Declining dollars, talent plague HBCU football

[TexasTerror]

Associated Press story... probably ran nationally about HBCU football.

JACKSON, Miss. — Years before Jackie Slater was a Hall of Fame offensive lineman, he was playing for Wingfield High School in Jackson, Mississippi, and hoping to attract the attention of college scouts.


This was in the early 1970s — about the time Southeastern Conference football teams were just beginning to recruit black players — so this massive teenager was mostly ignored by the big schools. But Jackson State welcomed him.


“It was where I was wanted,” Slater recalled. “And it’s where I could excel.”


Slater was one of many players who thrived at the nation’s historically black colleges and universities, particularly from the ’60s through the ’80s. NFL superstars Jerry Rice and Walter Payton were part of that wave.


But HBCUs have slowly turned into an afterthought on the college football landscape.



Full Story (http://theadvocate.com/sports/southern/9279807-123/declining-dollars-talent-plague-hbcu)

[IBleedYellow]

Here comes the monthly TT hate on the HCBUs.

[FormerPokeCenter]

It's like clockwork....you can set your watch to it...

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Now storied programs like Grambling, Southern, Florida A&M and Mississippi Valley State are known more for crumbling facilities, player boycotts and struggles to meet NCAA academic standards than for what happens on the field.

This is right about where I stopped reading the article seriously.

[kdinva]

Eddie Payton's quote is spot-on, IMO.....


Payton said in an effort to spread the HBCU brand and earn a little extra money, leaders focused too much on the schools’ popular marching bands and the parties surrounding the games instead of the football.

[Nickels]

In his defense most HBCU's are pure ****, academically and athletically. Particularly in the SWAC. I think TSU's graduation rate is like 4%...at TSU for f- sakes. A pulse will get you a diploma there.

[clenz]

This is right about where I stopped reading the article seriously.
What about that statement is false?

[GAD]

Eddie Payton's quote is spot-on, IMO.....
Yes we need to improve the on the field product, how ever those other things are why we can draw 25k to 70k for football games while others struggle to get 10k

[Lehigh Football Nation]

What about that statement is false?


Now storied programs like Grambling, Southern, Florida A&M and Mississippi Valley State are known more for crumbling facilities, player boycotts and struggles to meet NCAA academic standards than for what happens on the field.

"Now storied programs like Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and Alabama are known for their SEC titles, having quarterbacks named A.J. and being members of the SEC."

Only Grambling has been "in the news" for player boycotts and substandard facilities. Not the others.

And "NCAA academic standards" in the article means the APR, which is a flawed measurement system that at least measures retention equally with academics.

[clenz]

"Now storied programs like Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and Alabama are known for their SEC titles, having quarterbacks named A.J. and being members of the SEC."

Only Grambling has been "in the news" for player boycotts and substandard facilities. Not the others.

And "NCAA academic standards" in the article means the APR, which is a flawed measurement system that at least measures retention equally with academics.
The SWAC, especially after last fall, are known for crumbling facilities, failing to meet APR standards (Which aren't flawed as it measures if a kid can stay eligible...how is that flawed?), poor athletic performances/product, putting the bands ahead of the game, and the higher ups of the university exploiting the ever loving crap out of their athletes and then throwing them to the side when they bring up the fact that facilities are poor or when they don't stay eligible.

That statement is completely true.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Yes we need to improve the on the field product, how ever those other things are why we can draw 25k to 70k for football games while others struggle to get 10k

19003.......WADDA YA....DOIN' WHIFF..... DUH GATE DUCATS........xconfusedx.....BRAWK!

[GAD]

19003.......WADDA YA....DOIN' WHIFF..... DUH GATE DUCATS........xconfusedx.....BRAWK!
As far as I know some will go to the athletic dept. some into the Universitys general fund

[FormerPokeCenter]

The SWAC, especially after last fall, are known for crumbling facilities, failing to meet APR standards (Which aren't flawed as it measures if a kid can stay eligible...how is that flawed?), poor athletic performances/product, putting the bands ahead of the game, and the higher ups of the university exploiting the ever loving crap out of their athletes and then throwing them to the side when they bring up the fact that facilities are poor or when they don't stay eligible.

That statement is completely true.


The APR measures progress toward graduation. Eligibility is a component, but it's not the main focus of the metric...

