Texas FCS: APRs at the Rear

[TexasTerror]

Figured the FCS schools in Texas would fare a bit better than this when it comes to football. Sam Houston State was ahead of the rest and right in the middle of the FBS pack, while the other schools fill out the bottom tier with North Texas.

Thanks to Kats86 for posting this on KatFans.com...
(Credit: http://www.katfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8422)

1) Rice APR 975
2) TCU APR 959
3) SMU APR 945
4) Texas APR 942 (best in Big 12 tied with OU)
5) Sam Houston State APR 940
6) Baylor APR 938
7) Houston APR 938
8. Texas A&M APR 932
9) UTEP APR 930
10) Texas Tech APR 928
11) Texas State-San Marcos APR 918 (Below NCAA Required Minimum of 925)
12) North Texas APR 917 (Below NCAA Required Minimum of 925)
13) SFA APR 903 (Below NCAA Required Minimum of 925)
14) Prairie View APR 895 (Below NCAA Required Minimum of 925)
15) Texas So. APR 849 (Below NCAA Required Minimum of 925)

Source: Dave Campbells 2008 Texas Football (Page 15)

[McNeese75]

Boy, I bet you could not wait to post that one xlolx

[TexasTerror]

Boy, I bet you could not wait to post that one xlolx

Why's that? I knew where SHSU ranked considering we are the four-time academic "champion" of the Southland Conference.

It's just shocking that the rest of the FCS schools are just so much in the rear-view mirror. I figured that especially TxSt-San Marcos would be ahead of UTEP and Texas Tech.

Texas Southern could be in a world of hurt because they got a new head coach and that seems to not play any favors and they already had a mountain of problems with their FB APR...

[McNeese75]

Why's that? I knew where SHSU ranked considering we are the four-time academic "champion" of the Southland Conference.

It's just shocking that the rest of the FCS schools are just so much in the rear-view mirror. I figured that especially TxSt-San Marcos would be ahead of UTEP and Texas Tech.

Texas Southern could be in a world of hurt because they got a new head coach and that seems to not play any favors and they already had a mountain of problems with their FB APR...

Now Now, you know good and well I was not referring to SHSU :D

[TexasTerror]

Now Now, you know good and well I was not referring to SHSU :D

I'm confused... xconfusedx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

These APR numbers don't tell the whole story.

First of all, an APR number of below 925 is acceptable as long as nobody transfers or drops out while academically ineligible. So even though an APR is below 925 but still above 900 a school may not be subject to APR penalties.

Second, APR primarily shows RETENTION rates, not academic rates in general. If you have an entire football team squeaking by with a 2.7 GPA and everyone stays in school, your APR would be 1000, while another school with a 3.3 average with two players transferring to another school (even with a 3.3 average) would have an APR below that. A good APR does NOT mean that their academics are better.

Finally, HBCU's are at a serious disadvantage in this game since they're chronically underfunded as it is.

I'm going to make an article that tackles this thorny issue... probably in the very near future. I feel there are a lot of misconceptions about it.

[Panther88]

PV really needs to do a lot better. :-| This is totally unacceptable but coaches can't walk hand in hand w/ student-athletes to ensure they're doing what's required of them academically. I know the 2 hits in football we took (academically inelgible xreadx ). And god forbid but both waited until their senior year to screw up and THEN transfer to NAIA schools.xnonox Triple ditto for men's basketball. Piss poor pitiful.

[UCABEARS75]

I'm confused... xconfusedx

LMAO!!!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

PV really needs to do a lot better. :-| This is totally unacceptable but coaches can't walk hand in hand w/ student-athletes to ensure they're doing what's required of them academically. I know the 2 hits in football we took (academically inelgible xreadx ). And god forbid but both waited until their senior year to screw up and THEN transfer to NAIA schools.xnonox Triple ditto for men's basketball. Piss poor pitiful.

Funny, that's the "rich school solution" to the APR standards - throw money at tutoring and "compliance", babysit the athletes and make sure they're over a 2.6 GPA.

Of course, PV A&M cannot afford that level of babysitting/tutoring. Is it any wonder why their APR levels are below, say, Texas and Texas A&M's?

