believe.

So subtract Jones out of your equation and you are down to 12 guys who were are GU for 4 years, and by your calculation there were 12 graduates from that same period. The most generous reading of those numbers says that guys who were on campus for four years graduated, but no one else did. That still amounts to an unacceptable number of risks that did not pay off among the others.

[kchoya]

dfw said:

sfhoya99 said:

If that is the stance, then the Thompson policy of taking chances on players but requiring them to do work or leave will have to change.

OK then, change.

(It's that kind of day, I guess.)

So would so also say that we shouldn't accept any partial qualifiers? Do we only accept kids in the top 10% of their class? Where do we draw the line? Do we extend that to the entire university, because I worked with a lot of non-athletes who shouldn't have been at Georgetown but were in special programs.

[kchoya]

sfhoya99 said:

Players from 1995-96 thru 1998-99

3 Allen Iverson '98 6-0 165 Guard*
4 Joseph Touomou '99 6-2 195 Guard
10 Eric Myles '98 5-10 185 Guard
11 Daymond Jackson '99 6-4 195 Guard
12 Dean Berry '99 5-10 170 Guard
13 Brendan Gaughan '97 5-9 185 Guard
14 Cheikh Dia '97 6-9 225 Forward
22 Boubacar Aw '98 6-7 220 Forward
25 Jerry Nichols '98 6-4 210 Guard/Forward
32 Godwin Owinje '97 6-8 205 Forward
34 James Reed '97 6-0 190 Guard
42 Jerome Williams '96 6-9 205 Forward*
44 Victor Page '99 6-3 205 Guard*
50 Othella Harrington '96 6-9 240 Center*
55 Jahidi White '98 6-9 270 Center*
15 Shernard Long '00 6-3 180 Guard
30 Ed Sheffey '00 6-0 185 Guard*
40 Jameel Watkins '99 6-10 240 Center
50 Shamel Jones '00 6-8 210 Forward
00 Trez Kilpatrick '99 6-6 220 Forward*
3 Kenny Brunner '01 5-11 185 Guard*
20 Demian Bolden '99 6-3 180 Guard
25 Nat Burton '01 6-4 205 Forward
32 Rhese Gibson '00 6-7 210 Forward
44 Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje'01 6-11 245 Center
3 Kevin Braswell '02 6-2 190 Guard
5 Anthony Perry '01 6-3 185 Guard*
10 Gharun Hester '01 6-4 205 Guard
14 Willie Taylor '02 6-5 185 Forward

What does the * signify?

[SFHoya99]

jack said:

Godwin Owinje was a JUCO transfer. Shamel Jones left after his sophomore year, I believe.

So subtract Jones out of your equation and you are down to 12 guys who were are GU for 4 years, and by your calculation there were 12 graduates from that same period. The most generous reading of those numbers says that guys who were on campus for four years graduated, but no one else did. That still amounts to an unacceptable number of risks that did not pay off among the others.

I made the changes and it still means THREE of the folks who stayed until their senior year didn't graduate.

One, I assume DFW's site assumes graduation, but knowing those players, I just can't come up with three players -- and that's assuming that all of our nine who left were with poor academic standing.

So is the 50% right? I'm not sure I'm buying it. Maybe it is like the APR and they are weighted by year in that time period? I dunno.

As for the rest, I'm not sure it was an unacceptable number of risks. From my memory, Brunner wasn't a headcase in high school and actually had quite good grades. I think Sheffey was the same. Victor and Allen were risks, but how many of these guys transferred for non-grade reasons and simply let their grades go because they were transferring or homesick or whatever?

It was an unfortunate number of transfers. You have to find out the reasons for transfer and the reasons for "not qualifying."

Can anyone out there (McD maybe) verify that the 50% is right? It doesn't seem right.

[SFHoya99]

kchoya said:

What does the * signify?

It's a copy and paste from DFW's site -- the * means the player was a starter in the year I happened to copy their name from.