[clenz]

The APR measures progress toward graduation. Eligibility is a component, but it's not the main focus of the metric...
As long as a kid stays eligible there will be zero impact on the APR as I've been told.

It isn't unfair to expect a university, and an athletic department, to push academics to a student and give them opportunities to pass all classes.

If the university and department aren't making sure that is happening that is a complete failure on the part of them and should be punished.

[FormerPokeCenter]

As long as a kid stays eligible there will be zero impact on the APR as I've been told.

It isn't unfair to expect a university, and an athletic department, to push academics to a student and give them opportunities to pass all classes.

If the university and department aren't making sure that is happening that is a complete failure on the part of them and should be punished.

i think you're misunderstanding the metric. Kids stayed eligible for YEARS, but never graduated, hence the focus by the NCAA on the Academic PROGRESS Rate. What do you suppose the term "Progress" means?

You used to be able to stay eligible for four years, without satisfying the degree requirements, ergo the complaint that football factories weren't preparing students for life after intercollegiate athletics.

[GAD]

What about that statement is false?
While some are struggling with the new academic standards, Grambling was the only school to have a boycott.
I can't speak for the MEAC but what school in the SWAC is playing in crumbling facilities? Grambling and Prairie View are the only two I know of
this is what happen when you have a lazy reporter who doesn't do research, something happens at one school and it becomes all of our problem

[FormerPokeCenter]

While some are struggling with the new academic standards, Grambling was the only school to have a boycott.
I can't speak for the MEAC but what school in the SWAC is playing in crumbling facilities? Grambling and Prairie View are the only two I know of
this is what happen when you have a lazy reporter who doesn't do research, something happens at one school and it becomes all of our problem


Basically, the reporter is saying that all HBCU's look alike...

[GAD]

Basically, the reporter is saying that all HBCU's look alike...
You see that huh!

[MplsBison]

i think you're misunderstanding the metric. Kids stayed eligible for YEARS, but never graduated, hence the focus by the NCAA on the Academic PROGRESS Rate. What do you suppose the term "Progress" means?

You used to be able to stay eligible for four years, without satisfying the degree requirements, ergo the complaint that football factories weren't preparing students for life after intercollegiate athletics.

That's a nice notion and it probably should be the focus, but it's not. You need to read the primer post that Superman (Delaware fan) posted in another thread about HBCU's and APR. It's probably only a few pages back.

But basically a student-athlete earns points for his team by maintaining a GPA each semester and then enrolling for the next semester (or graduating). So if a student athlete earned a 3.0 GPA every semester and enrolled for every following semester, he'd be earning every point possible. But if for some reason he decided not to graduate, it only costs the team a single one point. And when you average over 85 participants for football, that's nothing on the APR.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

But if for some reason he decided not to graduate, it only costs the team a single one point.

More often than people people care to think, "deciding not to graduate" has to do with finances, taking care of the family, etc. And when this happens, this counts the same as the kid who flunks out for a semester but remains enrolled and eligible to play football, basketball, or whatever. They both cost one APR point.

That's how economics and family circumstances can affect an "academic measure". And that's why the APR is flawed.

[MplsBison]

More often than people people care to think, "deciding not to graduate" has to do with finances, taking care of the family, etc. And when this happens, this counts the same as the kid who flunks out for a semester but remains enrolled and eligible to play football, basketball, or whatever. They both cost one APR point.

That's how economics and family circumstances can affect an "academic measure". And that's why the APR is flawed.

I saw you throwing out this hypothesis in the other thread where Superman and clenz were debating you. In my opinion, it's fine for a thought experiment but if you want it to go further than that you'd have to pull up your sleeves and provide some numbers showing exactly how much it actually does happen and how detrimental it is (or isn't) to the teams' APR measures in those cases you research.

Until then, they already debated you and won the argument (in my opinion) for why your hypothesis isn't ready for prime time. There are ample ways an HBCU can protect its APR from going down due to a team member having to leave the university for financial reasons. So I defer to that thread.

Here it is: http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?154607-Six-HBCUs-and-St-Francis-(PA)-with-postseason-APR-ban&highlight=HBCU

(FormerPoke, superman's primer post on the APR is #54 in the above link)

[paward]

Leaving because of financial difficulties are some times the case. If you do not get a full ride the tuition balance could pose a threat to some families.

