Division 1 Football players are often stereotyped as taking easy majors to maintain their athletic commitments. But is this stereotype rooted in reality? Through a data-driven analysis of the academic paths of Division 1 Football players, this article seeks to explore the true spread of majors among some of the most prominent teams in college football. By examining patterns in major choice and comparing them to these stereotypes, this analysis aims to shed light on the academic paths of student-athletes and discussing the reality of commonly held beliefs.
As a former Football player, I often encountered this stereotype that athletes take the “easy road” when it comes to academics. This belief has fueled my curiosity to explore the academic paths of my fellow student-athletes and understand if this stereotype holds true. Through data analysis of the spread of majors among Division 1 Football players, this article aims to answer questions around the academic choices of college athletes. Do student-athletes choose majors based on their athletic commitments or for the potential of a future career? How do the schedules of student-athletes affect their academic choices?
The purpose of this study is to examine the spread of majors among Division 1 Football players. To collect data, I used the online rosters of 10 college football programs that publicly disclose the majors of their athletes. The programs were chosen based on their ranking in the top 25, with the first 10 teams that disclose their major information being selected. The data was obtained using a Python program that I designed to scrape information from the websites. Here are the 10 schools that were chosen.
The information that I was after on these roster pages was each athletes, name, major, class, hometown, and school. Across the 10 programs included in this analysis, a total of over 1000 athletes were examined. I chose these variables because they provide a comprehensive picture of the athletes academic and athletic profiles, and because they are readily available on the public roster pages.
While developing my Python program, I encountered challenges as most schools had different website layouts that made it difficult to locate and obtain certain information. Consequently, I had to write custom scripts for each school, but fortunately, they all followed a similar structure, making the process much faster and reusable in the future. As an example, here is a script for the Oregon State roster in the program.
# Main.py
import pandas as pd
import UGARoster as UGA
import OregonStateRoster as OregonState
import TexasRoster as Texas
def export_data_frame_to_excel(dataFrame, name):
try:
print('Exporting to excel...')
downloadURL = '~/Downloads/' + name + '.csv'
dataFrame.to_csv(downloadURL, index=False)
print('...Finished')
except:
print('Failure exporting to excel')
if __name__ == '__main__':
rosterData = pd.DataFrame()
UGAData = UGA.get_info()
rosterData = rosterData.append(UGAData)
...
OregonStateData = OregonState.get_info()
rosterData = rosterData.append(OregonStateData)
TexasData = Texas.get_info()
rosterData = rosterData.append(TexasData)
rosterData['Class'] = rosterData['Class'].str.lower()
rosterData['Major'] = rosterData['Major'].str.lower()
export_data_frame_to_excel(rosterData, 'NCAA-Div-1-roster-info')
# OregonStateRoster.py
import requests
from bs4 import BeautifulSoup
import pandas as pd
def get_info():
print('Getting Oregon State Info...')
dataFrame = {'Name': [],
'Major': [],
'Class': [],
'Hometown': [],
'School': []}
rosterData = pd.DataFrame(dataFrame)
try:
url = 'https://osubeavers.com/sports/football/roster'
response = requests.get(url)
rosterPage = BeautifulSoup(response.text, 'html.parser')
rosterList = rosterPage.find('div', {'class': 'c-rosterpage__players'})
for player in rosterList.find_all('div', {'class': 's-person-card__content'}):
href = player.find('a').get('href')
playerInfo = get_info_from_bio(href)
rosterData = rosterData.append(playerInfo, ignore_index=True)
return rosterData
except:
print('Failure in Oregon State get_info()')