[3rd Coast Tiger]

These APR numbers don't tell the whole story.

First of all, an APR number of below 925 is acceptable as long as nobody transfers or drops out while academically ineligible. So even though an APR is below 925 but still above 900 a school may not be subject to APR penalties.

Second, APR primarily shows RETENTION rates, not academic rates in general. If you have an entire football team squeaking by with a 2.7 GPA and everyone stays in school, your APR would be 1000, while another school with a 3.3 average with two players transferring to another school (even with a 3.3 average) would have an APR below that. A good APR does NOT mean that their academics are better.

Finally, HBCU's are at a serious disadvantage in this game since they're chronically underfunded as it is.

I'm going to make an article that tackles this thorny issue... probably in the very near future. I feel there are a lot of misconceptions about it.


So glad you have a good understanding of the APR calculations. xthumbsupx

Sometimes these calculations/studies don't paint a true picture and throws many institutions under the bus.

[TexasTerror]

I'm not a big fan of APR either, but like the rules of the BCS, the teams are stuck to the system -- no matter how crummy it is.

There's some aspects to it that negatively impact a program and do throw them under the bus (see some schools in light of Katrina and Rita, who wrongfully took some blows).

[Tribe4SF]

These APR numbers don't tell the whole story.

First of all, an APR number of below 925 is acceptable as long as nobody transfers or drops out while academically ineligible. So even though an APR is below 925 but still above 900 a school may not be subject to APR penalties.

Second, APR primarily shows RETENTION rates, not academic rates in general. If you have an entire football team squeaking by with a 2.7 GPA and everyone stays in school, your APR would be 1000, while another school with a 3.3 average with two players transferring to another school (even with a 3.3 average) would have an APR below that. A good APR does NOT mean that their academics are better.

Finally, HBCU's are at a serious disadvantage in this game since they're chronically underfunded as it is.

I'm going to make an article that tackles this thorny issue... probably in the very near future. I feel there are a lot of misconceptions about it.

To say that the APR primarily shows retention rates is a bit misleading. It shows both academic progress, and retention in school. If an athlete is doing well, and transfers, he still earns one point for his current school. The Committee on Academic Progress will consider modifying the transfer impact at its meeting tomorrow and Thursday.

The intent of the APR is to monitor whether student-athletes are making progress towards what should be the primary goal...earning a degree. Setting minimum criteria for member institutions in this regard is a worthy enterprise for the NCAA. Schools that don't like the idea of such monitoring (for whatever reason), or that do not choose to hold their student-athletes accountable for academic progress, can always choose to leave the NCAA.

While there are many factors which differentiate institutions in terms of their academic atmosphere, athletes are full time students recruited to be part of a student body, and consistent expectations for their academic performance as a group are both appropriate, and fair.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The intent of the APR is to monitor whether student-athletes are making progress towards what should be the primary goal...earning a degree. Setting minimum criteria for member institutions in this regard is a worthy enterprise for the NCAA. Schools that don't like the idea of such monitoring (for whatever reason), or that do not choose to hold their student-athletes accountable for academic progress, can always choose to leave the NCAA.

While there are many factors which differentiate institutions in terms of their academic atmosphere, athletes are full time students recruited to be part of a student body, and consistent expectations for their academic performance as a group are both appropriate, and fair.

There's no question that the intent of the APR is worthy - to have students go to school to get degrees and do well in school. However, I have questions on whether in practice this is really serving students and institutions well.

Retention, unfortunately, is a big part of this. It's a no-brainer that everyone wants kids to go to school and get good grades. However, how does retention play into this? There are many, many students, athletes and non-athletes, that transfer out of school for different reasons. While nobody can argue they want kids to do well academically, there can be plenty of argument that retention for retention's sake is not good for anybody. And the APR uses both as its measurement equally.

Worse, the R(etention) part of the APR is not mentioned very frequently when folks talk about it and instead talk about the A(cademics), which everyone wants. That makes the APR shorthand for "academic worth of the school", which is of course ludicrous.

