CSNbbs

So this... http://ultoday.com/node/923

is the article that the Cajun fan was referring to in his post a few weeks ago?

(11-25-2009 12:53 PM)littlebittyschool Wrote: [ -> ]So this... http://ultoday.com/node/923

is the article that the Cajun fan was referring to in his post a few weeks ago?

No, that's not the article. But the coach does give you a basic summary of the program and the SBC programs that are exempt. BTW, coach Stockstill at MT has also verified that there are programs that are exempt from the APR in the SBC. He did not name them, but admitted that it is true. This is not a secret to most of the coaching staffs and administrations in the SBC. Its we, the fans that don't have a clue.

The professor that wrote this story is doing more research on the program.

On the 4th quarter punt, they said it hit our player in the leg. From the endzone camera, you can see it hit about a half-yard away. We sent those two calls in to be reviewed by the Sun Belt office.


I guess we aren't the only ones littering the SBC office with stuff.....

relax....just messing around...dont get your panties in a wad

Well, we can argue about exemptions for schools all we want but how does that affect what Troy does versus any other school? If I recall correctly, there was to be some blockbuster story about how Troy can bring in players of lower academic quality and thereby field a superior football team. Yet, looking at the latest APR ratings, Troy has not been punished and has APRs of 944 in Baseball, 927 in Basketball, and 945 in Football. Bottom line is it looks like while they may use the JUCO routes better than the rest of us in the SBC, their players are getting it done in the classroom. Their players are staying and making the grades.

So where is the issue?

Dang, I am defending Troy!! :yikes:

(11-25-2009 03:21 PM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]Well, we can argue about exemptions for schools all we want but how does that affect what Troy does versus any other school? If I recall correctly, there was to be some blockbuster story about how Troy can bring in players of lower academic quality and thereby field a superior football team. Yet, looking at the latest APR ratings, Troy has not been punished and has APRs of 944 in Baseball, 927 in Basketball, and 945 in Football. Bottom line is it looks like while they may use the JUCO routes better than the rest of us in the SBC, their players are getting it done in the classroom. Their players are staying and making the grades.

So where is the issue?

Dang, I am defending Troy!! :yikes:

+1

I was going to say basically the same thing but you beat me to it.

From how I've read things about this, these players don't count towards the #. But that doesn't make sense now that I think about it.

At the least, it allows them to take risks on lesser-qualified athletes, knowing that if they screw up their APR, its not an issue. They just have to meet their low benchmark that they set for themselves.

Either way, Troy is winning conference games, and within the rules (as much as I think it's "not right" its still not "wrong").

And we thank you... for your support.

(11-25-2009 05:20 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote: [ -> ]From how I've read things about this, these players don't count towards the #. But that doesn't make sense now that I think about it.

At the least, it allows them to take risks on lesser-qualified athletes, knowing that if they screw up their APR, its not an issue. They just have to meet their low benchmark that they set for themselves.

Either way, Troy is winning conference games, and within the rules (as much as I think it's "not right" its still not "wrong").

It's not wrong if the NCAA allows the exemption. The question is not whether it is allowed, but does if give the three programs an unfair avantage in not being held accountable on the APR for signing a large number of props or gray shirts. If I'm Troy,ULM or ASU, I see no problem with it. If I'm any other program, I would love to sign a number of athletes that are the quality of Lang and not be held accountable if they don't graduate. That gives me access to a pool of athletes that ordinarily wouldn't sign with Sun Belt programs.

I don't think the Sun Belt will make any decisions on this matter anytime soon. If Troy is going to bowls and helping the Sun Belt, why would they have any interest in standardizing entrance standards for all its member institutions?

This also includes other sports such as basketball.

Basically, Troy players still have to meet the NCAA minimum requirements. However, some key recruits who fail to qualify are still admitted but will not be on scholarship per NCAA rule. They will get extra tutoring which means they will likely meet the NCAA requirements in the following year.

When Lang originally signed with Troy, he was ruled ineligible and had to pay his own way. However, he was still able to attend Troy because he is an athlete. Currently, the avg. GPA of Troy's incoming freshman class is 3.21. Troy probably wouldn't have admitted him if he wasn't an athlete.

