Still trying to make sense of this, but as I read it, penalties will really start to kick in next year when there's a full 4-year data set. From there, it will be a rolling 4-year average. Any team below 925 could suffer an "immediate penalty" by losing up to 10% of their scholarships.

I know that everyone will naturally focus on this year's scholarship losses, but the "Historical Penalties" could be worse (for teams under 900): 1st year - warning; 2nd year - restrictions on scholarships, recruiting and practice time; 3rd year - banned from postseason competition; 4th year - restricted membership status for an institution (all sports).

The good news is most teams showed improvement this year.

Football
Boise St 955
Fresno St 945
Idaho 924
Utah St 924
Nevada 920
La Tech 916
Hawaii 902
New Mexico St 902
San Jose St 858

M Basketball
Boise St 945
Nevada 935
Hawaii 913
Utah St 902
San Jose St 886
Idaho 885
La Tech 853
New Mexico St 824
Fresno St 787

I'm for making sure that "academics" is a high priority in school...

...but Miles Brand got another one wrong...yet again.

The NCAA will be a better organization when the Cartel Stooge is gone.

So now that Ohio State has several basketball players turning pro prior to their senior year...

...how many scholarships will that cost Ohio State? Same with Florida?

The University "shouldn't" be treated as a mandatory 4-year prison sentence.

Miles Brand and the NCAA has made the "university" a "penitentiary" for athletes.

If you want to leave, or transfer...the NCAA punishes the univerisity "warden" for allowing an athlete to escape.

Did communism leave Russia...to relocate in the office of the NCAA?

There's a problem here...

clpack Wrote:Still trying to make sense of this, but as I read it, penalties will really start to kick in next year when there's a full 4-year data set. From there, it will be a rolling 4-year average. Any team below 925 could suffer an "immediate penalty" by losing up to 10% of their scholarships.

I know that everyone will naturally focus on this year's scholarship losses, but the "Historical Penalties" could be worse (for teams under 900): 1st year - warning; 2nd year - restrictions on scholarships, recruiting and practice time; 3rd year - banned from postseason competition; 4th year - restricted membership status for an institution (all sports).

The good news is most teams showed improvement this year.

Football
Boise St 955
Fresno St 945
Idaho 924
Utah St 924
Nevada 920
La Tech 916
Hawaii 902
New Mexico St 902
San Jose St 858

M Basketball
Boise St 945
Nevada 935
Hawaii 913
Utah St 902
San Jose St 886
Idaho 885
La Tech 853
New Mexico St 824
Fresno St 787

Utah State averages a multi-year APR of 953 in all sports. What are the averages of the rest of the WAC schools?

ejmpalle Wrote:Utah State averages a multi-year APR of 953 in all sports. What are the averages of the rest of the WAC schools?

The APR reports don't list school averages. Is that a simple average (each sport weighted equally)? Or is it weighted by the number of participants (each student athlete weighted equally)?

clpack Wrote:The APR reports don't list school averages. Is that a simple average (each sport weighted equally)?

Yes. If you'd like to do it the other way, by all means.... I was more concerned about my own time constraints. ;-) However, I'd like to see how WAC teams stack up against each other that way.

Utah State In Good Standing With NCAA Following Latest APR Report
USU was one of just four teams from the WAC that did not receive any warnings or scholarship reductions from the NCAA.


May 2, 2007

LOGAN, Utah - The NCAA released its latest multi-year Academic Progress Rates (APR) on Wednesday and it showed that Utah State's student-athletes are remaining in school and making progress toward a degree. The report is based on APR information submitted by member institutions for the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 academic years.

Every Division I sports team calculates its APR annually, based on the eligibility, retention and graduation of each student-athlete on scholarship.

"I'm pleased with our APR for this past year, but know we can do better," said Dr. Brian Evans, Associate Athletics Director for Student-Athlete Services. "We haven't made the top-10 percent yet with any individual teams, so that is something we'll strive for."

Teams that score below a 925 and have a student-athlete fail academically and leave school can lose that scholarship. Also, teams scoring less than 900 in the latest report received warning letters from the NCAA. Continued underperformance could lead to scholarship losses and reductions in practice and playing time when a team posts below a 900 APR for a second straight year.

Utah State was one of just four schools in the Western Athletic Conference that did not receive any warnings or scholarship reductions from the NCAA.
http://utahstateaggies.cstv.com/genrel/050207aaa.html

ejmpalle Wrote:

clpack Wrote:The APR reports don't list school averages. Is that a simple average (each sport weighted equally)?

Yes. If you'd like to do it the other way, by all means.... I was more concerned about my own time constraints. ;-) However, I'd like to see how WAC teams stack up against each other that way.

I didn't know if that was a reported number, or something you calculated. And no, I'm not going to take the time to weight numbers by participants either. If anyone wants to do that, participant numbers can be found at Equity in Athletics.

Nevada's average is 948. But what do we make of that when removing one small, and I believe nonscholarship, sport (skiing) raises it to 951?