[clenz]

Leaving because of financial difficulties are some times the case. If you do not get a full ride the tuition balance could pose a threat to some families.

I completely understand that...that isn't exclusive to HBCUs. Why is that not affecting other schools? Student loans are available for situations like that...it's how 99.9% of students get through school.

Also, again, as long as the kid is eligible it doesn't matter that he left. It's not taking points from the APR.

[MplsBison]

Minor correction clenz. As superman explained, it doesn't take points away but it does decrease the maximum points possible by one. So it technically "magnifies" any problems that the remaining players on the team might cause. But then again, as long as there aren't a lot of problems the APR should still be fine.

That's on top of the fact that HBCU's only have to get a 0.91 ratio (910 APR), which is less than every other DI team.

[FormerPokeCenter]

That's a nice notion and it probably should be the focus, but it's not. You need to read the primer post that Superman (Delaware fan) posted in another thread about HBCU's and APR. It's probably only a few pages back.

But basically a student-athlete earns points for his team by maintaining a GPA each semester and then enrolling for the next semester (or graduating). So if a student athlete earned a 3.0 GPA every semester and enrolled for every following semester, he'd be earning every point possible. But if for some reason he decided not to graduate, it only costs the team a single one point. And when you average over 85 participants for football, that's nothing on the APR.

Superman's primer is helpful, but let's look at it in the context of what the NCAA says about Division 1 athletes REMAINING eligible. You know, that whole thing about degree progress?

From the NCAA's website, re: Remaining Eligible...

"In Division I, student-athletes must complete 40 percent of the coursework required for a degree by the end of their second year. They must complete 60 percent by the end of their third year and 80 percent by the end of their fourth year. Student-athletes are allowed five years to graduate while receiving athletically related financial aid. All Division I student-athletes must earn at least six credit hours each term to be eligible for the following term and must meet minimum grade-point average requirements that are related to an institution’s own GPA standards for graduation.

Teams in Division I are also subject to the Academic Progress Rate (APR), a standard that measures a team’s academic progress by assigning points to each individual student-athlete for eligibility and retention/graduation. "

So, on one hand, you've got rules governing individual eligibility that make it clear that to remain eligible, one has to make substantial progress toward a degree...On the other, you've got rules for teams that touch on eligibility, which as the verbiage above show, is predicated on degree progress...

It's not about GPA, it's about degree progress...

- - - Updated - - -


That's a nice notion and it probably should be the focus, but it's not. You need to read the primer post that Superman (Delaware fan) posted in another thread about HBCU's and APR. It's probably only a few pages back.

But basically a student-athlete earns points for his team by maintaining a GPA each semester and then enrolling for the next semester (or graduating). So if a student athlete earned a 3.0 GPA every semester and enrolled for every following semester, he'd be earning every point possible. But if for some reason he decided not to graduate, it only costs the team a single one point. And when you average over 85 participants for football, that's nothing on the APR.

Superman's primer is helpful, but let's look at it in the context of what the NCAA says about Division 1 athletes REMAINING eligible. You know, that whole thing about degree progress?

From the NCAA's website, re: Remaining Eligible...

"In Division I, student-athletes must complete 40 percent of the coursework required for a degree by the end of their second year. They must complete 60 percent by the end of their third year and 80 percent by the end of their fourth year. Student-athletes are allowed five years to graduate while receiving athletically related financial aid. All Division I student-athletes must earn at least six credit hours each term to be eligible for the following term and must meet minimum grade-point average requirements that are related to an institution’s own GPA standards for graduation.

Teams in Division I are also subject to the Academic Progress Rate (APR), a standard that measures a team’s academic progress by assigning points to each individual student-athlete for eligibility and retention/graduation. "

So, on one hand, you've got rules governing individual eligibility that make it clear that to remain eligible, one has to make substantial progress toward a degree...On the other, you've got rules for teams that touch on eligibility, which as the verbiage above show, is predicated on degree progress...

It's not about GPA, it's about degree progress...

[clenz]

Minor correction clenz. As superman explained, it doesn't take points away but it does decrease the maximum points possible by one. So it technically "magnifies" any problems that the remaining players on the team might cause. But then again, as long as there aren't a lot of problems the APR should still be fine.