[CO_Hoya]

At least 3 of the transfers played through their senior years at their new schools:

Shamel Jones - Memphis
Shernard Long - Georgia State
Willie Taylor - VCU

Of course, it doesn't mean they were in good standing when they left.

How do we look for the next few years? With (by my count) Hunter, Scruggs, Wilson, Sweetney, Thomas, Bethel, Hall, Causey, Reed and Guibunda all leaving, seems like we're heading down in the rankings

[SaxaCD]

dfw said:

Georgetown's basketball GSR is not acceptable--then, now or in the future. Period.

Maybe, but I also think the GSR itself is also not acceptable, so it's a wash. If a kid is being educated, but leaves because he feels he will be happier playing ball elsewhere, it does not reflect one bit on the school's academics. Using that formula to assess academic standing is therefore ridiculous and nonsensical. And to penalize a school because his NEXT school doesn't educate him? Twilight Zone.

[Jack]

saxacd85 said:

dfw said:

Georgetown's basketball GSR is not acceptable--then, now or in the future. Period.

Maybe, but I also think the GSR itself is also not acceptable, so it's a wash. If a kid is being educated, but leaves because he feels he will be happier playing ball elsewhere, it does not reflect one bit on the school's academics. Using that formula to assess academic standing is therefore ridiculous and nonsensical. And to penalize a school because his NEXT school doesn't educate him? Twilight Zone.

But the GSR is designed to avoid specifically those issues- schools are not penalized if the student-athlete leaves in good academic standing, nor are they given credit for their graduation from another school.

[SFHoya99]

That's what they say, Jack, but I'm still having a lot of trouble getting to 50%.

As for the future, can we really say that all those players left in poor academic standing?

[Jack]

sfhoya99 said:

That's what they say, Jack, but I'm still having a lot of trouble getting to 50%.

As for the future, can we really say that all those players left in poor academic standing?

I admit I am confused too. I can personally attest to seeing two of those guys graduate, I am sure others here can make similar claims. I also agree that it is difficult to assume that all those who left were ineligible at the time they left, although it is a virtual certainty that it was true for at least a few of them.

[GIGAFAN99]

Here's why the GSR is stupid and always will be.

What they want is an incentive for insitutions to expect excellence.

What they get is an incentive to lie.

Player A comes to Georgetown. He can't hack it and he fails out. Player B goes to Iowa State. He can't hack it, but there's nothing to hack because his transcripts are complete fiction. He passes and possibly even graduates.

Which is better? Which is more honest? I'm not saying taking Player A or B was right or wrong but what happens afterwards as measured by the GSR paints one institution as doing more "good" than another based on academic "achievement" as measured by the institution's own standards.

The fact is there is no easy way out of this short of forcing all schools to field athletes within a certain range of the admissions standards of the rest of the student body. But that puts elite schools out of the sports business. It's not because "athletes are dumb" either. It's about simple math.

Let's say hypothetically a school can't take any athlete on scholarship lower than the 25th percentile on the SAT composite (just as an example). Kentucky can take everyone with an ACT of 21 or higher let's say (25th% admitted). Easy enough, that's about the national median. 50% of students fall in this pool.

Let's do the same for Georgetown. 25th percentile SAT for Georgetown is 1300! That's 89th percentile nationally. So now Georgetown can only accept 11% of student athletes.

But wait, it's worse for our Hoyas! All the athletes that we can accept, can ALSO be accepted at any other schools. So not only do we have fewer students-athletes to choose from but we have to fight more schools to get them!

So standards for admission set by the NCAA don't work. Graduation "measures" encourage cheating, and everything is almost impossible to administer when you have 334 D-1 basketball programs.

I don't have a solution and the NCAA obviously doesn't either. Until someone finds a way to truly measure the academic rigors athletes go through at Cincy vs. Georgetown, or NC State vs. Duke, the GSR and any other incarnation of it is irrelevant.