If the NCAA sticks to their guns, there will be an outrage next year when the "squad size adjustment" is removed. More than 40% of all schools would have been below 925 in football and/or basketball this year without that adjustment. And how do you dig yourself out of a 3-yr hole like Fresno is in? Taken strictly, FSU has 3 years to raise their 4 yr rolling average by more than 100 pts or face losing D1 classification.

There's going to be a lot of furor as people start to figure out the potential implications of all this. Just one example is this article from the Honolulu Advertiser: Baseball to take a 'huge' blow. Buried in the bottom of that article is this gem..."Programs with a four-year average APR under 900 will have its schedule reduced from 56 games to 50."

WAC baseball - 3 yr averages
Nevada 920
Hawaii 904
La Tech 883
Sac St 882
Fresno 871
SJSU 863
NMSU 859

clpack Wrote:And how do you dig yourself out of a 3-yr hole like Fresno is in? Taken strictly, FSU has 3 years to raise their 4 yr rolling average by more than 100 pts or face losing D1 classification.

Is the NCAA going to compensate the WAC as far as $$$ if Fresno St drops out of D1?

Can you imagine the scheduling headaches involved in this? Contracts breeched?

NMSU steps up in recent APR
By Teddy Feinberg/Sun-News Sports Editor
Article Launched: 05/04/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

The New Mexico State Athletic Department saw the majority of its athletic programs improve across the board in the NCAA Division I 2005-2006 Academic Progress Rate.

Fourteen of 15 programs saw improvement, led by men's basketball which saw a spike of 68 points, from last year's mark of 756 to 824 this year. Football also saw a yearly rate increase of 886 points to 902. Men's tennis was the only sport that saw a drop in points, while baseball was the only sport to be penalized, hitting a total of 859. While that number still marked a 10-point improvement from last year's total, it fell short of the required 925 mark, allowing the NCAA to place a warning on the program.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rest of the story at http://www.lcsun-news.com/sports/ci_5814394

jediwarrior Wrote:So now that Ohio State has several basketball players turning pro prior to their senior year...

...how many scholarships will that cost Ohio State? Same with Florida?

I would like to know that myself. Anybody know?

gaard Wrote:

jediwarrior Wrote:So now that Ohio State has several basketball players turning pro prior to their senior year...

...how many scholarships will that cost Ohio State? Same with Florida?

I would like to know that myself. Anybody know?

I believe it depends on their academic standing when they leave...if they're in poor academic standing, there's a penalty, but if they're in good standing, there's not. However, even if leaving under good standing, a failure to graduate will cause the school to miss out on a chance to raise their APR.

clpack Wrote:

ejmpalle Wrote:

clpack Wrote:The APR reports don't list school averages. Is that a simple average (each sport weighted equally)?

Yes. If you'd like to do it the other way, by all means.... I was more concerned about my own time constraints. ;-) However, I'd like to see how WAC teams stack up against each other that way.

I didn't know if that was a reported number, or something you calculated. And no, I'm not going to take the time to weight numbers by participants either. If anyone wants to do that, participant numbers can be found at Equity in Athletics.

Nevada's average is 948. But what do we make of that when removing one small, and I believe nonscholarship, sport (skiing) raises it to 951?

If the NCAA sticks to their guns, there will be an outrage next year when the "squad size adjustment" is removed. More than 40% of all schools would have been below 925 in football and/or basketball this year without that adjustment. And how do you dig yourself out of a 3-yr hole like Fresno is in? Taken strictly, FSU has 3 years to raise their 4 yr rolling average by more than 100 pts or face losing D1 classification.

There's going to be a lot of furor as people start to figure out the potential implications of all this. Just one example is this article from the Honolulu Advertiser: Baseball to take a 'huge' blow. Buried in the bottom of that article is this gem..."Programs with a four-year average APR under 900 will have its schedule reduced from 56 games to 50."

WAC baseball - 3 yr averages
Nevada 920
Hawaii 904
La Tech 883
Sac St 882
Fresno 871
SJSU 863
NMSU 859

I thought the rolling averages were to be used through the end of this year due to the small sample size of basketball and other sports? We discussed this on WPC a few months ago and that's what I read when researching the issue.

Also, these figures don't include the spring semester that is just concluding, do they?

WolfInSeattle Wrote:I thought the rolling averages were to be used through the end of this year due to the small sample size of basketball and other sports? We discussed this on WPC a few months ago and that's what I read when researching the issue.

Also, these figures don't include the spring semester that is just concluding, do they?

This is how I read it:

Year 3 is 2005-06. Year 4 will be 2006-07, so neither last fall nor this spring are factored in yet.

The "squad size adjustment" is what's being used for the last time this year. Next year, they view the 4-year rolling average as statistically robust enough to warrant doing away with that adjustment.

There will be two different, albeit related, penalty systems. 1) "Immediate penalties", in the form of scholarship reductions of up to 10%, are based on annual APRs; any school under 925 for that year could be penalized. 2) "Historical penalties" are based on the 4-year rolling average and can be much more severe than the scholarship reductions (limits on games, practice, recruiting, post-season play, etc); any school under 900 could receive one of these.