(11-26-2009 01:37 AM)T2003 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 08:22 PM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 05:20 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote: [ -> ]From how I've read things about this, these players don't count towards the #. But that doesn't make sense now that I think about it.

At the least, it allows them to take risks on lesser-qualified athletes, knowing that if they screw up their APR, its not an issue. They just have to meet their low benchmark that they set for themselves.

Either way, Troy is winning conference games, and within the rules (as much as I think it's "not right" its still not "wrong").

It's not wrong if the NCAA allows the exemption. The question is not whether it is allowed, but does if give the three programs an unfair avantage in not being held accountable on the APR for signing a large number of props or gray shirts. If I'm Troy,ULM or ASU, I see no problem with it. If I'm any other program, I would love to sign a number of athletes that are the quality of Lang and not be held accountable if they don't graduate. That gives me access to a pool of athletes that ordinarily wouldn't sign with Sun Belt programs.

I don't think the Sun Belt will make any decisions on this matter anytime soon. If Troy is going to bowls and helping the Sun Belt, why would they have any interest in standardizing entrance standards for all its member institutions?

This also includes other sports such as basketball.

Again, it has nothing to do with entrance standards. When Lang originally signed with Troy, he was ruled ineligible and had to pay his own way.
Two years ago, we signed a JC CB (D.Robinson) who didn't qualify; we resigned him last year and he was enrolled during summer. He didn't pass his summer classes and left the program/school. Last year, both Chris Anderson and Kanorris Davis didn't qualify out of HS and were ruled ineligible by the NCAA after fall camp. Top 4-star JC CB Michael Ricks and top WR Darius Morgan never qualified...

Actually it is about both. Conferences like the SEC have set standards not allowing their programs to sign more then two props per year. Troy and ULM has signed as many 40 athletes in one class. If the Sun Belt had similar standards in place,neither program would have ever been allowed to sign that many props. And, Lang is on scholarship now and if he doesn't graduate, does it cost your program any scholarships? The answer is no because Troy is exempt from the APR. But if Lang was on scholarship at any other SBC program other then Troy, ULM or ASU
and didn't graduate, he would cost that program APR points. It is definatley an advantage for those three programs not to have to be concerned about taking risk on these types of athletes. It needs to be addressed.

(11-26-2009 02:08 AM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2009 01:37 AM)T2003 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 08:22 PM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 05:20 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote: [ -> ]From how I've read things about this, these players don't count towards the #. But that doesn't make sense now that I think about it.

At the least, it allows them to take risks on lesser-qualified athletes, knowing that if they screw up their APR, its not an issue. They just have to meet their low benchmark that they set for themselves.

Either way, Troy is winning conference games, and within the rules (as much as I think it's "not right" its still not "wrong").

It's not wrong if the NCAA allows the exemption. The question is not whether it is allowed, but does if give the three programs an unfair avantage in not being held accountable on the APR for signing a large number of props or gray shirts. If I'm Troy,ULM or ASU, I see no problem with it. If I'm any other program, I would love to sign a number of athletes that are the quality of Lang and not be held accountable if they don't graduate. That gives me access to a pool of athletes that ordinarily wouldn't sign with Sun Belt programs.

I don't think the Sun Belt will make any decisions on this matter anytime soon. If Troy is going to bowls and helping the Sun Belt, why would they have any interest in standardizing entrance standards for all its member institutions?

This also includes other sports such as basketball.

Again, it has nothing to do with entrance standards. When Lang originally signed with Troy, he was ruled ineligible and had to pay his own way.
Two years ago, we signed a JC CB (D.Robinson) who didn't qualify; we resigned him last year and he was enrolled during summer. He didn't pass his summer classes and left the program/school. Last year, both Chris Anderson and Kanorris Davis didn't qualify out of HS and were ruled ineligible by the NCAA after fall camp. Top 4-star JC CB Michael Ricks and top WR Darius Morgan never qualified...