I think the folks who are complaining about this do not have a quarrel with the idea of academic standards. They complain since the way of measuring it is inflexible and incorrect. Rich schools can easily skirt the regulations by throwing money at compliance (importantly, to help RETENTION, not ACADEMICS). Other schools (including the great majority of FCS schools) don't have that luxury.

[Tribe4SF]

There's no question that the intent of the APR is worthy - to have students go to school to get degrees and do well in school. However, I have questions on whether in practice this is really serving students and institutions well.

Retention, unfortunately, is a big part of this. It's a no-brainer that everyone wants kids to go to school and get good grades. However, how does retention play into this? There are many, many students, athletes and non-athletes, that transfer out of school for different reasons. While nobody can argue they want kids to do well academically, there can be plenty of argument that retention for retention's sake is not good for anybody. And the APR uses both as its measurement equally.

Worse, the R(etention) part of the APR is not mentioned very frequently when folks talk about it and instead talk about the A(cademics), which everyone wants. That makes the APR shorthand for "academic worth of the school", which is of course ludicrous.

I think the folks who are complaining about this do not have a quarrel with the idea of academic standards. They complain since the way of measuring it is inflexible and incorrect. Rich schools can easily skirt the regulations by throwing money at compliance (importantly, to help RETENTION, not ACADEMICS). Other schools (including the great majority of FCS schools) don't have that luxury.

How, exactly, does one help retention without helping academics? The vast majority of student-athletes who are not "retained" leave because their academic performance is unacceptable. The transfer issue is being dealt with...hopefully in an appropriate, and acceptable manner.

How do you "skirt the regulations by throwing money at compliance"?

What would be a "flexible" (my guess is this ends up meaning "ineffective") way of measuring this? Because every school has a different academic environment, and sets its own standards for grading and graduation, are the current standards for the APR not already "flexible" to each schools situation?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How, exactly, does one help retention without helping academics? The vast majority of student-athletes who are not "retained" leave because their academic performance is unacceptable. The transfer issue is being dealt with...hopefully in an appropriate, and acceptable manner.

How do you "skirt the regulations by throwing money at compliance"?

What would be a "flexible" (my guess is this ends up meaning "ineffective") way of measuring this? Because every school has a different academic environment, and sets its own standards for grading and graduation, are the current standards for the APR not already "flexible" to each schools situation?

What you say above is not entirely true. "The vast majority of full scholarship student-athletes who are not "retained" leave because their academic performance is unacceptable." - that's more accurate.

In the "real world" of a lot of FCS schools that aren't full scholarship (Ivy League, Patriot League, PFL), or aren't fully funded (like HBCU's) many kids leave school for money reasons - i.e., some change in financial status that means their parents can't afford to pay for school. Even at schools that offer 63 scholarships where schollies are split - which is pretty much every FCS school - retention is affected by this.

You skirt the regulations by making temples to keeping grades up for athletes only. You then do everything you can to discourage kids from transferring to other schools - especially if they're struggling academically, since then they will count double. If you're pursuing a policy of "APR maximization", that's what you do. And - surprise - that's what the richer FBS schools are doing.

All FBS schools are full-scholarship sports - meaning, if you're an athlete, you're getting a scholarship. In FCS, football is an equivalence sport - meaning, you're splitting schollies (if you're using them at all). It's ridiculous that they are treated the same by the NCAA.

Was there any thought about this by the NCAA? Clearly not - or three years later, they wouldn't be holding a special meeting to "deal with the transfer issue". If the current APR is their track record, I'm not holding out much hope they deal with that in a "appropriate and acceptable matter".

To me, the best way to deal with this would be to make equivalence sports exempt from the APR. The reason is that it's not designed to deal with equivalences or "realities" that maybe kids can't afford school.

But this would never be acceptable to the NCAA, because they then wouldn't be able to hold Southern and Weber State as schools that are somehow "academically suspect" and holding them up to the world as such. Meanwhile, Ohio State continues to compete for FBS crystal balls, Indiana somehow escapes the NCAA death penalty, Maryland contunes to "graduate" 0% of its basketball team and USC continues to rent basketball and football players - but oh yeah, they're great academically since they've been able to game the APR system.

