Does FBS & FCS have the same APR Regulations?

[GaSouthern]

Are we held to the same standards as the FB$, last I heard the rules of APR are most harsh against the FCS. Is this true? xconfusedx

[GOKATS]

The standards are the same, it's just that the larger schools have the financial resources to better assist student/athletes academically and FBS players are less likely to leave for a different school (which is just as costly to the APR as being academically ineligible).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Are we held to the same standards as the FB$, last I heard the rules of APR are most harsh against the FCS. Is this true? xconfusedx

One of my to-do's is to give this issue a full airing. What I will say is that FCS schools are overwhelmingly represented in the school getting "historic penalties" for APR penalties.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

One of my to-do's is to give this issue a full airing. What I will say is that FCS schools are overwhelmingly represented in the school getting "historic penalties" for APR penalties.

You've already written a piece about this, haven't you? I can't find it. Do you archive your stuff on your site?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You've already written a piece about this, haven't you? I can't find it. Do you archive your stuff on your site?

I have not yet.

[Husky Alum]

FBS players are less likely to leave for a different school (which is just as costly to the APR as being academically ineligible).

I disagree with this statement to some degree. FBS players are MORE likely to leave to go to the pros early , or leave for the pros as a senior without graduating - which hurts the APR. We also see a bunch of FBS transfers down at our level, so I'm not so sure I support this comment.

[GOKATS]

I disagree with this statement to some degree. FBS players are MORE likely to leave to go to the pros early , or leave for the pros as a senior without graduating - which hurts the APR. We also see a bunch of FBS transfers down at our level, so I'm not so sure I support this comment.

It could very easily be the case and I guess I didn't think of players leaving early to go pro (we're a bit sheltered in our part of the country:D ). Personally I don't think a school should be penalized if a player goes pro or switches schools for better playing time, etc.- if they're academically eligible and stay in college why should a school be penalized? Those with the talent, speed, size, ability or whatever to play pro ball only have "x" number of years to play in most cases, an athlete can always finish their degree once their playing days are over.

[Husky Alum]

It could very easily be the case and I guess I didn't think of players leaving early to go pro (we're a bit sheltered in our part of the country:D ). Personally I don't think a school should be penalized if a player goes pro or switches schools for better playing time, etc.- if they're academically eligible and stay in college why should a school be penalized? Those with the talent, speed, size, ability or whatever to play pro ball only have "x" number of years to play in most cases, an athlete can always finish their degree once their playing days are over.

The way the APR works, a school is docked if a kid doesn't graduate or transfers if they're academically eligible - the "penalty" isn't as much as if the kid is not academically eligible and transfers and/or leaves school. I've run some math, and if you have kids who are eligible and transfer and don't have a bunch of academically questionable kids, its unlikely you'll lose a scholarship due to the APR.

Let's be realistic, how many of these athletes actually come back and get their degrees? I'm sure some do, but not as many as one would like or think.

[soweagle]

Wasn't there something to do with squad size that allowed the FBS schools to avoid penalty the first year the APR came out and has since been dropped?

[ButlerGSU]

It could very easily be the case and I guess I didn't think of players leaving early to go pro (we're a bit sheltered in our part of the country:D ). Personally I don't think a school should be penalized if a player goes pro or switches schools for better playing time, etc.- if they're academically eligible and stay in college why should a school be penalized? Those with the talent, speed, size, ability or whatever to play pro ball only have "x" number of years to play in most cases, an athlete can always finish their degree once their playing days are over.

The new rules which Georgia Southern President, Dr. Grube, argued for on the NCAA board this year state that if a player leaves in good standing (GPA of 2.6 or above) then the school's APR will not be punished. This is what really hurt Georgia Southern because we removed several kids due to off the field problems, in the future schools will not be punished for that.

[Lionsrking]

The way the APR works, a school is docked if a kid doesn't graduate or transfers if they're academically eligible - the "penalty" isn't as much as if the kid is not academically eligible and transfers and/or leaves school. I've run some math, and if you have kids who are eligible and transfer and don't have a bunch of academically questionable kids, its unlikely you'll lose a scholarship due to the APR.

Let's be realistic, how many of these athletes actually come back and get their degrees? I'm sure some do, but not as many as one would like or think.

I think you meant to type "ineligible" in your opening sentence. Basically athletes who leave school, ineligible, without exhausting their five year clock, are considered 0-for-2s and institutions are subject to immediate penalties if their APR is below 925 (60-percent graduation rate).

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=341

[Husky Alum]

You lose a point if you have an eligible kid leave school. Each student earns a max of 4 points each year, I believe. An eligible kid who leaves school costs you a point.

