[Redrum]

The logic would go something like this:  "OK,  so assume we accept your (stupid USC-biased) premise that Stanford football players are not so academically special and that Stanford's curriculum is really just the same standard difficulty as other schools throughout the conference. 

Why is it that in 2012 STANFORD football players hold the highest graduation success rate in the Pac-12  [90%] and is among the top 10 schools of NCAA Div. 1    vs.  USC placing 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] for its football players? 

Now, think several moves ahead, like a good chess player.

When he says:  Those figures aren't relevant because so many of USC's players leave early for the NFL... You say:  No, these figures are the NCAA Graduation Success Rate, which already accounts  for NFL departures without penalty providing the players leaving were in good academic standing when they left.  i.e. U.SC already got the most generous Grad Rate calculation the NCAA rules allowed.

When he says:  Those figures were just one year that was cherrypicked to make USC look bad...  You say:  No, those were for 2012 the most recent figures available, let's go back and see how USC did over time:
---2012 the GSR scores were  Stanford  1st in Pac-12 [90%] ,USC 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] 
---2011 the GSR scores were  Stanford: 1st in Pac-12 [87%] ,  USC  7th in Pac-12 [61%] 
---2010   the first year of cumulative GSR reporting,  Stanford  1st in the Pac-10  [86%] , USC [ranking not calculated] graduated  61%   

To summarize.  Over the lifetime of the new, more generous GSR methodology,  Stanford, already on top, steadily got better.  USC, always in the bottom half of the conference, steadily got worse.

When he says: Well, of course those are just figures for the Pac-10/ Pac-12 and Stanford just skews the perceptions. When you look at the national scores,  USC doesn't look as bad... You say:  No  Nationally, the average Graduation Success Rate for football players in Div. 1  varied between 67- 69%.
--- Stanford was consistently in the top 10 nationally
--- USC was always below the national average and getting worse.

This summary alone won't put an end to his rant,  but it does set the stage to ask the question:  if Stanford and Stanford student football players are nothing special,  how does he explain such a great disparity in graduation performance?  Same standards,  h.uge performance difference.    Could it be that Stanford actually does get higher performing academically oriented student athletes?  Or, does he believe that an analysis based on ten thousand national football players is somehow less valid than his anecdotal, small sample of Stanford athletes?

[Redrum]

The logic would go something like this:  "OK,  so assume we accept your (stupid USC-biased) premise that Stanford football players are not so academically special and that Stanford's curriculum is really just the same standard difficulty as other schools throughout the conference. 

Why is it that in 2012 STANFORD football players hold the highest graduation success rate in the Pac-12  [90%] and is among the top 10 schools of NCAA Div. 1    vs.  USC placing 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] for its football players? 

Now, think several moves ahead, like a good chess player.

When he says:  Those figures aren't relevant because so many of USC's players leave early for the NFL... You say:  No, these figures are the NCAA Graduation Success Rate, which already accounts  for NFL departures without penalty providing the players leaving were in good academic standing when they left.  i.e. U.SC already got the most generous Grad Rate calculation the NCAA rules allowed.

When he says:  Those figures were just one year that was cherrypicked to make USC look bad...  You say:  No, those were for 2012 the most recent figures available, let's go back and see how USC did over time:
---2012 the GSR scores were  Stanford  1st in Pac-12 [90%] ,USC 9th in the Pac-12 [57%] 
---2011 the GSR scores were  Stanford: 1st in Pac-12 [87%] ,  USC  7th in Pac-12 [61%] 
---2010   the first year of cumulative GSR reporting,  Stanford  1st in the Pac-10  [86%] , USC [ranking not calculated] graduated  61%   

To summarize.  Over the lifetime of the new, more generous GSR methodology,  Stanford, already on top, steadily got better.  USC, always in the bottom half of the conference, steadily got worse.

When he says: Well, of course those are just figures for the Pac-10/ Pac-12 and Stanford just skews the perceptions. When you look at the national scores,  USC doesn't look as bad... You say:  No  Nationally, the average Graduation Success Rate for football players in Div. 1  varied between 67- 69%.
--- Stanford was consistently in the top 10 nationally
--- USC was always below the national average and getting worse.

This summary alone won't put an end to his rant,  but it does set the stage to ask the question:  if Stanford and Stanford student football players are nothing special,  how does he explain such a great disparity in graduation performance?  Same standards,  h.uge performance difference.    Could it be that Stanford actually does get higher performing academically oriented student athletes?  Or, does he believe that an analysis based on ten thousand national football players is somehow less valid than his anecdotal, small sample of Stanford athletes?