[3rd Coast Tiger]

What you say above is not entirely true. "The vast majority of full scholarship student-athletes who are not "retained" leave because their academic performance is unacceptable." - that's more accurate.

In the "real world" of a lot of FCS schools that aren't full scholarship (Ivy League, Patriot League, PFL), or aren't fully funded (like HBCU's) many kids leave school for money reasons - i.e., some change in financial status that means their parents can't afford to pay for school. Even at schools that offer 63 scholarships where schollies are split - which is pretty much every FCS school - retention is affected by this.

You skirt the regulations by making temples to keeping grades up for athletes only. You then do everything you can to discourage kids from transferring to other schools - especially if they're struggling academically, since then they will count double. If you're pursuing a policy of "APR maximization", that's what you do. And - surprise - that's what the richer FBS schools are doing.

All FBS schools are full-scholarship sports - meaning, if you're an athlete, you're getting a scholarship. In FCS, football is an equivalence sport - meaning, you're splitting schollies (if you're using them at all). It's ridiculous that they are treated the same by the NCAA.

Was there any thought about this by the NCAA? Clearly not - or three years later, they wouldn't be holding a special meeting to "deal with the transfer issue". If the current APR is their track record, I'm not holding out much hope they deal with that in a "appropriate and acceptable matter".

To me, the best way to deal with this would be to make equivalence sports exempt from the APR. The reason is that it's not designed to deal with equivalences or "realities" that maybe kids can't afford school.

But this would never be acceptable to the NCAA, because they then wouldn't be able to hold Southern and Weber State as schools that are somehow "academically suspect" and holding them up to the world as such. Meanwhile, Ohio State continues to compete for FBS crystal balls, Indiana somehow escapes the NCAA death penalty, Maryland contunes to "graduate" 0% of its basketball team and USC continues to rent basketball and football players - but oh yeah, they're great academically since they've been able to game the APR system.


xbowx BRAVO!!! xbowx

[Tribe4SF]

What you say above is not entirely true. "The vast majority of full scholarship student-athletes who are not "retained" leave because their academic performance is unacceptable." - that's more accurate.

In the "real world" of a lot of FCS schools that aren't full scholarship (Ivy League, Patriot League, PFL), or aren't fully funded (like HBCU's) many kids leave school for money reasons - i.e., some change in financial status that means their parents can't afford to pay for school. Even at schools that offer 63 scholarships where schollies are split - which is pretty much every FCS school - retention is affected by this.

You skirt the regulations by making temples to keeping grades up for athletes only. You then do everything you can to discourage kids from transferring to other schools - especially if they're struggling academically, since then they will count double. If you're pursuing a policy of "APR maximization", that's what you do. And - surprise - that's what the richer FBS schools are doing.

All FBS schools are full-scholarship sports - meaning, if you're an athlete, you're getting a scholarship. In FCS, football is an equivalence sport - meaning, you're splitting schollies (if you're using them at all). It's ridiculous that they are treated the same by the NCAA.

Was there any thought about this by the NCAA? Clearly not - or three years later, they wouldn't be holding a special meeting to "deal with the transfer issue". If the current APR is their track record, I'm not holding out much hope they deal with that in a "appropriate and acceptable matter".

To me, the best way to deal with this would be to make equivalence sports exempt from the APR. The reason is that it's not designed to deal with equivalences or "realities" that maybe kids can't afford school.

But this would never be acceptable to the NCAA, because they then wouldn't be able to hold Southern and Weber State as schools that are somehow "academically suspect" and holding them up to the world as such. Meanwhile, Ohio State continues to compete for FBS crystal balls, Indiana somehow escapes the NCAA death penalty, Maryland contunes to "graduate" 0% of its basketball team and USC continues to rent basketball and football players - but oh yeah, they're great academically since they've been able to game the APR system.

The bolded quote is nonsense. The sport in question for FBS is football, and they all have many non-scholarship players. Va Tech's Fall roster has 116 guys. 85 scholarship, and 31 non. For other sports, the FBS football schools are much like most of us in FCS, including the PL schools, in that they split scholarships, and have many non-scholarship participants in the non-revenue sports.