Here's a summary from the NCAA

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/eb783f0bf33dcd3/APR%20FINAL%205-2-08.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

[ButlerGSU]

You lose a point if you have an eligible kid leave school. Each student earns a max of 4 points each year, I believe. An eligible kid who leaves school costs you a point.

Here's a summary from the NCAA

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/eb783f0bf33dcd3/APR%20FINAL%205-2-08.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Read my post on the previous page, the rules are changing...

[GOKATS]

Read my post on the previous page, the rules are changing...

I read your previous post earlier, when does that change go into effect? I can find no change on the NCAA website.

[ButlerGSU]

That I am not positive about, you can listen to Georgia Southern's AD (Sam Baker) video journal at www.georgiasoutherneagles.com he discusses it in this months journal but does not give a date for its implementation.

[bison137]

The new rules which Georgia Southern President, Dr. Grube, argued for on the NCAA board this year state that if a player leaves in good standing (GPA of 2.6 or above) then the school's APR will not be punished. This is what really hurt Georgia Southern because we removed several kids due to off the field problems, in the future schools will not be punished for that.



Under the current APR formula, it is virtually impossible for a school's APR to fall low enough for any sanctions if their only problem is a lot of players leaving/transferring while still academically eligible. You could have 1/3 of your team leave every year (if still academically eligible) and still not have the APR fall low enough for any punishment.

I can't find anything on the NCAA website about any proposed change in the formula.

[GOKATS]

Under the current APR formula, it is virtually impossible for a school's APR to fall low enough for any sanctions if their only problem is a lot of players leaving/transferring while still academically eligible. You could have 1/3 of your team leave every year (if still academically eligible) and still not have the APR fall low enough for any punishment.

I can't find anything on the NCAA website about any proposed change in the formula.

That doesn't pencil out, the APR is calculated every semester but we'll go an academic year.

Assume 90 FB players:

90 x 4 possible points = 360

30 (your 1/3) get 3 out of 4 because they leave= 90 points

the remaining 60 get all four points= 240 points

90+240 = 330 divided by the possible 360= .9167% or an APR of 917. An APR of 925 is required.

[I-AA Fan]

My APR is quite good. I have a Chase card at 3.99. So, what does this have to do with football?

[bison137]

That doesn't pencil out, the APR is calculated every semester but we'll go an academic year.

Assume 90 FB players:

90 x 4 possible points = 360

30 (your 1/3) get 3 out of 4 because they leave= 90 points

the remaining 60 get all four points= 240 points

90+240 = 330 divided by the possible 360= .9167% or an APR of 917. An APR of 925 is required.



Your math is correct, but I believe your conclusion is wrong. Schools with an APR between 900 and 925 are only penalized if a student leaves while academically ineligible (called the "immediate penalty" by the NCAA). In my example, no student leaves while academically ineligible - hence a score under 900 would be needed to lose scholarships.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Your math is correct, but I believe your conclusion is wrong. Schools with an APR between 900 and 925 are only penalized if a student leaves while academically ineligible (called the "immediate penalty" by the NCAA). In my example, no student leaves while academically ineligible - hence a score under 900 would be needed to lose scholarships.

Of course, only *one* needs to have an academic average under 2.7 to trigger the sanctions... and the 2.7 number is inconsistent with other regulations for eligibility.

[bison137]

Of course, only *one* needs to have an academic average under 2.7 to trigger the sanctions... and the 2.7 number is inconsistent with other regulations for eligibility.


I don't think that is correct. To trigger the sanctions, one must leave who is academically ineligible. That would imply a GPA somewhere under 2.0.

The 2.6 that was mentioned by the AD seemed to be some sort of compromise to not have a team lose a point if a player leaves with a GPA above 2.6. Right now, that player would only get 3 out of 4 points for the year, but would not trigger any sort of penalty.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't think that is correct. To trigger the sanctions, one must leave who is academically ineligible. That would imply a GPA somewhere under 2.0.

The 2.6 that was mentioned by the AD seemed to be some sort of compromise to not have a team lose a point if a player leaves with a GPA above 2.6. Right now, that player would only get 3 out of 4 points for the year, but would not trigger any sort of penalty.

The number I have been quoted is 2.7 - and yes, "academically ineligible" means below a 2.0. That's the discrepancy I'm talking about. You can have a kid who is academically eligible to keep playing - but for the purposes of the APR calculation he's not in "good standing". These kids count against their schools too.

[bison137]

The number I have been quoted is 2.7 - and yes, "academically ineligible" means below a 2.0. That's the discrepancy I'm talking about. You can have a kid who is academically eligible to keep playing - but for the purposes of the APR calculation he's not in "good standing". These kids count against their schools too.



Source??


The NCAA's explanation says that the only players who count against their schools are those who are "academically ineligible". I can find no mention of a 2.6 or a 2.7 GPA on their site or in their APR explanation.