Statistics revealing the graduation rates of the Syracuse University men’s basketball team should not reflect the academic caliber of the basketball program, nor reflect the educational support these athletes receive from the coaching staff and university.

If anything, these statistics should be reassessed by the NCAA to better represent the academic abilities of its athletes.

On Oct. 24, the NCAA released the annual graduation rates of its Division I schools, which were based on four years of data collected from freshman athletes entering college between 2003-04 and 2006-07. Four-year graduation rates reached 81 percent nationwide. During that time period, SU graduated 87 percent of its athletes. However, only 45 percent of the university’s men’s basketball team graduated, according to the data. Last week, head coach Jim Boeheim confronted the graduation rate of the SU basketball program, disagreeing with how the data was collected.

While this number is low, there is a reason for it. One of the major motives behind this graduation rate has to do with athletes’ decision to enter the professional basketball world. If given the opportunity, these and other student-athletes should accept the chance to excel professionally in their sport of choice.

Critics should not discount the basketball program based on the desire of athletes to reach the next level in their career. These athletes are comparable to students who leave college to pursue an offered job opportunity.

The academic standards of the basketball program should always be monitored. However, graduation rates are not a fair measurement of the academic success of these athletes. Success in academics and a desire to pursue a career are mutually exclusive. Instead, the NCAA should consider the academic progress of student-athletes during their time in college, rather than their graduation rates. This measurement is a better reflection of the academic success of student-athletes.

The graduation rates of SU’s basketball players should be a point of discussion. However, the students are not the source of the issue. Instead, it is the system measuring their academic abilities.