It is time to set the record straight with the critics who claim student-athletes are not as proficient in the classroom as they are on the fields and courts. Frankly, I am tired of reading and hearing the misinformed reports that allude to widespread academic fraud and coddled student-athletes.

The fact is that on average, student-athletes outperform their student-body counterparts in the classroom. This is the case in almost every student-athlete demographic.

But a group of naysayers continues to claim otherwise. These are the uniformed, the skeptics and the cynics of college sports who refute every fact along the way with a "yeah, but…" followed by a counter-argument. If they declare one or two "yeah, buts," most often they simply are uninformed because they have not been presented with or do not understand the facts of the matter. Three "yeah, buts" qualifies them as skeptics who may or may not be persuaded by the data. More than three "yeah, buts" and you can bet they are cynics who unlike skeptics enter the debate with a predetermined outcome and do not even bother to consider the facts.

Conversations with naysayers about student-athlete academic performance typically proceed like this:

Statement: "The NCAA’s academic purpose is to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

Naysayer: "Yeah, but student-athletes are more athlete than student."

Response: "That is a myth. Academic credentials for student-athletes are superior on the front end and back end of the higher-education continuum. First, the general student body in Division I entering college in 2005 did so with a 3.28 grade-point average and an SAT score of 1,026. The average Division I student-athlete on the other hand enters college with a 3.35 GPA and an SAT score of 1,059 — that’s 33 points higher than the average Division I student. So much for the "dumb jock" appellation. On the back end, the NCAA’s Graduation Success Rate data show that 77 percent of Division I student-athletes — nearly four of every five student-athletes — obtain their degrees. In Division II, the rate is 69 percent."

Naysayer: "Yeah, but the GSR is an NCAA public-relations ploy that exaggerates student-athlete academic success. The rate the federal government requires is nowhere near that high."

Response: "In fact, the GSR is more accurate than the federal methodology. If you were a 3.50 student in one major who transferred to another institution to pursue a field not offered at the original school, using the federal rate you would count neither toward the institution at which you matriculated nor the school from which you earned your diploma.

The GSR counts student-athletes who transfer out in good academic standing and who transfer in and graduate. Because the Department of Education does not track transfers — even though its own analyses show that more than 50 percent of all new bachelor-degree recipients attend more than one undergraduate institution — there is no student-body rate to compare with the GSR. However, even using the federal methodology, student-athletes in every entering class since 1986 have outperformed their student-body counterparts by a full two percentage points.

"Naysayer: "Yeah, but that includes all the student-athletes in women’s sports and the men’s nonrevenue sports that aren’t driven by the almighty dollar. What about football and men’s basketball? Those are the real academic eyesores."

Response: "First of all, intercollegiate athletics is not ‘driven by the almighty dollar.’ Those who claim that college sports is only about big business are misguided. College sports displays businesslike tendencies in the way the enterprise earns revenue because it must raise funds to support quality programs; however, intercollegiate athletics is a nonprofit when it comes to how it spends those revenues. If college sports were only about business, it would be a failed business, since only two sports would survive.

Second, to the point about football and men’s basketball student-athletes, the federal graduation rate for black football players outpaces the graduation rate for all black male students by 12 percentage points. Additionally, the graduation rate of 61 percent for white football players is equal to the graduation rate of all white male students. The federal rate of black male basketball players, at 42 percent, is five percentage points higher than the graduation rate of all black males in the student body (37 percent). Frankly, the question we ought to be asking is why the overall black male population struggles in higher education. To those who claim that intercollegiate athletics exploits black males, the real tragedy is the lack of success for black male students overall."

Naysayer: "Yeah, but student-athletes in football and basketball take easy majors and get favors from faculty to keep them eligible."

Response: "OK, that’s your fourth ‘yeah, but,’ which qualifies you as a cynic. But those who claim the ‘easy major’ argument make a flawed assumption, since they do not have the data to support their claim, either. Second, the academic curriculum is the purview of the faculty, not the NCAA. Third, as the NCAA stated in its response to the Committee on Ways and Means, privacy provisions of the Family Education Right to Privacy Act would prohibit such public disclosure, and it is not clear that such disclosure would in fact ensure a better quality education. Likewise, if more student-athletes major in a specific discipline, it does not follow that such students receive an education of less quality or are subject to less rigorous academic standards, much less that there is academic fraud. Moreover, it would be contrary to the freedom of choice accorded all students to require that student-athletes take certain majors and not others."

It is usually at this point that the naysayer is either finally persuaded or walks away with a "Whatever" or "I don’t believe you," as cynics often do.

But the facts of the matter — which the NCAA has worked diligently to identify over the last several years — portray a much more accurate and positive picture of academic performance than the cynics would have you believe. Student-athletes do perform well in the classroom, and most of them perform exceptionally well. In addition, the recent academic reforms that have been implemented in Division I fortify institutions’ accountability for student-athlete academic success.

In other words, I expect the academic success to not only continue, but to improve. We now have the research, the measurements, the structure and the incentives in place that drive the desired behavior and produce the right outcomes.

In short, student-athlete academic under-performance is a myth. The facts bear that out. Don’t let the naysayers convince you otherwise.