I'm not posting this as an endorsement; but it stood out as a counter argument to a key point made by Wainstein that I thought was worthy of attention and review, and thought it should be preserved somewhere besides a fan message board.
Wainstein Numbers -- A Closer Look
by Daren Lucas
Two of my pet peeves with the Wainstein Report were lack of statistical data on the numbers of students involved (he speaks mainly about enrollments not individuals) and his horrid attempt at a GPA Impact Analysis. sd In fact, the Impact Analysis is so bad and has so little basis in determining eligibility that he even admits it. (more later).
Here is the only summary I can find that actually speaks to numbers of athletes and non-athletes:
So, 2097 students took 3,906 classes....he says 47.4% of enrollments were by athletes but that doesnt actually to speak to the number of athletes only their incident in taking the classes. But we'll go with 47.4. There is one breakdown of anyone who took more than 5.
So I used the knowns to determine how many athletes and non-athletes took less than 5. This would speak to the masses and incidence of taking classes and point to scope of any so called scheme.
See for yourself.
This clearly shows that non-athletes had a higher incidence.....1.62 to 1.16. So 885 athletes (or 89%) only took 1.16 each. How can that be a scheme for eligibility?
Back to Wainstein's Impact Analysis. Read this:
Comical.
So I did my own impact analysis on taking one paper class. Remember, the average athlete paper class grade was 3.55.....the average athlete regular AFAM grade was 2.84....the average football (lowest of athletes) GPA in a host of other courses of study was 2.77.
I only found two intervals where one paper class grade of 3.55 vs. 2.84 or 2.77 had an impact on advancing to the next semester per NCAA rules......and in each case, the athlete could take ONE summer school class and earn enough quality points from a B- to bring the total GPA over 2.0.
So, one class per student does not amount to an eligibility scheme and one class (in and of itself) would not have had a statistical impact on ongoing eligibility.