def get_info_from_bio(href):
try:
url = 'https://osubeavers.com' + href
response = requests.get(url)
bioPage = BeautifulSoup(response.text, 'html.parser')
name = bioPage.find('div', {'class': 'c-rosterbio__player__name'}).get_text()
name = name.replace('\n', ' ').strip()
name = name.replace(' ', ' ')
classStanding = get_class_standing(bioPage)
hometown = get_hometown(bioPage)
bioContent = bioPage.find('div', {'class': 'legacy_to_nextgen'}).get_text()
major = ''
if 'PERSONAL' in bioContent:
personalSection = bioContent[bioContent.find('PERSONAL') + 9:]
major = get_major_from_personal_section(personalSection)
if major == '':
major = 'No Bio Listed'
player = {'Name': name, 'Major': major, 'Class': classStanding, 'Hometown': hometown,
'School': 'Oregon State'}
return player
except:
print('Failure in Oregon State get_info_from_bio()')
def get_class_standing(bioPage):
bioSection = bioPage.find('div', {'class': 'c-rosterbio__playerfields'})
for li in bioSection.find_all('li'):
if 'Year' in li.get_text():
classStanding = li.get_text()
classStanding = classStanding.replace('\n', ' ')
classStanding = classStanding.replace(' ', ' ')
classStanding = classStanding[5:]
break
return classStanding.strip()
def get_hometown(bioPage):
bioSection = bioPage.find('div', {'class': 'c-rosterbio__playerfields'})
for li in bioSection.find_all('li'):
if 'Hometown' in li.get_text():
hometown = li.get_text()
hometown = hometown.replace('\n', ' ')
hometown = hometown.replace(' ', ' ')
hometown = hometown[9:]
break
return hometown.strip()
def get_major_from_personal_section(personalSection):
major = ''
try:
if personalSection.find('Majoring') != -1:
personalSection = personalSection[personalSection.find('Majoring') + 11:]
if '\r\n' in personalSection:
personalSection = personalSection[:personalSection.find('\r\n')]
if ' after' in personalSection:
personalSection = personalSection[:personalSection.find(' after')]
major = personalSection
if personalSection.find('degree') != -1:
personalSection = personalSection[personalSection.find('degree') + 6:]
personalSection = personalSection[personalSection.find('in ') + 2:]
if '\r\n' in personalSection:
personalSection = personalSection[:personalSection.find('\r\n')]
major = personalSection
if major == '':
major = 'No Major Listed'
return major.strip()
except:
print('Failure in Oregon State get_major_from_personal_section()')
To obtain the team information, the program follows a specific workflow.
Main.py calls OregonStateRoster.py to extract the data of the entire
team from the online roster into a Pandas data frame.
OregonStateRoster.py establishes a connection with the roster page and
parses out the players using html tags such as
. The program then collects the link to each player’s personal bio page and extracts their name, year, and hometown from the header. The player’s major is obtained by searching for relevant keywords in their written bio. The program then creates a new row in the data frame and adds the information for each player on the roster. The process is repeated for every player on the team, and the total time required for the program to run for all the schools is approximately 20 minutes. For future research, the program has the potential for optimization and possibly standardization across all the teams.
To prepare the data for analysis, I standardized the formatting of the major and class variables. This involved removing variations in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation across different roster pages. Additionally, I excluded athletes whose major information was missing or labeled as “undecided” on the roster pages. After this cleaning process, a total of just over 600 athletes were included in the analysis. To facilitate interpretation, I grouped majors in 9 broad categories based on the College Board’s BigFuture website. These categories were: Business, Communications, Education, Engineering, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Sports Related.The Sports Related category was added in place of Trades and Personal Services, as this better reflected a part of the data set.