Actually it is about both. Conferences like the SEC have set standards not allowing their programs to sign more then two props per year. Troy and ULM has signed as many 40 athletes in one class. If the Sun Belt had similar standards in place,neither program would have ever been allowed to sign that many props. And, Lang is on scholarship now and if he doesn't graduate, does it cost your program any scholarships? The answer is no because Troy is exempt from the APR. But if Lang was on scholarship at any other SBC program other then Troy, ULM or ASU
and didn't graduate, he would cost that program APR points. It is definatley an advantage for those three programs not to have to be concerned about taking risk on these types of athletes. It needs to be addressed.

There is one year that "Scout" says that we (ULM) had 40 commits. While most of those players I have never seen of the field, I will take that number. That being said, ULM has averaged over the last 5 years anywhere from 23-26 players signed. So, don't throw out that number and make it seem like ULM is taking 35+ players a year.

CajunT, I understand you have an issue with those of us who support ULM and judging from your posts from other threads, I find you to be a petty little man, but the academic progress from ULL...and notice I added the L to your name....is not that much different from ULM. So, in my best Army voice,perfected over 20 years, go pound sand, you whiney little b**ch!! Troy beats the hell out of ULL in APR across the board.

(11-26-2009 03:20 AM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]There is one year that "Scout" says that we (ULM) had 40 commits. While most of those players I have never seen of the field, I will take that number. That being said, ULM has averaged over the last 5 years anywhere from 23-26 players signed. So, don't throw out that number and make it seem like ULM is taking 35+ players a year.

Rivals.com had Troy's commitment list last February as having 41 signing, but Troy only signed 28 players officially. Rivals added the players that grayshirted from the 2008 recruiting class to the list. Why I don't know.

you cant always always believe everything you read on the internet!

(11-26-2009 03:20 AM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2009 02:08 AM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2009 01:37 AM)T2003 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 08:22 PM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 05:20 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote: [ -> ]From how I've read things about this, these players don't count towards the #. But that doesn't make sense now that I think about it.

At the least, it allows them to take risks on lesser-qualified athletes, knowing that if they screw up their APR, its not an issue. They just have to meet their low benchmark that they set for themselves.

Either way, Troy is winning conference games, and within the rules (as much as I think it's "not right" its still not "wrong").

It's not wrong if the NCAA allows the exemption. The question is not whether it is allowed, but does if give the three programs an unfair avantage in not being held accountable on the APR for signing a large number of props or gray shirts. If I'm Troy,ULM or ASU, I see no problem with it. If I'm any other program, I would love to sign a number of athletes that are the quality of Lang and not be held accountable if they don't graduate. That gives me access to a pool of athletes that ordinarily wouldn't sign with Sun Belt programs.

I don't think the Sun Belt will make any decisions on this matter anytime soon. If Troy is going to bowls and helping the Sun Belt, why would they have any interest in standardizing entrance standards for all its member institutions?

This also includes other sports such as basketball.

Again, it has nothing to do with entrance standards. When Lang originally signed with Troy, he was ruled ineligible and had to pay his own way.
Two years ago, we signed a JC CB (D.Robinson) who didn't qualify; we resigned him last year and he was enrolled during summer. He didn't pass his summer classes and left the program/school. Last year, both Chris Anderson and Kanorris Davis didn't qualify out of HS and were ruled ineligible by the NCAA after fall camp. Top 4-star JC CB Michael Ricks and top WR Darius Morgan never qualified...

Actually it is about both. Conferences like the SEC have set standards not allowing their programs to sign more then two props per year. Troy and ULM has signed as many 40 athletes in one class. If the Sun Belt had similar standards in place,neither program would have ever been allowed to sign that many props. And, Lang is on scholarship now and if he doesn't graduate, does it cost your program any scholarships? The answer is no because Troy is exempt from the APR. But if Lang was on scholarship at any other SBC program other then Troy, ULM or ASU
and didn't graduate, he would cost that program APR points. It is definatley an advantage for those three programs not to have to be concerned about taking risk on these types of athletes. It needs to be addressed.