That's on top of the fact that HBCU's only have to get a 0.91 ratio (910 APR), which is less than every other DI team.

Yes, it takes away possible points.

I think it was superman that did the math in another thread but with 63 scholarships spread between 85 players a program REALLY has to screw the pooch with keeping kids eligible to get hit with APR issues...which is why only 12 got hit with APR sanctions for this coming season and half belong to the SWAC.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yes, it takes away possible points.

I think it was superman that did the math in another thread but with 63 scholarships spread between 85 players a program REALLY has to screw the pooch with keeping kids eligible to get hit with APR issues...which is why only 12 got hit with APR sanctions for this coming season and half belong to the SWAC.

Absolutely wrong. 63 scholarships spread out between 85 players GUARANTEES partial scholarships to some degree, which means there's less tying you to the institution, which means that a kid who is getting a scholarship still may need to take out loans to get through school.

Add to this mix the fact that some HBCU's are not fully funded in terms of scholarships. More partials. More looking like.. St. Francis (PA).

The more partials you hand out, the more likely you'll have half scholarships that subject you to different kids than FBS programs deal with: not full-ride kids, but half-scholarship kids that are paying to play football.

The NCAA knows this is a problem, but refuses to fix their formula to take this into account. Instead it's much easier to resort to ridiculous soft paternalism.

[clenz]

Absolutely wrong. 63 scholarships spread out between 85 players GUARANTEES partial scholarships to some degree, which means there's less tying you to the institution, which means that a kid who is getting a scholarship still may need to take out loans to get through school.

Add to this mix the fact that some HBCU's are not fully funded in terms of scholarships. More partials. More looking like.. St. Francis (PA).

The more partials you hand out, the more likely you'll have half scholarships that subject you to different kids than FBS programs deal with: not full-ride kids, but half-scholarship kids that are paying to play football.

The NCAA knows this is a problem, but refuses to fix their formula to take this into account. Instead it's much easier to resort to ridiculous soft paternalism.
You are so wrong and so full of white guilt it's not even funny.

85 players to draw points from vs 63. Which would should be more beneficial?

Yes, they'd have to take loans out - how do you think 99.9999999999999% of students get through college? The student loans would damn near solve the "I quite because I couldn't afford it" excuse....we can't lose that though.

The vast majority of FCS programs, hell a majority of FBS programs too if we are being honest, aren't "fully funded". The vast majority of programs are running between 54-59 scholarships rather than 63.

How are kids paying to play at HBCUs..I'll use SWAC as this seems to be a SWAC issue more than HBCU... any different than non-FBS kids that Big Sky, MVFC, CAA, Big South, NEC, SoCon, etc...? Every FCS program deals with "different kids than FBS programs deal with"


The issue here isn't the NCAA. It isn't the APR (even though it's not perfect). The issue lies 100% with the schools.

If a kid can't afford to go to school out of pocket it's on the school (administration, athletic department, coaches) to give him access/tools to get financial aid.
If a kid can't stay eligible it's on him and the school (administration, athletic department, coaches) to find him the resources to help him stay eligible. Not just for athletics/APR reasons but for long term success of that kid. They are doing him a huge disservice if they aren't helping him learn, grow, and succeed. That's only going to ingrain a certain mentality to him.
It's up to the school (administration, athletic department, coaches) to ensure that a student is on course to graduate (another reason your hatred of APR). If the school is making sure he is staying eligible there's no reason he shouldn't be on pace to graduate.


I went to college and didn't get a single penny of financial aid other than loans. Seriously, not a single penny. I paid for 4 years of college through loans. Same story with my wife - except she has 7 years as she has her masters. I'm going back for a new degree, I start this coming Tuesday - guess how much financial aid, other than loans, I'm getting? Go a head...guess.

I didn't have access to study sessions, private tutors, private player lounges, etc... that student athletes do. I came from a family where my family income was...well...if my parents put every single penny they earned for 1 year towards college would just cover the cost of tuition and fees at Harvard (https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost-attendance). Wouldn't even come close to one year at Harvard with room, board, and books involved.

What makes me different than a football player at a SWAC school when it comes to being able to afford college? Oh, that's right, the vast majority of them have a scholarship of some kind even if it's only to cover books.


