NCAA to ban schools from post-season based on APR

[Aargh]

wow, this went bad right away. Maybe the mods could clean this up a bit, or split it into a different thread.

Thanks for the reminder I had forgotten the topic of the thread this discussion was in.

We need to get back to discussing that UE and MSU are the Valley schools facing possible sanctions because of their graduation rates. I'm amazed to see UE with a problem.

[valleychamp]

I personally have mixed feelings on the idea. I think that it is a good idea in theory, and I like the idea of punishing teams with bad academic reputations. Yet, I'm not sure that the "APR" is the best measurement of that.

I'm not positive on exactly how APR works, but aren't schools punished in their APR score if players transfer out?

[Aargh]

If players transfer out and still graduate within 5 years of entering a program, it's counted as a graduation.

The area where I have questions is players who leave early for the pros. Both Kansas and Texas have 1000 ratings for basketball.

I know there was a big stink made by the BCS schools about baseball players getting drafted after their Jr years and how that shouldn't be counted against their APR.

Considering that Texas and Kansas have 1000 APR's, leaving early for the pro sport a player was participating in must not be counted against a school's APR. Further evaluation of those 1000 APR's might be in order. KU has had some less than brilliant players that appear to have gotten degrees.

[BEARZ77]

Obviously reading is not a skill taught in Kansas. I said we had been the better program since we entered the MVC and stuck with those parameters. It's the only level field comparison possible and the only one relevant to the current league structure. That does not include our entire existence in D-1[nice try Aargh, you really don't encumber yourself much with facts do you], as actually we were significantly more successful in the 8 years prior to the MVC with 4 NCAA tourneys and an NIT. But I fully understand why a WSU poster would not want to stay within the original comparison, because quite frankly they would lose against every current Valley team considering in that 21 year period[ and yes Evansille came in a bit after the start of that time] they have the least # of combined NCAA tourney appearances/ MVC titles/ MVC tourney titles in men's basketball of all the schools. Which let's be honest is what we all use to measure real success in the Valley, did you win the league or the tourney and did you make the NCAA tourney.

It's nice WSU has a great ancient history, but that's like the Cubs saying they've had more World Series appearences than the Marlins. Unfortunately, since the Marlins have been in existence it's 2 zip Marlins. I respect history, but when I'm looking at who's the best right now, I don't think it's relevant to the argument. If you can truly make an argument why head to head competition and overall success in league and national measures over the entire time both teams have been in the same league and division, isn't the most fair level field comparison way to evaluate both programs against each other, then what is.

I now apologize for diverting the topic away from the original intent of the thread and recognize after allowing the appropriate 3-4 rebuttals that it's time to let this issue die. Goodnight all.

[TheTimeIsNow]

If players transfer out and still graduate within 5 years of entering a program, it's counted as a graduation.

The area where I have questions is players who leave early for the pros. Both Kansas and Texas have 1000 ratings for basketball.

I know there was a big stink made by the BCS schools about baseball players getting drafted after their Jr years and how that shouldn't be counted against their APR.

Considering that Texas and Kansas have 1000 APR's, leaving early for the pro sport a player was participating in must not be counted against a school's APR. Further evaluation of those 1000 APR's might be in order. KU has had some less than brilliant players that appear to have gotten degrees.

I believe that if the person who transfers out or leaves the school to go pro is academically eligible whenever he leaves it doesn't count against the school.

[TNMSUFAN]

The Bears APR was headed the wrong direction the last couple of years of Hinson and then when we had the coaching change several guys transferred out. Hopefully it is headed the right direction.

Concerning the typical argument any fan base can grab numbers that work best for them and make a point. I always use since we joined the Valley because it makes the most sense but not really worried about it. Also, considering how many years we have been a 1 bid league I don't think anyone besides UNI can thump their chest about recent success.

[purple&orange]

Evansville kicked 3 players out of school after they stole some electronics from dorm rooms over Thanksgiving break during the 04-05 season. Merfeld took a chance on a couple kids with some troubled pasts and it didn't work out. UE has seen some transfers but that probably relates to a good chunk of the low APR and should come off the books during the next cycle. Amazing how something that happened almost 7 years ago is still impacting the program when those 3 freshman were eligible and part of the team for fewer than 7 games.

