(12-05-2017 08:30 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:39 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how Kennesaw's APR shakes out after all this.

Our model wins the APR 961 to 939.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ligibility

And there are about 80 schools in between those two numbers, including several SEC schools. It's a sizeable gap.

Winning the right way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That Kennesaw number is LOW. Holy crap that's low, like Jamey Chadwell at Charleston Southern low.

Low enough for sanctions or loss of scholarships? What is the cut-off for that?

I think KSU is close to the penalty zone but will be ok

article:
http://www.ncaa.org/aboutresources/resea...-explained

(12-06-2017 09:13 AM)Stateman Wrote:  I think KSU is close to the penalty zone but will be ok

article:
http://www.ncaa.org/aboutresources/resea...-explained

Correct, I think the FCS acceptable APR number is 930, but I could be wrong. The APR mostly limits participation, and can affect a reduction in scholarships only when there is a significant gap or multiple year failures. Most of the time, teams are penalized on participation (think of it as telling your child that he or she can’t play or practice until their grades improve), or they can’t participate in any playoff or championship games/tournaments. To my knowledge, UTC was the only SOCON football program to ever receive APR invoked penalties (back in the Mid 2000’s). Just another reason to advocate for quality young men and women.

My problem is that I see rewards and congratulations for these schools much more than penalties.

(12-06-2017 05:35 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  My problem is that I see rewards and congratulations for these schools much more than penalties.

And millions upon millions —- especially for the Power Five bunch.