The APR needs some revision, but demonizing it is off base. You assume because the big schools are complying that they are somehow getting over, but where is the real evidence? It's easy to claim that Southern and Weber are somehow victims, and if they are, then where are the numbers of kids "forced" to leave school for other than academic reasons. If the system is dealing them an unjust blow one would expect them to be stating their case publicly. Or maybe they haven't been recruiting kids who can be successful, or haven't been creating an environment that expects them to be successful. Irresponsibility is not the sole province of FBS schools. How many kids left the Lehigh football team last year for money reasons?

[Lionsrking]

What you say above is not entirely true. "The vast majority of full scholarship student-athletes who are not "retained" leave because their academic performance is unacceptable." - that's more accurate.

In the "real world" of a lot of FCS schools that aren't full scholarship (Ivy League, Patriot League, PFL), or aren't fully funded (like HBCU's) many kids leave school for money reasons - i.e., some change in financial status that means their parents can't afford to pay for school. Even at schools that offer 63 scholarships where schollies are split - which is pretty much every FCS school - retention is affected by this.

You skirt the regulations by making temples to keeping grades up for athletes only. You then do everything you can to discourage kids from transferring to other schools - especially if they're struggling academically, since then they will count double. If you're pursuing a policy of "APR maximization", that's what you do. And - surprise - that's what the richer FBS schools are doing.

All FBS schools are full-scholarship sports - meaning, if you're an athlete, you're getting a scholarship. In FCS, football is an equivalence sport - meaning, you're splitting schollies (if you're using them at all). It's ridiculous that they are treated the same by the NCAA.

Was there any thought about this by the NCAA? Clearly not - or three years later, they wouldn't be holding a special meeting to "deal with the transfer issue". If the current APR is their track record, I'm not holding out much hope they deal with that in a "appropriate and acceptable matter".

To me, the best way to deal with this would be to make equivalence sports exempt from the APR. The reason is that it's not designed to deal with equivalences or "realities" that maybe kids can't afford school.

But this would never be acceptable to the NCAA, because they then wouldn't be able to hold Southern and Weber State as schools that are somehow "academically suspect" and holding them up to the world as such. Meanwhile, Ohio State continues to compete for FBS crystal balls, Indiana somehow escapes the NCAA death penalty, Maryland contunes to "graduate" 0% of its basketball team and USC continues to rent basketball and football players - but oh yeah, they're great academically since they've been able to game the APR system.

You knocked it out of the park!!xthumbsupxxthumbsupx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The bolded quote is nonsense. The sport in question for FBS is football, and they all have many non-scholarship players. Va Tech's Fall roster has 116 guys. 85 scholarship, and 31 non. For other sports, the FBS football schools are much like most of us in FCS, including the PL schools, in that they split scholarships, and have many non-scholarship participants in the non-revenue sports.

That was a typo what I said: I meant that the football players (and, though I didn't mention it, men's basketball players) are all full scholarship. And yes, for non-revenue sports the big schools generally don't offer scholarships and are equivalency sports. Ever look at the list of sports hit with sanctions? The great majority are non-revenue sports... and if you count FCS programs... the proportion gets even higher. See a pattern?


The APR needs some revision, but demonizing it is off base. You assume because the big schools are complying that they are somehow getting over, but where is the real evidence? It's easy to claim that Southern and Weber are somehow victims, and if they are, then where are the numbers of kids "forced" to leave school for other than academic reasons. If the system is dealing them an unjust blow one would expect them to be stating their case publicly. Or maybe they haven't been recruiting kids who can be successful, or haven't been creating an environment that expects them to be successful. Irresponsibility is not the sole province of FBS schools. How many kids left the Lehigh football team last year for money reasons?

The evidence is there, and it's not hard to find. I'll go into that in more detail in my column on the matter.

[Tribe4SF]

The evidence is there, and it's not hard to find. I'll go into that in more detail in my column on the matter.

I'll look forward to that. In the meantime, since you mentioned the PL as an example of student-athletes being forced to leave school for financial reasons, how frequently has that been the case? To my knowledge the PL schools have all been fine on the APR. It would seem that they might be the most vulnerable because of the cost of the member schools if, in fact, this is a widespread problem.