In my opinion, UE did the right thing by kicking them out of school. However if a postseason ban is looming via the APR, what does a coach do? Illinois redshirted Jamar Smith after a DUI where he left his injured teammate in the car after he went inside his place. Michigan is redshirting a WR Stonum after a 2nd DUI. Personally waiting one year doesn't serve as much as a punishment if that's the intent of the redshirt. By doing this they have the potential to keep the academic side in line with the APR and possibly avoid a hit.

No matter your talent a D-I scholarship and the opportunity to play is a privilege, not a right. UCONN let AJ Price back on their squad after he did the same thing the UE kids did. We all know that the rules are different everywhere and the more talented you are, the more leeway you have in these cases. When you factor in the APR and no NCAA Tournament by expelling kids mid semester for things like this, it just complicates already difficult situations.

[TNMSUFAN]

Good read from Andy Glockner

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... itter_feed

That said, anytime you boil down academic progress at over 340 Division I basketball programs into a single number, you're asking for trouble. APR figures are generated by a formula with more loopholes than the U.S. tax code and are scaled the same way for everyone without regard for school size, athletic department finances, or racial and socioeconomic demographics of athletes. That's completely misguided, and as constructed, feels like an academic version of the RPI.

What kind of impact are we talking about? Per the NCAA's own APR database, a total of three SWAC and MEAC schools (out of 21) would have been eligible to play in the NCAA Tournament if the new standard of 930 was applied to their current four-year averages. Your MEAC tournament final would be North Carolina A&T vs. Hampton. And faux congratulations to Alcorn State, which would win the SWAC auto bid by default. The Ohio Valley Conference, also one of the nation's poorest, would have half of its members ineligible. Shouldn't a system do a better job of helping these schools educate players rather than taking away opportunities because they're underfinanced?

[DoubleJayAlum]

Good read from Andy Glockner

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... itter_feed

That said, anytime you boil down academic progress at over 340 Division I basketball programs into a single number, you're asking for trouble. APR figures are generated by a formula with more loopholes than the U.S. tax code and are scaled the same way for everyone without regard for school size, athletic department finances, or racial and socioeconomic demographics of athletes. That's completely misguided, and as constructed, feels like an academic version of the RPI.

What kind of impact are we talking about? Per the NCAA's own APR database, a total of three SWAC and MEAC schools (out of 21) would have been eligible to play in the NCAA Tournament if the new standard of 930 was applied to their current four-year averages. Your MEAC tournament final would be North Carolina A&T vs. Hampton. And faux congratulations to Alcorn State, which would win the SWAC auto bid by default. The Ohio Valley Conference, also one of the nation's poorest, would have half of its members ineligible. Shouldn't a system do a better job of helping these schools educate players rather than taking away opportunities because they're underfinanced?

I agree that using one criteria probably isn't fair when applied across the board.

As to the MEAc and SWAC schools though, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Frankly, I'm not sure that these schools are really dedicated to educating their student athletes. Further, they make a mockery of D1 by agreeing to be bought for ALL of their noncon games and don't seem to even be putting forth a good faith effort at competing at the D1 level. Perhaps instead of keeping APR criteria low for them, they should just be dropped from D1...

[MoValley John]

I agree that using one criteria probably isn't fair when applied across the board.

I disagree. The criteria is a standard. It is the standard programs should be considering when they are recruiting. As for these schools in the MEAC and SWAC, they have their set curriculum to determine academic progress. It is a bigger challenge for a student to show academic progress at Harvard than it is at Arkansas State. The academic rigors are lower at the schools that you indicated. I'm not devaluing the education, graduating from a MEAC or SWAC school is an accomplishment and something to be proud, but the workload is lighter at many of these institutions. That should help, not hinder academic progress. Special proograms are also in place at those schools to assist student progress.

The real challenge these schools have is that they are underfunded and really can't compete at the Division 1 level. They augment their lack of funding by taking many buy games. Student athletes are on the road from November until January. You can't tell me that you are going to have a lot of academic success being on the road for two full months. That is not the fault of the NCAA and it's not harsh, unfair rules. It is the result of schools trying to compete at a level in which they aren't positioned financially.

I may sound insensitive, but it is what it is. These schools need to figure out how to bring their APR's up, or drop down to a level in which they can both compete and also graduate student athletes. Sometimes the truth is a bit painful.