There is one year that "Scout" says that we (ULM) had 40 commits. While most of those players I have never seen of the field, I will take that number. That being said, ULM has averaged over the last 5 years anywhere from 23-26 players signed. So, don't throw out that number and make it seem like ULM is taking 35+ players a year.

CajunT, I understand you have an issue with those of us who support ULM and judging from your posts from other threads, I find you to be a petty little man, but the academic progress from ULL...and notice I added the L to your name....is not that much different from ULM. So, in my best Army voice,perfected over 20 years, go pound sand, you whiney little b**ch!! Troy beats the hell out of ULL in APR across the board.

This had been a relatively tame thread till you jumped in. Go be a p*ssy on your own board.

Z

ps 21-17.....s*ck it Trebek!

(11-26-2009 03:20 AM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2009 02:08 AM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2009 01:37 AM)T2003 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 08:22 PM)CajunT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2009 05:20 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote: [ -> ]From how I've read things about this, these players don't count towards the #. But that doesn't make sense now that I think about it.

At the least, it allows them to take risks on lesser-qualified athletes, knowing that if they screw up their APR, its not an issue. They just have to meet their low benchmark that they set for themselves.

Either way, Troy is winning conference games, and within the rules (as much as I think it's "not right" its still not "wrong").

It's not wrong if the NCAA allows the exemption. The question is not whether it is allowed, but does if give the three programs an unfair avantage in not being held accountable on the APR for signing a large number of props or gray shirts. If I'm Troy,ULM or ASU, I see no problem with it. If I'm any other program, I would love to sign a number of athletes that are the quality of Lang and not be held accountable if they don't graduate. That gives me access to a pool of athletes that ordinarily wouldn't sign with Sun Belt programs.

I don't think the Sun Belt will make any decisions on this matter anytime soon. If Troy is going to bowls and helping the Sun Belt, why would they have any interest in standardizing entrance standards for all its member institutions?

This also includes other sports such as basketball.

Again, it has nothing to do with entrance standards. When Lang originally signed with Troy, he was ruled ineligible and had to pay his own way.
Two years ago, we signed a JC CB (D.Robinson) who didn't qualify; we resigned him last year and he was enrolled during summer. He didn't pass his summer classes and left the program/school. Last year, both Chris Anderson and Kanorris Davis didn't qualify out of HS and were ruled ineligible by the NCAA after fall camp. Top 4-star JC CB Michael Ricks and top WR Darius Morgan never qualified...

Actually it is about both. Conferences like the SEC have set standards not allowing their programs to sign more then two props per year. Troy and ULM has signed as many 40 athletes in one class. If the Sun Belt had similar standards in place,neither program would have ever been allowed to sign that many props. And, Lang is on scholarship now and if he doesn't graduate, does it cost your program any scholarships? The answer is no because Troy is exempt from the APR. But if Lang was on scholarship at any other SBC program other then Troy, ULM or ASU
and didn't graduate, he would cost that program APR points. It is definatley an advantage for those three programs not to have to be concerned about taking risk on these types of athletes. It needs to be addressed.

There is one year that "Scout" says that we (ULM) had 40 commits. While most of those players I have never seen of the field, I will take that number. That being said, ULM has averaged over the last 5 years anywhere from 23-26 players signed. So, don't throw out that number and make it seem like ULM is taking 35+ players a year.

CajunT, I understand you have an issue with those of us who support ULM and judging from your posts from other threads, I find you to be a petty little man, but the academic progress from ULL...and notice I added the L to your name....is not that much different from ULM. So, in my best Army voice,perfected over 20 years, go pound sand, you whiney little b**ch!! Troy beats the hell out of ULL in APR across the board.

Injun John, we are having a discussion here on a program allowed by the NCAA that is a distinct advantage for several SBC programs. Instead of discussing facts, you want to act like a freaken 5 year old. It has nothing to do about being petty, its about addressing the lack of uniform standards and a double standard of the NCAA APR measurments.

No one is stating that ULM has signed 35 athletes per year freaken moron! It's simple, you are not being held accountable under the NCAA APR standards once any of those athletes are on scholarship. If you want to discuss some of the athletes ULM has signed out of Louisiana that are not in your program presently, then I have no problem with listing the ones I know fall into this category. Otherwise, in my best non-military voice "You don't have a clue on the subject"!

