NCAA adopts new academic rules

by **8ball** » October 27th, 2011, 1:13 pm

It's a slow process, but a great start...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/october/di+board+of+directors+adopt+changes+to+academic+and+student-athlete+welfare

**Sponsor**

by **DoubleJayAlum** » October 27th, 2011, 1:21 pm

The $2000 per kid, per year payment could be pretty problematic for some of our schools. Heck, some of the schools in our conference are already broke or getting close - will they be able to afford this? What cuts will they have to implement in order to afford this?

Personally, I think this $2000 payment is just another attempt of the BCS schools to flex their financial muscles over the little guys. They've got some BCS money to spend and they are going to use it to give themselves a further advantage.

I am curious how schools with financial issues (Northern Iowa, SIU, MSU, Indy St) and those without large athletic budgets (Evansville, Drake) will react to this news.

by **bigdawg** » October 27th, 2011, 2:31 pm

My reaction is exactly what you'd guess. SIU could be hurt by this sort of thing. If we'd been able to keep more of the money we earned for the conference when we went to the NCAA tournament every year we wouldn't be in the situation. Or if we hadn't made the Lowery mistake.

by **8ball** » October 27th, 2011, 2:34 pm

The financial side of it is bad... skewed toward the BCS schools, obviously.

On the other hand, the new academic standards will make it harder for the big boys to continue operating the way they are now...

by **bigdawg** » October 27th, 2011, 2:36 pm

8ball wrote:The financial side of it is bad... skewed toward the BCS schools, obviously.

On the other hand, the new academic standards will make it harder for the big boys to continue operating the way they are now...

The big boys and Missouri St.

by **Jet915** » October 27th, 2011, 6:22 pm

8ball wrote:The financial side of it is bad... skewed toward the BCS schools, obviously.

On the other hand, the new academic standards will make it harder for the big boys to continue operating the way they are now...

I'm sure the big schools will find ways to get around the academic standards to make sure their players get "A's" in pottery class or something in order to boost their academic scores...

by **MVCfans** » October 27th, 2011, 7:56 pm

Unless something changes, this will keep UCONN out of the 2013 NCAA tourney.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Changes in NCAA rules adopted Thursday would keep defending national champion Connecticut from participating in the 2013 NCAA men's basketball tournament.

Under the rules adopted by the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors, a school cannot participate in the 2013 tournament unless it has a two-year average score of 930 or a four-year average of 900 on the NCAA's annual Academic Progress Rate, which measures the academic performance of student athletes.

Connecticut's men's basketball scored 826 for the 2009-10 school year. A UConn official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the number isn't official until next May, said the score for the 2010-11 school year would be approximately 975.

That would not be high enough. It would give Connecticut a two-year score of 900.5 and a four-year average of 888.5.

Connecticut, which lost two scholarships this season as a result of the latest APR report, sought clarification hoping the NCAA might use numbers from the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years. The 2011-12 numbers are not expected to be released until May 2013, after the tournament is played.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... 13-tourney

by **Aargh** » October 27th, 2011, 9:54 pm

The $2,000 additional cost creates a mess for the Valley. WSU can afford it. Some Valley schools probably can't. If it goes to a vote, I'd imagine there are enough Valley schools that can't afford it to vote the Valley out of participation.

Conferences without the additional stipend will never know who they have coming in until they see who shows up for class. Commits will bail the moment they get an offer from a school paying the $$. Players will not sign LOI's to non-paying schools. They will hold out for an offer from a paying school.

Non-paying schools can forget recruiting against BCS, MWC, CUSA. That goes for players and coaches.

If the Valley won't allow WSU (and I suspect CU) to pay the additional $$, WSU will be looking for a new home. The economic disparity problem has been brought up as a problem for the Valley. This change will emphasize that problem.

On the APR situation - Kansas (KU) has many one-and-dones and a lot of 3-nd-dones. Those guys never get their degrees. There must be an exception for those players, KU's APR is 1000.

by **DoubleJayAlum** » October 28th, 2011, 7:19 am

Aargh wrote:The $2,000 additional cost creates a mess for the Valley. WSU can afford it. Some Valley schools probably can't. If it goes to a vote, I'd imagine there are enough Valley schools that can't afford it to vote the Valley out of participation.

Conferences without the additional stipend will never know who they have coming in until they see who shows up for class. Commits will bail the moment they get an offer from a school paying the $$.

Non-paying schools can forget recruiting against BCS, MWC, CUSA. That goes for players and coaches.

If the Valley won't allow WSU (and I suspect CU) to pay the additional $$, WSU will be looking for a new home. The economic disparity problem has been brought up as a problem for the Valley. This change will emphasize that problem.

Fans from UNI and MSU have told us before that the schools financial situation is irrelevant to the issues discussed on this board. This new rule just made it relevant.

If the conference does not vote to allow members to offer the $2K (an amount that is indexed for inflation by the way, so it will be going up after the three year lock period), I want out. Recruiting is difficult enough the way that it is now, but if we start with another hand tied behind our back, I don't want to hang around.

I think we have reached a threshold issue which could have a dramatic impact on the conference. Even if it does pass, schools can choose not to offer the money. If we have schools that can't afford to offer the money, do we believe they will be able to compete with the schools that do offer the money long term?

I'd like to hear from fans of UNI, MSU, SIU, InSU (the schools that have budgets weighed down by football expenses) and Drake and Evansville (the schools with smaller athletic dept. budgets). Where do you thin your school stands on this issue and what impact will it have financially?

by **TNMSUFAN** » October 28th, 2011, 7:47 am

DoubleJayAlum wrote:I'd like to hear from fans of UNI, MSU, SIU, InSU (the schools that have budgets weighed down by football expenses) and Drake and Evansville (the schools with smaller athletic dept. budgets). Where do you thin your school stands on this issue and what impact will it have financially?

One thing I will say about the football thing is it isn't a big of an issue as people make it out to be. For example just looking at the numbers from the Indy Star financial database it shows the following.

Wichita State made $1,052,661 in men's basketball...at the same time they lost $729,142 in women's basketball and lost $3,006,589 in "other sports".

Missouri State lost $581,385 in football...made $1,151,235 in men's basketball...made $638,557 in women's basketball...then lost $2,287,523 in other sports. Missouri State is one of the few schools who makes money on women's basketball and it basically washes out our football losses.