The reason the SWAC/HBCUs get singled out is because they should be. 12 out of 250 division 1 football programs received APR penalties and half of them are HBCUs and the other 6 aren't repeat offenders like HBCUs end up being. Every university that gets hit with the penalty really needs to reevaluate how things are done there. Settings where they happen more than once really need to reevaluate the entire university set up. It's pretty clear, even if it isn't PC/kosher to say, that these universities don't actually care about their athletes/students. They care about getting the money they can from them then sending them off with the mentality that you are preaching...things aren't fair. The NCAA is keeping them down. The man doesn't want them to succeed and is stacking the deck against them, etc...

The HBCU's also get a massive leeway over non-HBCU's when it comes to required APR score.

How is this system unfair for HBCUs?


Oh, I'd also love to hear your take on the new required redshirt if you have a terrible HS GPA. Yes, under 2.3 in high school is a terrible GPA.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

85 players with a guaranteed full paid scholarship to draw points from vs 63 which are divided and in many cases require another loan to foot the bill every year. Which would should be more beneficial?

FIFY. A scholarship at FBS and scholarship at FCS are not the same, and in the metric of the APR should not be treated the same.


Yes, they'd have to take loans out - how do you think 99.9999999999999% of students get through college? The student loans would damn near solve the "I quite because I couldn't afford it" excuse....we can't lose that though.

FBS players have their entire tutition paid for, yet it's not enough, according to some of the players themselves. Not that I agree with their arguments, but if students are complaining about merely the cost of books when still getting a full ride, imagine the students that have that plus still have to raise 5 or 10 grand for a partial scholarship. FBS and FCS scholarships are not necessarily the same.


The vast majority of FCS programs, hell a majority of FBS programs too if we are being honest, aren't "fully funded". The vast majority of programs are running between 54-59 scholarships rather than 63.

When an FBS program offers a scholarship, they are on the hook for the entire cost of tuition. When an FCS program offers a scholarship, they have the option of divvying it up by 1/2 scholarships and then figuring out a way to fund the rest some other way (through academic scholarships, Pell grants, etc.)... or it is up to the family to come up with the way to come up with the rest of the money.


How are kids paying to play at HBCUs..I'll use SWAC as this seems to be a SWAC issue more than HBCU... any different than non-FBS kids that Big Sky, MVFC, CAA, Big South, NEC, SoCon, etc...? Every FCS program deals with "different kids than FBS programs deal with"...How is this system unfair for HBCUs?

The primary mission of SWAC schools and the mission of UNI is different. UNI's mission is to provide affordable education to Iowans (primarily), many of whom are middle class. SWAC schools have as their mission to educate many first-time-in-the-family college students, many from lower-class backgrounds that almost require loans. SWAC schools are not as selective as Lehigh, or UNI because of their mission. In fact, the APR punishes schools with a mission to educate those first-time, lower-income students (a fact that also dinged Sacramento State five years ago).


Oh, I'd also love to hear your take on the new required redshirt if you have a terrible HS GPA. Yes, under 2.3 in high school is a terrible GPA.

I'm all for requiring redshirting in that case. I'm also in favor of the NCAA requiring the BCS to use 1/100th of their TV contract to fund the academic services and classes to allow all these students across Division I to succeed. Unfortunately, the NCAA is much more interested in PR than actually trying to give schools the tools to succeed in these mandates.

[MplsBison]

Absolutely wrong. 63 scholarships spread out between 85 players GUARANTEES partial scholarships to some degree, which means there's less tying you to the institution, which means that a kid who is getting a scholarship still may need to take out loans to get through school.

Add to this mix the fact that some HBCU's are not fully funded in terms of scholarships. More partials. More looking like.. St. Francis (PA).

The more partials you hand out, the more likely you'll have half scholarships that subject you to different kids than FBS programs deal with: not full-ride kids, but half-scholarship kids that are paying to play football.

The NCAA knows this is a problem, but refuses to fix their formula to take this into account. Instead it's much easier to resort to ridiculous soft paternalism.

LFN, you keep pushing your hypothesis without doing any work.

Here would be an easy place to start, relatively speaking: find the total number of players that left SEC programs and SWAC programs between the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

I'd be willing to bet you that more kids left SEC programs, for a myriad of reasons!

That completely blows your hypothesis to bits, if correct.