Injun John, we are having a discussion here on a program allowed by the NCAA that is a distinct advantage for several SBC programs. Instead of discussing facts, you want to act like a freaken 5 year old. It has nothing to do about being petty, its about addressing the lack of uniform standards and a double standard of the NCAA APR measurments.

No one is stating that ULM has signed 35 athletes per year freaken moron! It's simple, you are not being held accountable under the NCAA APR standards once any of those athletes are on scholarship. If you want to discuss some of the athletes ULM has signed out of Louisiana that are not in your program presently, then I have no problem with listing the ones I know fall into this category. Otherwise, in my best non-military voice "You don't have a clue on the subject"!
[/quote]

Actually CajunT, you did say that we signed 40 players and it is in your earlier post so please go back and re-read the thread. My comments on the matte deal with the last APR ratings from the NCAA and I posted what Troy's ratings were and while I did not post the ULM and ULL ratings, both of ours are comparable. Troy is above the standard in the three sports I listed and has higher rankings than ULL or ULM.

I will end this post with an apology to the board. I try not to let things get personal and you can track my posts and see I am not a smack talker by any stretch of the imagination. My reaction to you was based upon previous comments in other threads and comments from you and other ULL fans on Warhawknation.

(11-26-2009 12:42 PM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]Injun John, we are having a discussion here on a program allowed by the NCAA that is a distinct advantage for several SBC programs. Instead of discussing facts, you want to act like a freaken 5 year old. It has nothing to do about being petty, its about addressing the lack of uniform standards and a double standard of the NCAA APR measurments.

No one is stating that ULM has signed 35 athletes per year freaken moron! It's simple, you are not being held accountable under the NCAA APR standards once any of those athletes are on scholarship. If you want to discuss some of the athletes ULM has signed out of Louisiana that are not in your program presently, then I have no problem with listing the ones I know fall into this category. Otherwise, in my best non-military voice "You don't have a clue on the subject"!

Actually CajunT, you did say that we signed 40 players and it is in your earlier post so please go back and re-read the thread. My comments on the matte deal with the last APR ratings from the NCAA and I posted what Troy's ratings were and while I did not post the ULM and ULL ratings, both of ours are comparable. Troy is above the standard in the three sports I listed and has higher rankings than ULL or ULM.

I will end this post with an apology to the board. I try not to let things get personal and you can track my posts and see I am not a smack talker by any stretch of the imagination. My reaction to you was based upon previous comments in other threads and comments from you and other ULL fans on Warhawknation.
[/quote]

This was my statement: "Troy and ULM has signed as many 40 athletes in one class." Now, I don't see where I stated ULM or Troy sign 35 athletes per year. This is simply an example of reading something and extracting your own interpretation out of it.

Now you have asked a fair queston and I will give you the best answer I can based upon what I've learned about the program thus far. The APR scores that you have mentioned from Troy and ULM are based upon the athletes that qualified out of high school or junior college. These athletes are not exempt from APR and Troy, ULM and Arkst have done a good job of keeping those athletes on tract towards graduation. My understanding is that any athlete that was not a qualifier coming out of high school,signed with the program and sat out or enrolled part time not on scholarship would be exempt from that same APR standard once the became eligible. So the reported APR number is skewed because those athletes that fall into that category are not reflected in those numbers.

Again, I understand why Troy, ULM or Arkst would participate in this program allowed by the NCAA. I think all Sun Belt programs would, if they qualified to do so under the NCAA guidelines. The problem is with the APR standard and inequity in the way it's applied. Some schools are being penalized for high risk athletes and others are not. That needs to be addressed and the Sun Belt Conference doesn't have to wait for the NCAA to lead the way.

(11-26-2009 12:42 PM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]I will end this post with an apology to the board. I try not to let things get personal and you can track my posts and see I am not a smack talker by any stretch of the imagination. My reaction to you was based upon previous comments in other threads and comments from you and other ULL fans on Warhawknation.

:clap2:

I'm for a civil thread! :patriot: