FYI for WMU and Ohio fans.

On top of the bowl ban they will also have to reduce their practice time.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/26...p=/99/104/

What I dont get is in both cases of UNLV and Idaho the reported APR numbers dont match what the NCAAs site says they scored.


"The team had an APR of 971 (out of 1,000) in 2009, 291 in 2010, 881 in 2011 and 838 in 2012."

09-10 - 923
10-11 - 934
11-12 - 919
https://web1.ncaa.org/maps/tiwitytilamvmaprRelease.jsp


In both cases the numbers were not even close. So what is the point of the NCAA's APR site?

The numbers got inverted for 2010 according to U of I press release:
The football APR scores that led to the sanctions for the 2014 season were 971 in 2009, 921 in 2010, 881 in 2011 and 838 in 2012 for a four-year average of 903.

But these are still very different than the NCAA site.

Let's be honest, Idaho wasn't going to get bowl eligible anyway. They should just drop to 1-AA already.

(04-26-2014 03:04 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Let's be honest, Idaho wasn't going to get bowl eligible anyway. They should just drop to 1-AA already.

This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

(04-26-2014 03:35 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(04-26-2014 03:04 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Let's be honest, Idaho wasn't going to get bowl eligible anyway. They should just drop to 1-AA already.

This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Don't nobody tell NDSU that Idaho is living on borrowed time as a FB-only in the SBC, some booster will start sponsoring parties in Moscow, ID to help keep the Idaho APR low.