The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...t/2411497/

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...ket_1.html

Eye on College BBall ‏@EyeOnCBB
APR marks out. Ineligible for 2014 postseason: Alabama St, FIU, Grambling State Mississippi Valley State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, New Orleans

Get it together, Women's Bowling!

For some reason, I found typing that hilarious.

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN
Bottom FBS APRs: NM St 916, UTEP 917, Idaho 919, Troy 921, UL & Tenn 924, OkSt 926, IowaSt 928, Tulsa 929, FIU 930, BYU 931

Tulsa and BYU surprise me.

(06-11-2013 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Get it together, Women's Bowling!

For some reason, I found typing that hilarious.

So in bowling, if you receive APR sanctions, does that mean you can't bowl that extra ball in the tenth frame.

(06-11-2013 03:39 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Get it together, Women's Bowling!

For some reason, I found typing that hilarious.

So in bowling, if you receive APR sanctions, does that mean you can't bowl that extra ball in the tenth frame.

You have to bowl in the rental shoes.

(06-11-2013 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Get it together, Women's Bowling!

For some reason, I found typing that hilarious.

Maybe beer does kill brain cells.

Only the weak ones.

(06-11-2013 04:40 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Only the weak ones.

+1

If MVSU should lose its appeal for a waiver (which would allow it to play post season), would that affect the choice of the BB commitment from Wenonah HS that UAB showed some interest in signing?

ARTICLE UPDATE:
EDIT - (Got some clarification on bowling from UAB: The score dropped from 1000 to 929 because of the loss of one point from one student-athlete. It had such a dramatic effect on the score because of the small squad size of just four. The team is not subject to penalty because of squad size adjustment and that there is only one year of data as opposed to four and they are not required to create an APR improvement plan because they don't have at least two years of data on the team)

(06-11-2013 03:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Tulsa and BYU surprise me.

yep.

(06-11-2013 01:54 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...t/2411497/

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...ket_1.html

Eye on College BBall ‏@EyeOnCBB
APR marks out. Ineligible for 2014 postseason: Alabama St, FIU, Grambling State Mississippi Valley State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, New Orleans

Completely embarrassing for the SWAC. This is downright awful for 4 out of 10 schools facing postseason bans. As a former student-athlete of ASU and the SWAC this is downright heartbreaking.

The smaller (in national rep, not enrollment) schools are at a disadvantage in regard to APR. The acknowledged pecking order in college sports makes the top teams more able to choose both for athletic and academic prowess. The "midmajors" take greater academic risks to get better athletes that those at the top don't have to take. Those near the bottom have to take the greatest risks of all just to glean through the leftovers, hoping to find that "diamond in the rough" who might surprise. Most of their prospects come from the lowest graduating grade averages of their high schools and so present the greatest challenges for future APR rankings when they encounter college level courses. The least financed college programs have the same problem as the least financed K-12 districts in that they have less money to fund tutorial programs than wealthier schools but may have a greater number of less academically talented athletes.

(06-12-2013 11:51 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The smaller (in national rep, not enrollment) schools are at a disadvantage in regard to APR. The the pecking order in college sports makes the top teams more able to choose both for athletic and academic prowess. The "midmajors" take greater academic risks to get better athletes that those at the top don't have to take. Those near the bottom have to take the greatest risks of all just to glean through the leftovers, hoping to find that "diamond in the rough" who might surprise. Most of their prospects come from the lowest graduating grade averages of their high schools and so present the greatest challenges for future APR rankings when they encounter college level courses. The least financed college programs have the same problem as the least financed K-12 districts in that they have less money to fund tutorial programs than wealthier schools but may have a greater number of less academically talented athletes.

Good points. There is nothing fair about college athletics.

(06-12-2013 12:19 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:51 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The smaller (in national rep, not enrollment) schools are at a disadvantage in regard to APR. The the pecking order in college sports makes the top teams more able to choose both for athletic and academic prowess. The "midmajors" take greater academic risks to get better athletes that those at the top don't have to take. Those near the bottom have to take the greatest risks of all just to glean through the leftovers, hoping to find that "diamond in the rough" who might surprise. Most of their prospects come from the lowest graduating grade averages of their high schools and so present the greatest challenges for future APR rankings when they encounter college level courses. The least financed college programs have the same problem as the least financed K-12 districts in that they have less money to fund tutorial programs than wealthier schools but may have a greater number of less academically talented athletes.

Good points. There is nothing fair about college athletics.

Realizing this the NCAA is supposedly taking steps to help resolve these deficiencies as they apply to "low-majors" with challenging financial (and other) issues. This was stated last year when a couple of HBCUs were also penalized. So far, positive results are not obvious. Perhaps, there hasn't been enough time. Over the next few years we'll see if the changes have any real substance...

(06-12-2013 11:51 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The smaller (in national rep, not enrollment) schools are at a disadvantage in regard to APR. The the pecking order in college sports makes the top teams more able to choose both for athletic and academic prowess. The "midmajors" take greater academic risks to get better athletes that those at the top don't have to take. Those near the bottom have to take the greatest risks of all just to glean through the leftovers, hoping to find that "diamond in the rough" who might surprise. Most of their prospects come from the lowest graduating grade averages of their high schools and so present the greatest challenges for future APR rankings when they encounter college level courses. The least financed college programs have the same problem as the least financed K-12 districts in that they have less money to fund tutorial programs than wealthier schools but may have a greater number of less academically talented athletes.

After watching/listening to some of the guys at the NFL Draft this year, I question the education given at Alabama, Tennessee, and West Virginia in particular.

Don't act like these numbers reflect the real education anybody is getting at any of these schools.

Quote:Don't act like these numbers reflect the real education anybody is getting at any of these schools.

This always annoys me - the conflation of high APR scores with quality of education. Shouldn't it be the other way around? if everyone if getting A's, that does not scream "oooooh, tough class" to me.

Without bothering to look it up, I'm sure North Carolina logged another year of 1000 scores.

(06-12-2013 11:51 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The smaller (in national rep, not enrollment) schools are at a disadvantage in regard to APR. The the pecking order in college sports makes the top teams more able to choose both for athletic and academic prowess. The "midmajors" take greater academic risks to get better athletes that those at the top don't have to take. Those near the bottom have to take the greatest risks of all just to glean through the leftovers, hoping to find that "diamond in the rough" who might surprise. Most of their prospects come from the lowest graduating grade averages of their high schools and so present the greatest challenges for future APR rankings when they encounter college level courses. T

That's what happens when you placing winning games over graduating students.

(06-12-2013 01:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 11:51 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The smaller (in national rep, not enrollment) schools are at a disadvantage in regard to APR. The the pecking order in college sports makes the top teams more able to choose both for athletic and academic prowess. The "midmajors" take greater academic risks to get better athletes that those at the top don't have to take. Those near the bottom have to take the greatest risks of all just to glean through the leftovers, hoping to find that "diamond in the rough" who might surprise. Most of their prospects come from the lowest graduating grade averages of their high schools and so present the greatest challenges for future APR rankings when they encounter college level courses. T

That's what happens when you placing winning games over graduating students.

Coaches who win games get well paid while those that graduate players but don't win regularly get fired. Even top academic schools demand winning records so coaches recruit accordingly. That is probably why a player's academic stats have never been listed in the game program, even before being protected by privacy rules.