The NCAA brings the APR pain...

factman · Post by **factman** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:46 pm

I would certainly think that this would put some SERIOUS pressure on TT, with the new university president. It is very tough to tout your school, especially with a medical school, with this kind of publicity hitting the national airways. TT is in serious trouble!

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:34 am

A lot of the BCS schools have massive "academic support" infrastructures in place packed with staffers whose sole job is to get the players through. The larger schools also have more options in terms of placing kids in the easiest possible courses/diploma tracks.

They can get a solid education if they want as the resources are in place for kids who truly desire one, but skating by with minimal effort is surely an option.

duckunder53 · Post by **duckunder53** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:42 am

I hope the NCAA took into consideration how many scholarships these sports receive to begin with. For example, football get 85, but wrestling only gets 7. To treat them the same way would be wrong. A fraction of a scholarship for wrestling compared to football would be fair. Same goes for baseball, softball, basketball, anything compared to football. Thoughts?

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:52 am

tekekini wrote:notice OSU is not on the list

For this year - they have one year to figure out a way to wiggle out of the Oden mess.

http://tinyurl.com/2mwh2h

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Thu May 03, 2007 10:33 am

duckunder53 wrote:I hope the NCAA took into consideration how many scholarships these sports receive to begin with. For example, football get 85, but wrestling only gets 7. To treat them the same way would be wrong. A fraction of a scholarship for wrestling compared to football would be fair. Same goes for baseball, softball, basketball, anything compared to football. Thoughts?

Thats what they did, in fact many teams have been penalized less than 1 scholarship. It is probably a ratio of severity of failure to total number of scholarships to determine the penalty.

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Thu May 03, 2007 10:35 am

SI.com has published a story about these scholarship sanctions, including some thoughts from NCAA vice president Kevin Lennon.

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:18 am

According to an article I read in the PD, Toledo was "expecting" this to happen, thus took THREE LESS kids this past year...leaving them only ONE short for next year's recruiting.

factman · Post by **factman** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:28 am

I think they got a couple back that they weren't expecting too!

tekekini · Post by **tekekini** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:37 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:
tekekini wrote:notice OSU is not on the list
For this year - they have one year to figure out a way to wiggle out of the Oden mess.

http://tinyurl.com/2mwh2h

That is too be expected after three players leave early this year... so they will have 1 less scholarship..big deal they have 2 less players on scholly than they expected to have now that cook and conley are both leaving early

That leaves them 1 on the plus side.

Damn, Matta is ahead of the game!

tekekini · Post by **tekekini** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:40 pm

PGY Tiercel wrote:
duckunder53 wrote:I hope the NCAA took into consideration how many scholarships these sports receive to begin with. For example, football get 85, but wrestling only gets 7. To treat them the same way would be wrong. A fraction of a scholarship for wrestling compared to football would be fair. Same goes for baseball, softball, basketball, anything compared to football. Thoughts?
Thats what they did, in fact many teams have been penalized less than 1 scholarship. It is probably a ratio of severity of failure to total number of scholarships to determine the penalty.

There is a squad size adjustment in the formula

There is also a break if you have a coach leave..I forget what team got away with that one..

You also get bonus points if kids come back and earn a degree. So if ODEN, conely and cook for some reason cotinue to work for the degree in their offseason, OSU can get those points back but why waste your time when your a multi billionaire

tekekini · Post by **tekekini** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:44 pm

this is a flawed system.

Why punish schools because they can get players good enough to go pro at younger age to extend their pro career? The players have the right to go pro early, yet they punish schools because those kids do not graduate..

they need to take that scenario into account and not pnealize teams for it.

Hockey has one of the highest scores on average of all sports. I was thinking that is because those kids can actually have owned by a pro team while in college so they do not have to worry about going early..they are already on a team.

maybe college basketball and the NBA should work something out similar if they are going to count kids leaving early as a penalty when they go pro..

kids who stay and do not graduate are the ones who should count against a team.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:53 pm

tekekini wrote:Why punish schools because they can get players good enough to go pro at younger age to extend their pro career? The players have the right to go pro early, yet they punish schools because those kids do not graduate..

Why is the student-athlete different from the non-athlete?

BGSU and all other institutions must count graduation rates for ALL students. So an athlete leaves early - he is considered special by the NCAA and doesn't factor into the equation as long he/she was in good academic standing.

The computer science major is also in good standing and gets an offer from HP to go to work down in Texas. He leaves and does not finish his degree within six years of entering school (Feds give you 150% of the degree time to complete). The school gets dinged (in both cases by the Feds - for the student and for the student-athlete).