| Arts & Humanities | Business | Health and Medicine | Multi-Interdisciplinary Studies | Public and Social Services | Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) | Social Sciences | Sports Related |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Art | Accountancy | Animal Nutrition | Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication | Criminology | Aeronautical Technology | Broadcast Journalism | Physical Culture & Sports |
| Communications | Accounting | Animal Science | Agricultural Ststems Management | Early Childhood Education | Architechtural Engineering | Consumer & Family Financial Services | Recreation & Sport Management |
| Cultural Anthropology | Advertising | Athletic Training & Rehab Sciences | Applied Computing | Elementary Education | Bio Engineering | Development & Family Science | Sport Coaching, Rec & Physical Education |
| Design | Agribusiness | Biology | Arts and Sciences | Homeland Security Studies | Chemical Engineering | Development & Family Sciences | Sport Industry |
| Digital Communication Arts | Business | Biology-Pre-Med-Track | Biology & Economics | Labor and Human Resources | Civil Engineering | Family & Consumer Sciences | Sport Management |
| Entertainment & Media Studies | Business & Marketing | Biomedical Engineering | Construction Sciences & Management | Landscape Contracting | Computer Engineering | Human Development & Family Studies | Sports Communication |
| Film & Media Arts | Business Administration | Cell & Molecular Biology | Design & Innovation Management | Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management | Computer Science | Political Science | Sports Medicine |
| Graphic Communications | Business Analytics | Excercise Science | Environmental Sciences | Secondary Education | Construction Engineering | Psychology | Sports Studies |
| History | Business Management | Food Science | Human Dimension of Organizations | Social Studies Education | Construction Science | Radio-Television-Film | |
| Journalism | Construction Management | Genetics | Interdisciplinary studies | Special Education | Electrical Engineering | Social Sciences | |
| Journalism & Electronic Media | Corporate Communication | Health & Kinesiology | Learning Design & Technology | Psychology & Criminology | Engineering Physics | Sociology | |
| Liberal Studies | Economics | Health & Physical Education | Recreation, Park, & Tourism Management | Environmental Sciences | Speach Communication | ||
| Philosophy | Finance | Health Science | Social Transformation Studies | General Engineering | |||
| Religion | Financial Management | Kinesiology | Youth & Community Studies | Industrial Engineering | |||
| Housing management & Policy | Nutrition and Excercise Science | Mechanical Engineering | |||||
| Information Systems & Technology | Physical Science | Natural Resources | |||||
| Management | Public Health | Nuclear Engineering | |||||
| Marketing | Therapeutic Recreation | Physics | |||||
| Pre-Business | Telecommunications | ||||||
| Pre-Communication | Zoology | ||||||
| Pre-Professional Programs | |||||||
| Professional Strategic Selling | |||||||
| Public Relations | |||||||
| Real Estate |
In terms of limitations of this data, it is important to note that some majors may fall under multiple categories. Additionally, Multi-Interdisciplinary Studies may be difficult to categorize definitively. Similarly, the Sports Related category may not fully capture the range of majors that could be considered relevant to athletics.
Overall, this data provides valuable insight into the academic paths of student-athletes and how those paths intersect with their athletic pursuits. The results are in line with some expectations, but also provide a more nuanced understanding of the spread of majors among Division 1 football players. This information has the potential to inform future research and contribute to a better understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by student-athletes in higher education.
The analysis of the data showed that the majority of the 608 college football players surveyed chose to major in Business-related fields, with 247 athletes pursuing degrees in this area. Arts and Humanities were the second most popular major among the players, with 87 students selecting this field. Health and Medicine were also a popular choice, with 80 athletes opting to major in this area. Interestingly, only 42 athletes chose to pursue sports-related majors, indicating that most players chose to major in areas outside of their athletic commitments. Overall, the data provided insight into the academic paths of student-athletes and how these paths are intertwined with their athletics.
To gain insight into the most popular majors among the student body of these colleges, I collected data from the U.S. News Best Colleges list. This source provided a comprehensive overview of the colleges and their respective majors, based on the percentage of students who graduate with each degree per year.
#1. University of Georgia #4. Ohio State
Overall, the two plots provide interesting insights into the distribution of majors among the chosen universities. The plot for University of Georgia suggests that the team has a significant number of Business majors which is consistent, but has the other two most popular majors in the lower end groups. While the Ohio State plot confirms that the university’s most popular majors, falling into the Business and Social Science categories, are indeed highly represented among their team.
#6. University of Tennessee #7. Pennsylvania State University
These two plots provide valuable information on the relationship between the majors of the student-athletes and those of the general student body. In the case of the University of Tennessee the data suggests that Social Science is just as important among the team as Business, despite not being the most popular major at the school. Meanwhile, at Pennsylvania State University, the high representation of Business among the student-athletes contrasts with the predominance of the Biology (STEM) major among the rest of the student body.
#9. Tulane University #10. University of Utah
The plots for Tulane University and the University of Utah demonstrate a strong correlation between the most popular majors among the student body and the majors among the football team. At Tulane, the majority of athletes have a Business major, which is also the most popular major among the student body. Similarly, at the University of Utah, the majority of athletes have a Arts and Humanities or Social Science major, which partially aligns with the most popular major among the students, Psychology.
