UT Penalized 6 football scholarships; BG Soccer .84

cbjhack · Post by **cbjhack** » Tue May 06, 2008 1:37 pm

From the NCAA, via the Dispatch...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/home?WCM ... nstitution

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue May 06, 2008 1:45 pm

Crap. I had 7 and the over.

Is .84 of a scholarship anything like the average family having 2.5 kids? And, in light of this news, can the men's soccer team still use the Fieldhouse?

MACReport · Post by **MACReport** » Tue May 06, 2008 4:41 pm

A real mixed bag of results for the MAC in the latest APR numbers, including five teams losing football scholarships.

We assembled a bunch of quotes and got background explanations from several sources around the MAC and put together what I think is a pretty substantive report on the MAC's APR score:

Good and Bad News for the MAC in latest APR Scores

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Tue May 06, 2008 7:49 pm

TG1996 wrote:Crap. I had 7 and the over.

Is .84 of a scholarship anything like the average family having 2.5 kids? And, in light of this news, can the men's soccer team still use the Fieldhouse?

Hopefully not.

threestooges · Post by **threestooges** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:55 pm

Originally posted by TG1996:
Crap. I had 7 and the over.

Is .84 of a scholarship anything like the average family having 2.5 kids? And, in light of this news, can the men's soccer team still use the Fieldhouse?

Originally posted by bgsufalcon24:
Hopefully not.

And the men's soccer team using the Fieldhouse would be a problem ... why?

Peregrinner · Post by **Peregrinner** » Tue May 06, 2008 10:09 pm

threestooges wrote:

Originally posted by TG1996:
Crap. I had 7 and the over.

Is .84 of a scholarship anything like the average family having 2.5 kids? And, in light of this news, can the men's soccer team still use the Fieldhouse?

Originally posted by bgsufalcon24:
Hopefully not.
And the men's soccer team using the Fieldhouse would be a problem ... why?

Please, please, PLEASE don't get us started down that path again.

tekekini · Post by **tekekini** » Tue May 06, 2008 10:56 pm

There is no Ohio State on that list.

What do you have to say for yourselves?

Peregrinner · Post by **Peregrinner** » Tue May 06, 2008 10:59 pm

tekekini wrote:There is no Ohio State on that list.

What do you have to say for yourselves?

...that nobody said there was?

BGFalconfromCincy · Post by **BGFalconfromCincy** » Wed May 07, 2008 12:24 am

Peregrinner wrote:
threestooges wrote:

Originally posted by TG1996:
Crap. I had 7 and the over.

Is .84 of a scholarship anything like the average family having 2.5 kids? And, in light of this news, can the men's soccer team still use the Fieldhouse?

Originally posted by bgsufalcon24:
Hopefully not.
And the men's soccer team using the Fieldhouse would be a problem ... why?
Please, please, PLEASE don't get us started down that path again.

+ 1 trillion

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Wed May 07, 2008 3:16 am

TG1996 wrote:Is .84 of a scholarship anything like the average family having 2.5 kids?

Knowing that British soccer players are generally about .84 as good as their counterparts elsewhere, it probably follows that BGSU will have to look for a British player to qualitatively handicap the value of that scholarship. The NCAA will be happy.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:35 am

tekekini wrote:There is no Ohio State on that list.

What do you have to say for yourselves?

They have the "resources" available to assure that every athlete passes their classes.

redskins4ever · Post by **redskins4ever** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:38 am

Well when you are able to have the NCAA wave a Magic Wand and say its ok to be below 925 on sports, there were quite a few BCS schools that got free passes, because they showed "Progress". What a load of bull.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:09 am

redskins4ever wrote:Well when you are able to have the NCAA wave a Magic Wand and say its ok to be below 925 on sports, there were quite a few BCS schools that got free passes, because they showed "Progress". What a load of bull.

No doubt ... talk about a huge loophole. If the schools cook up some sort of vague plan and show incremental progress, suddenly, they get a free pass.

bgsukid · Post by **bgsukid** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:34 am

1987alum wrote:
redskins4ever wrote:Well when you are able to have the NCAA wave a Magic Wand and say its ok to be below 925 on sports, there were quite a few BCS schools that got free passes, because they showed "Progress". What a load of bull.
No doubt ... talk about a huge loophole. If the schools cook up some sort of vague plan and show incremental progress, suddenly, they get a free pass.

This is true however Ohio State was not one of those schools, they came in comfortably above the cutoff at 942. If we had the APR back in the 90's I wonder where they would've come in? I'd say toward the late 90's they'd have struggled to come in at much over 900 with players like Reggie Germany sporting his Blutarski-esk GPA.

redskins4ever · Post by **redskins4ever** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:49 am

OSU's basketball team had three members leave school early last year mas they failed to finish their spring quarters... they should have taken a hit on the APR and lost a scholarship according to the NCAA's rules. But they didn't, because you don't want to punish the BCS, you want to make sure the NON-BCS schools can't come up and hurt you.