Buffalo Loses 3 Football Scholarships

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:35 pm

bgsufalcon24 wrote:Man, this really sucks for the MAC Conference.

When did Bob Davie start posting here?

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:11 pm

For those interested, here is the story about the APR and how it will affect Toledo. Our 23 signed recruits will not be affected.

http://www.toledorockets.net/football/apr0301200601.php

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:21 pm

Interesting...one of the components of UT's recovery plan is an increase in the $$ needed to get more athletes on campus early. Gregg Brandon touched on that very subject during the recruiting reception last month. IIRC we had six or so kids from the 2005 class enrolled in summer school. they hope to get as many as possible in this year. (of course Luke ALexander enrolled in January and that didn't seem to help him a bit)

Today was not a very good day for the conference. Combine this with our willingness to play any old day of the week if ESPN will send a crew out to televise it and we look decidely second tier...at best.

Touchdown Rockets · Post by **Touchdown Rockets** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:40 am

Flipper wrote:Interesting...one of the components of UT's recovery plan is an increase in the $$ needed to get more athletes on campus early. Gregg Brandon touched on that very subject during the recruiting reception last month. IIRC we had six or so kids from the 2005 class enrolled in summer school. they hope to get as many as possible in this year. (of course Luke ALexander enrolled in January and that didn't seem to help him a bit)

Today was not a very good day for the conference. Combine this with our willingness to play any old day of the week if ESPN will send a crew out to televise it and we look decidely second tier...at best.

I found out that the line is drawn at an APR of 925. UT is extremely low at 853. The good thing about this measure is that it is calculated yearly and basically covers the current team. This means that the teams that fell short one year can improve almost immediately the next. Unfortunately for UT, they are really in a hole currently with that low figure and stiffer penalties will come if they fall short again next year.

Also, apparently for the first four years (this is either year 1 or 2), the NCAA is offering something to schools that fall short called the "squad size" rule or something similar. After these first four years, they will throw out this protection. BG barely fell short this year at 920 but fell under this protection policy. I do not know exactly what this policy is though.

BTW, I'm confused as to how this thread was titled and started in regards to Buffalo falling short. Where's the [dis]respect for the Rockets?

Touchdown Rockets · Post by **Touchdown Rockets** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:44 am

leardm17 wrote:
BGDrew wrote:I thought Temple and Buffalo were supposed to be strong Academic enhancements to the MAC?
The stronger the academic university, the more athletes that won't meet the standards. Also, typically the stronger academic, the more difficult it is to recruit top athletes.

BTW, I think that this is the problem Toledo is facing. It sort of puts us in a tough situation.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:24 am

Touchdown Rockets wrote:BTW, I'm confused as to how this thread was titled and started in regards to Buffalo falling short. Where's the [dis]respect for the Rockets?

Who's the Rockets?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:41 am

A late 70's/early 80's band from Detroit. Turn up the radio!!

I don't know why the NCAA is after them though....

mmisbg · Post by **mmisbg** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:11 am

What my question is, where are all of the major conference schools that should be on the list?

At the start of this past bowl season, an article on ESPN showed an absolutely REDICULOUS amount of the schools in the major conferences were not meeting the standards for acceptable academic performance.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls05/n ... id=2248992

Just curious if anybody has a just reason for this other than the right people being paid the right amount of money.

Go Falcons!

HappyBG · Post by **HappyBG** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:27 am

The Rocket fans are kidding themselves trying to minimize the damage that this does to the program. The penalty isn't so much the loss of the five scholarships, it's the fact that the school shows up on a NCAA black list. I'm sure it will cost Toledo recruits in future years as other coaches bring that up to some parents.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:02 am

HappyBG wrote:The Rocket fans are kidding themselves trying to minimize the damage that this does to the program. The penalty isn't so much the loss of the five scholarships, it's the fact that the school shows up on a NCAA black list. I'm sure it will cost Toledo recruits in future years as other coaches bring that up to some parents.

Newsflash HappyBG...................Bowling Green's football team scored below the 925 standard with a 920. However, BG was able to use the "squad size" clause to keep from getting any penalties. This "squad size" clause will not be able to be used after the 2006-07 academic year. BG is closer to getting a penalty then some of you seem to think and they will have to improve their APR score to avoid getting a penalty in the future.

I also read in an Illinois newspaper that 116 Universities were below the 925 APR standard in at least one sport, but received a waiver due to the "squad size" clause. If a majority of the Universities do not do something about achieving a higher APR score, there are going to be a lot of penalties in the future.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:04 am

In short, while Toledo fans shouldn't minimize this action, BG fans need not gloat.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:09 am

1987alum wrote:In short, while Toledo fans shouldn't minimize this action, BG fans need not gloat.

Right. And I don't think any UT fans are trying to minimize what has happened at Toledo. I mean, do BG fans expect us to only focus on the negative and not point out the positives when potential new fans and recruits could be reading our posts and news articles?

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:34 am

rocketfootball wrote:
1987alum wrote:In short, while Toledo fans shouldn't minimize this action, BG fans need not gloat.
Right. And I don't think any UT fans are trying to minimize what has happened at Toledo. I mean, do BG fans expect us to only focus on the negative and not point out the positives when potential new fans and recruits could be reading our posts and news articles?

rf:

Agreed, but imagine if a BG fan went to the Toledo board and tried to minimize our loss to Toledo by saying something like "well, it's really not that bad. Even if we won, we wouldn't have played in the MAC Championship game or gotten a bowl bid. It stings a bit to lose, but it really didn't have an impact on the program."

I shudder to think of the flaming that would ensue. I'm not saying that Rocket fans don't have a right to look for the silver lining, just pointing out that it's more than a tough sell to BG fans.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:43 am

1987alum wrote:
rocketfootball wrote:
1987alum wrote:In short, while Toledo fans shouldn't minimize this action, BG fans need not gloat.
Right. And I don't think any UT fans are trying to minimize what has happened at Toledo. I mean, do BG fans expect us to only focus on the negative and not point out the positives when potential new fans and recruits could be reading our posts and news articles?
rf:

Agreed, but imagine if a BG fan went to the Toledo board and tried to minimize our loss to Toledo by saying something like "well, it's really not that bad. Even if we won, we wouldn't have played in the MAC Championship game or gotten a bowl bid. It stings a bit to lose, but it really didn't have an impact on the program."

I shudder to think of the flaming that would ensue. I'm not saying that Rocket fans don't have a right to look for the silver lining, just pointing out that it's more than a tough sell to BG fans.

I hear you, but most of what I have provided here is just cleaning up the facts. There have been miscommunications on this whole APR and penalty thing. Things have been said toward the point of Toledo having to change one new recruit to a greyshirt (yes I know that was started by me from what I was told earlier yesterday before talking to our compliance director), which is not true. There has been talk that this would cause us to take scholarships away from current players, which is not true. There has been talk that this loss of scholarships would be for this coming season, which is not true because it was for the 2005-06 season. And so on and so on.

And I know you guys could care less, but for those that think this is a global problem at UT, our men's basketball team had one of the highest scores in the country with a 990 APR score which was even higher than Miami's 980 APR score in men's basketball.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:16 am

No...we don't care.

Actually, I'm curious as to how much progress UT can make towards compliance in a single year. this year's penalty had a minimal practical effect (we'll see how it plays out from a PR standpoint) but falling below 925 next year could be much more problematic.

BG was just below the cut line, but I have to think that the numerous academic blow outs suffered by Brandon's first class had a big impact (negatively) on our score. The last two classes have been more stabile and that should help.