#13. Clemson University #14. Kansas State
This analysis highlights significant differences in the major representation between the team and the student body. At Clemson University, Business dominates the team’s majors, whereas the school’s most popular major is Engineering. Meanwhile, Kansas State University’s most popular major is Business, which is reflected in the high number of athletes in that major compared to other categories.
#17. Oregon State #25. University of Texas
These two graphs align with the stereotype of athletes gravitating towards Business-related majors. At Oregon State, Business and Social Sciences are well-represented among athletes, but Computer Science (STEM), the school’s most popular majors, falls behind other categories. At the University of Texas, Business is the dominant major, which is understandable given the popularity of a Business-related major. However, it’s worth noting that two of the most popular majors ate the university are STEM-related, yet they are the least represented among athletes. Additionally, the presence of Sports-Related majors in the top two is notable.
Overall, the analysis of the graphs reveals that Business is the most dominant major among football players across the majority of the ten schools studied. While there are some variations, such as Social Sciences being the most popular major at University of Utah, Business remains at the top choice for most football players. These findings suggest that the stereotype of athletes gravitating towards business-related majors may hold some truth.
We are aiming to explore the academic choices of Division 1 football players and analyze the specialties of different schools when it comes to major choice. One question that arises is whether football players tend to opt for “easy” majors or if there are other factors that influence their academic decisions. Additionally, we will examine whether the stereotype of football players as primarily choosing Business-related majors holds true across all schools or if there any surprising results.
Based on the data, it appears that the most popular major at a school has little impact on the majors chosen by student-athletes. The majority of teams have a large proportion of players in major classified as “easy”, with Business being the most common, followed by Arts and Humanities. Since both of these categories are considered “easy” majors, it is reasonable to conclude that the most popular major at a school does not influence the choice of major among athletes.
Easy majors are a common topic of discussion, especially in relation to Division 1 football players. While the definition of an easy major may be subjective and influenced by various factors, such as the rigor of the school or individual circumstances, rankings such as those provided by University HQ are often cited. According to their data, the top five easiest majors fall under the categories of Business, Arts and Humanities, and Public and Social Services, with Business / Management being the easiest. However, it’s important to consider the limitations and biases of these rankings, such as the reliance on factors like graduate GPA data and student reviews.
When considering what might constitute an “easy” major, it’s important to acknowledge the demands placed on Division 1 student-athletes. As someone who played Division 3 football, I know firsthand how much time and effort goes into practices, meetings, and film sessions. For Division 1 athletes, this commitment can easily exceed 20 hours per week. According to a Flagler College Gargoyle article, these student-athletes spend an average of just six hours on school work, 5.7 hours on athletic events, and 3.3 hours on social life, leaving roughly seven hours for sleep. Given this grueling schedule, it’s understandable why student-athletes might opt for majors that are less time-consuming or demanding. After all, their days are already longer and harder than most.
After analyzing the findings, it is evident that Division 1 football players gravitate towards “easy” majors. This trend is supported by the data, and can be attributed to their rigorous schedules or the possibility of burnout from their demanding commitments.
Through a data-driven analysis of the academic paths of Division 1 football players, this article has explored the reality of stereotypes that suggest that athletes take the “easy road” when it comes to academics. As a former football player, this stereotype has fueled my curiosity to understand if it holds true. By examining patterns in major choice and comparing them to these stereotypes, this analysis has shed light on the academic paths of student-athletes and discussed the reality of commonly held beliefs. By the data analyzed in this article, it is safe to assume that these stereotypes hold true… Whether we want to believe it or not.
College
Major Categories
Most Popular Major By
School
Easiest
College Majors
Athletic
Schedule Article University of Georgia
Football Page
Ohio State
University Football Page
University of Tennessee
Football Page
Pennsylvania State
University Football Page
Tulane University
Football Page
University of Utah
Football Page
Clemson University
Football Page
Kansas State
University Football Page
Oregon State University
Football Page
University of Texas
Football Page