APR Numbers Released Today

[kshoe]

This is why it's a joke. For the KY's of the world to have a 1000 APR, all their one and done wonderkind have to do is take 12 hours of joke courses in the fall and then stay enrolled in school after the NCAA's for the spring semester and get gift grades from hoops loving profs who figure, what the hell, those kids are gonna make more money in 2 years than I'm gonna make my entire career. So, where's the harm in that? If anyone thinks the majority of the one and dones see the inside of a class room or even know the name of the class after the dance, then I've got some Greece euro bonds I'll sell you at a good price. I'm kind of surprised Calhoun didn't have the clout at UConn to get his kids the same treatment. Hats off to the UConn admin for playing by the rules. And while you're not coming right out and saying it, Broy, we know this is another veiled attempt to knock RM. I wonder why you weren't so adamant about UB's infamous recruits, OBI Wan and Horace Dixon. They certainly didn't help the old APR.

I wouldn't assume that UConn played by the rules. Rather they got screwed by the NCAA in that when they got their really bad APR results all the punishment that was associated with the poor results was loss of a couple scholarships. The NCAA then re-wrote the punishment to be an NCAA tourney ban and because it is a 4 year average, UConn had no way of getting their number high enough to be above the cutoff.

Ever since the NCAA "upped the ante" on the APR, UConn's scores have been fine (they reported a 978 for the 10-11 season and the media has suggested they'll have a 1,000 for the 11-12 season). Put another way, now that the stakes are high enough, UConn (like Kansas, Kentucky, etc.) will be doing everything in their power to get the APR above the cutoffs, and I have no doubt they'll succeed.

[Clock_Tower]

if i was a harvard grad i would be upset with tommy amaker for putting my school in that position. it would seem to explain their sudden improvement in basketball if they have started booting student athletes in an effort to immediately improve their basketball roster.

Roy. If Tommy Amaker is "booting student athletes" then Harvard should have a 1,000 APR unless you have a different definition of "student athletes". I thought student athletes meant that these kids consider their college education equally as important to their college athletics. If a kid is not on pace to graduate, then I'd suggest that he or she is really not accepting his/her role on the academic side and therefore is NOT a "student athlete" in the first place.

Therefore, it would seem that guys like Amaker and RM are really cutting "non-student athletes" which is why both Harvard and SLU's APR figures are lower than desired. What's a coach to do if a kid is underperforming both in the classroom and on the court? Yes, I get that the coach/school should not have recruited the kid in the first, but now that the kid is here (whether brought there by the current or the former coach), then what? Sure seems the NCAA (which you want to give power/staffing to) has actually created new and tremendous pressure upon schools to keep the underperforming non-student athlete on the team (and thereby deny a spot of a deserving and actual student athlete) and to pass him/her through instead of being punished (lose practice time, scholarships, NCAA Tourney, huge loss of money) for doing the right thing and weeding this kid out.

[kshoe]

Roy. If Tommy Amaker is "booting student athletes" then Harvard should have a 1,000 APR unless you have a different definition of "student athletes". I thought student athletes meant that these kids consider their college education equally as important to their college athletics. If a kid is not on pace to graduate, then I'd suggest that he or she is really not accepting his/her role on the academic side and therefore is NOT a "student athlete" in the first place.

Therefore, it would seem that guys like Amaker and RM are really cutting "non-student athletes" which is why both Harvard and SLU's APR figures are lower than desired. What's a coach to do if a kid is underperforming both in the classroom and on the court? Yes, I get that the coach/school should not have recruited the kid in the first, but now that the kid is here (whether brought there by the current or the former coach), then what? Sure seems the NCAA (which you want to give power/staffing to) has actually created new and tremendous pressure upon schools to keep the underperforming non-student athlete on the team (and thereby deny a spot of a deserving and actual student athlete) and to pass him/her through instead of being punished (lose practice time, scholarships, NCAA Tourney, huge loss of money) for doing the right thing and weeding this kid out.

Clock, you touched on it, but one of the striking things about the APR is how it affects the incentives of coaches and could alter their behavior. As you pointed out, its only when "the bad students" are cut do you really suffer a stif penalty under the APR. So what is going to happen, the bad kids will remain and maybe the good ones get cut going forward.

Take the following example:

Two players are equally underperforming on the court and a meanie coach needs to get rid of one because a top prospect wants to join. One kid has a 4.0 and is on pace to graduate while the other has a 2.0 and isn't on pace to graduate per the APR definition. While common sense would suggest that the coach would get rid of the kid that is underachieving in the classroom, the APR motivates him to do the opposite and cut the good student. By cutting the good student, the APR doesn't get hurt but by cutting the bad student it might take a 50 point hit in that season's number.

Pistol said it better than I could, but the APR motivates a lot of very bad behavior and the example above is just one example.

[Taj79]

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made in this htread that, while are not wrong, they are fallible. Not everyone is playing by the same rules for the same results and motives. roy is assuming it's all about the "student athlete." Why would anyone assume that? I don't have any numbers but I'd be willing to bet that less than half of the kids in the "revenue producing" sports are more focused on their education than making the show. And in many cases, athletics is a way to "get by." Agasin, I'm with kshoe on the cut example above. Why assume the coach is about keeping the kid with the grade. If you goin gto accept one poison over the oher, you're going to take the one that affects you the least. And where is that? In what I would call your individual bottom line. The NCAA and the college and the kid and the coach seem to be all about money. TV riches. Alumni donation. Pro contract. Life-tiem coaching deals for millions per year.

If a school were truly about "educating" anyone,show me the money-back guarantee. You come to this school, pay $50K a year, and my guarantee is a job your first year out of school making $100K with benefits, a retirment plan, health care and stock options. You don't get that anywhere. My daughter's school promised "an extraordinary education in a nuturing environment with caring and dedicated teachers." What's bankable there? School spush that esoteric crap because, well, what else is there? It can't be measured so why try? A diploma with "Saint Louis University" on it matters little; yes, some do (maybe Notre Dame or Stanford or Harvard or Penn or MIT) but they're liekly in certain fields. You go to McDaniel College for $40K a year or Twoson for $7K a year and get the same teaching degree. What comes after that is purely up to you.

If we are to have a league full of "student-athlete' schools that pay more attention to education and make athletics secondary then you have the Ivy League. The BCS-affilated school swill go thewir own way because there will still be enough open programming time on cable that TV payouts will still rn the show. You have to divide, that's inevitable.

If you don't, every rule is made to be circumvented. If I were a caoch ala Calipari my letter of intent process would include a second, my-office-safe-only letter whereby the kid promises to remain "in good standing" as logn as he is at my school. Enforcable? Hardly. But I'll bet deals are being done this way already. How else do you explain Kentucky and/or Kansas with perfect APRs?

[billiken_roy]

Roy. If Tommy Amaker is "booting student athletes" then Harvard should have a 1,000 APR unless you have a different definition of "student athletes". I thought student athletes meant that these kids consider their college education equally as important to their college athletics. If a kid is not on pace to graduate, then I'd suggest that he or she is really not accepting his/her role on the academic side and therefore is NOT a "student athlete" in the first place. Therefore, it would seem that guys like Amaker and RM are really cutting "non-student athletes" which is why both Harvard and SLU's APR figures are lower than desired. What's a coach to do if a kid is underperforming both in the classroom and on the court? Yes, I get that the coach/school should not have recruited the kid in the first, but now that the kid is here (whether brought there by the current or the former coach), then what? Sure seems the NCAA (which you want to give power/staffing to) has actually created new and tremendous pressure upon schools to keep the underperforming non-student athlete on the team (and thereby deny a spot of a deserving and actual student athlete) and to pass him/her through instead of being punished (lose practice time, scholarships, NCAA Tourney, huge loss of money) for doing the right thing and weeding this kid out.

timing clock. many college spring sports athletes fall behind due to the rigors of ncaa d-1 travel schedules and practice conflicts. however they turn their incompletes into passing grades over the summer. even the likes of harvard students likely have the same problem. maybe worse due to much tougher academics. the cutoff though is the second they leave campus. and if that student is behind at that moment when they are "encouraged" to go elsewhere, it will go against harvard.

[Cowboy]

-what sense does it make to judge the academic strength of an institution by using the results of 20 or so men's bball players??

-apr, like probably every other ncaa regulation, will foster a movement with some of how to beat it

[slu72]

As I understand it the NCAA was set up to run championships, set a level playing field for recruiting, set eligibility requirements, and be the enforcer for the last two. Now, the APR came about because a lot of schools had pretty poor graduation rates for a number of years, see UC, and the press was writing scathing articles about what a sham the term student-athlete was.

The original concept of a scholarship was so the athlete could earn an expensive 4yr degree that would be paid for because they had a particular athletic skill. The APR doesn't promote graduation rates.So, why not simply use the grad rates of scholarship athletes? You bring 3 scholarship players in a year and see how many of them actually graduate, minus transfers which become the responsibility of the new school, within a 5 or 6 year time frame. You take a 4 year running average and if it's below 75%, you start losing scholies on a sliding scale to 51%. If it's below 50% you lose a year's eligibility to play in a sanctioned championship. This would cut down on the one and done scam being run by the biggies, bring a little more meaning to the term student athlete, and satisfy the original objective of handing out athletic scholarships.

[Cowboy]

-http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/rob_dauster/06/22/NCAA-APR-changes/index.html?sct=cb_t11_a0

-i found this article on apr to be interesting

[cheeseman]

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.

No - it is a legit question.

[cheeseman]

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.

[JMM28]

Realistically the academics of 13 students don't make a damn bit of difference to a schools academic reputation.

How does the basketball team compare to the rest of the student body in gpa, drop outs, graduation, etc. I think the basketball team would win on all accounts over the general student body.