Toledo loses 6 football scholarships.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:36 pm

I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't think there will be a big impact on recruiting. That would be like saying that a school on NCAA probation would be hurt by perception, yet schools on probation continue to get those same good recruits.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:37 pm

rocketfootball wrote:I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't think there will be a big impact on recruiting. That would be like saying that a school on NCAA probation would be hurt by perception, yet schools on probation continue to get those same good recruits.

Tell that to Baylor.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:04 pm

BGDrew wrote:
rocketfootball wrote:I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't think there will be a big impact on recruiting. That would be like saying that a school on NCAA probation would be hurt by perception, yet schools on probation continue to get those same good recruits.
Tell that to Baylor.

or SMU.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:22 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:
BGDrew wrote:
rocketfootball wrote:I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't think there will be a big impact on recruiting. That would be like saying that a school on NCAA probation would be hurt by perception, yet schools on probation continue to get those same good recruits.
Tell that to Baylor.

or SMU.

We're not talking about a school getting the death penalty because of APR scores. We're talking about 6 scholarships and 3 initial scholarships for 1 year. If a school got the death penalty for APR scores, then hell yes it would have a majorly huge impact on that football program.

And while Baylor wasn't the death penalty, we are talking about not being allowed to play any OOC games, postseason games, reduced number of recruiting visits allowed, an an immediate release of any basketball players that wanted to leave so that they didn't have to sit out for a year.

The SMU and Baylor situations are much different than any of the penalties that any school received for the APR in any sport.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:37 pm

Once again you go back to talking about specifics. We are talking about perception. Do you truly believe that a school on NCAA probation would not be hurt in recruiting wars by a negative perception?

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:24 pm

BGDrew wrote:Mr. 4 Star California Running Back does not know about the Ray Williams situation. But if I was a coach at an opposing school I may just mention that along with scholarships not being guaranteed at that school up North...

Exactly, you have to look at this information in terms of recruiting. Saying that your school is being sanctioned by the NCAA for poor academic performance your athletes is a big minus in terms of recruiting pitches. In Toledo's case, their acceptance of players with questionable legal situations and questionable backgrounds is not exactly helpful either in terms of recruiting.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:20 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Toledo fans better hope that score improves drastically by next year, or else the impact could be more than any of you can spin.

Some food for thought. When the APR score came out for Bowling Green football last year it was an 853. After this year it was a 920. If BG's score can improve that much, so can Toledo's.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:23 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Once again you go back to talking about specifics. We are talking about perception. Do you truly believe that a school on NCAA probation would not be hurt in recruiting wars by a negative perception?

Part of the problem is that you don't know the whole story on the APR. Over 60 Division I schools have football teams under the 925 standard, but only 8 of them opted to take the penalties now. The others are using the "squad size" clause in hopes they can get over 925 by 2008. However, if they don't then they are going to have to take all the penalties at once......which will be a really big blow.

You can say what you want about perception. Let's just watch everything unfold instead of arguing over it. You will soon realize.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:25 pm

Ugghhh! Those last two "guest" posts were me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:28 pm

rocketfootball wrote:Part of the problem is that you don't know the whole story on the APR. Over 60 Division I schools have football teams under the 925 standard, but only 8 of them opted to take the penalties now. The others are using the "squad size" clause in hopes they can get over 925 by 2008. However, if they don't then they are going to have to take all the penalties at once......which will be a really big blow.

You can say what you want about perception. Let's just watch everything unfold instead of arguing over it. You will soon realize.

So you're saying Toledo recognizes they won't be able to get their score up for next year? Is former convicts factored in to the score?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:24 pm

BGDrew wrote:
rocketfootball wrote:Part of the problem is that you don't know the whole story on the APR. Over 60 Division I schools have football teams under the 925 standard, but only 8 of them opted to take the penalties now. The others are using the "squad size" clause in hopes they can get over 925 by 2008. However, if they don't then they are going to have to take all the penalties at once......which will be a really big blow.

You can say what you want about perception. Let's just watch everything unfold instead of arguing over it. You will soon realize.
So you're saying Toledo recognizes they won't be able to get their score up for next year? Is former convicts factored in to the score?

No, I did not say that at all. But since UT was already only at 77 scholarship players in 2005, it made sense to take the 6 scholarship penalty now.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:35 pm

But if it's possible to get your score up and have no penalties why not take the appeal?

Goose · Post by **Goose** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:06 am

BGDrew wrote:But if it's possible to get your score up and have no penalties why not take the appeal?

There was a good article in MAC Report online regarding this issue. One interesting item I took from it is that schools do not make the appeal for the "squad size rule", it is done by the NCAA:

http://www.macreportonline.com/NCAA_APR.html

Here is the passage from that article related to the "squad size adjustment":

The NCAA can apply a "squad-size adjustment". With only two years of data currently available under the APR reporting requirements, the squad size adjustment was applied by the NCAA to account for smaller sample sizes of some teams. For the squad size adjustment to be applied, a team's APR would have to fall below 925. This adjustment, it should be noted, was applied directly by the NCAA and was not, as some reports have indicated, applied at the request of affected member institutions.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:57 am

Goose wrote:
BGDrew wrote:But if it's possible to get your score up and have no penalties why not take the appeal?
There was a good article in MAC Report online regarding this issue. One interesting item I took from it is that schools do not make the appeal for the "squad size rule", it is done by the NCAA:

http://www.macreportonline.com/NCAA_APR.html

Here is the passage from that article related to the "squad size adjustment":

The NCAA can apply a "squad-size adjustment". With only two years of data currently available under the APR reporting requirements, the squad size adjustment was applied by the NCAA to account for smaller sample sizes of some teams. For the squad size adjustment to be applied, a team's APR would have to fall below 925. This adjustment, it should be noted, was applied directly by the NCAA and was not, as some reports have indicated, applied at the request of affected member institutions.

And RF was telling me I needed to know the whole story?

There goes that argument.