Why is the student-athlete different from the non-athlete?

Greg Oden leaves school early and if he is in good standing, the NCAA doesn't count that against OSU. My nephew is also a freshman at OSU and if he leaves before graduating within 6 years, OSU gets dinged.

Why is the student-athlete different from the non-athlete?

If you don't graduate within six years, you count against the institution. It should not matter if you are a student-athlete or not.

tekekini · Post by **tekekini** » Thu May 03, 2007 6:26 pm

It shouldnt matter if they are or are not a student athlete..if a kid gets a big job offer from HP and HP is not going to require him to graduate then the school shuld not get dinged..that is the difference though..

a kid with a job offer is most likely going to be contingent on wether he graduates. if he does not, then HP takes away the job offer..

The NBA and NCAA do not work this way..a team is allowed to take a kid wether he graduates or not.. The NCAA has no rules about it, the NBA has no rules against it..That is the difference..How can the school be held at fault and take scholarships away from future student athletes? They aren't punishing the kids who do leave early, they punish kids who aren't even there yet.

Your right it shouldn't matter if it is a student athlete or not but the reality is that it does matter. The NCAA and everyone else needs to realize that college is not a requirement like elementary, middle and high school are. College is optional. What they are saying is that once you choose to go to college, you are going to be punished for leaving early..

How can the school be held at fault for what a student decides to do. the student who is enrolled at college which is not required by law, should have the right to leave. If They are going to punish schools for kids leaving, then give the schools some power in keeping the kids in the school. Oh they can't, it is not law that you have to go to school. The school's can not do anything about it. Oh and kids can no longer bypass college and go right into the NBA..the schools are stuck. They now have to go to college for one year..flawed, seriously flawed.

When is the NCAA and everyone else going to accept major college athletics for what it is..a stepping stone to the pro's and millions of dollars.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Tue May 08, 2007 9:29 am

The APR score is not for 2006-07. It is a 3 year average. UT scored a 944 for 2006-07, but our three year average is still below the 925 standard and that is why there are lost scholarships. Obviously the University knew the three year average would be lower and all but one scholarship was already taken away for the 2006-07 academic year. UT normally keeps a few scholarships in hand anyway. For this coming year we can only have 84 scholarship players, which we will have even less than that. For the 2007-08 school year we would still be 1 point off of the three year average of 925 even with another 944 score in 07-08......so don't be suprised if UT is slightly lower than 925 for the three year average again next year.

As for Bowling Green, you are below the 925 standard for the three year average also but used a squad size adjustment......which I believe BG did last year too. That is OK to use if you are using up all of your 85 scholarships and you believe that you will be above 925 with the new three year average coming either next year or the year after.....can't remember which. However, if you are not at or above 925 at that time you are subject to larger 1-2 year sanctions because you took the risk of the squad size adjustment. Since Toledo normally uses less than 85 scholarships anyway, it was much easier for us to take the scholarship losses than to ask for a squad size adjustment.

As for the Oden thing, that's not how the APR works. It is different than graduation rate or GSR. APR works like this. You get 1 point a semester if you still in school, don't drop out. You get another point if you are in good academic standing for the semester. So one player can be worth 4 points. However, if you leave school after the semester and were in good academic standing you don't lose any points and don't hurt the APR score. So as long as Oden didn't/doesn't leave OSU in the middle of the semester and is in good academic standing he will not hurt their APR score at all.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Tue May 08, 2007 9:31 am

transfer2BGSU wrote:
tekekini wrote:Why punish schools because they can get players good enough to go pro at younger age to extend their pro career? The players have the right to go pro early, yet they punish schools because those kids do not graduate..
Why is the student-athlete different from the non-athlete?

BGSU and all other institutions must count graduation rates for ALL students. So an athlete leaves early - he is considered special by the NCAA and doesn't factor into the equation as long he/she was in good academic standing.

The computer science major is also in good standing and gets an offer from HP to go to work down in Texas. He leaves and does not finish his degree within six years of entering school (Feds give you 150% of the degree time to complete). The school gets dinged (in both cases by the Feds - for the student and for the student-athlete).

Why is the student-athlete different from the non-athlete?

Greg Oden leaves school early and if he is in good standing, the NCAA doesn't count that against OSU. My nephew is also a freshman at OSU and if he leaves before graduating within 6 years, OSU gets dinged.

Why is the student-athlete different from the non-athlete?

If you don't graduate within six years, you count against the institution. It should not matter if you are a student-athlete or not.

It does count against OSU in the GSR if an athlete leaves early without graduating, but not in the APR.

The NCAA brings the APR pain...

RE: UT