The CSN Way: FCS and the APR

[CSN-info]

05-06-2009 04:37 PM

The CSN Way: FCS and the APR

By Chuck Burton, The CSN Way Columnist


http://www.ferris.edu/sports/d2sites/NCAAenhancedlogo.jpghttp://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/skins/andreas_01/img/CSNWay.JPGMyles Brand’s campaign to set academic standards “with teeth” has definitely changed the collegiate athletics landscape, but not in the way that any of its architects may have imagined. Last year, its effect was seen very strongly in the cost-containment world of FCS football - and this year, we see the first FCS victim of the “teeth” given to the APR: UT-Chattanooga.

The Academic Progress Rate (or APR for short) attempts to get a real-time view of the academic progress of colleges at the end of a year. If an athlete is retained – meaning ‘stays in school’ – a school gets two points. If an athlete is eligible – meaning ‘holds above a 2.6 average’ – a school gets two more points. Add all these athletes’ numbers up for a year, divide that by the maximum number of points and multiply that times 1,000, and you have your yearly APR number. Do this for a 4-year period and you have your official NCAA APR number.

Read more ... (http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php/2009/05/06/the-csn-way-fcs-and-the-apr?blog=5#more4922)

[GOKATS]

That's a damn good article and shows some of the inequities in how the APR is applied between FCS and FBS schools. The NCAA needs to find some way to even the playing field between the two.

[WMTribe90]

Good read. I always felt the best way to implement the APR equitably is to tie it to each institutions at-large graduation rates. In other words, the football team should have to graduate at the same rate as the student body, but not at a significantly higher rate. This way schools with differing missions and varying resources can still be held accountable while realizing the unique challenges facing thier student body/institution. A school like Sac St. wouldn't be penalized for taking "at risk" athletes, even though that is part of the school's mission.

Theinequality in enforcement between FCS and FBS is ridiculous too.

[OL FU]

Good read. I always felt the best way to implement the APR equitably is to tie it to each institutions at-large graduation rates. In other words, the football team should have to graduate at the same rate as the student body, but not at a significantly higher rate. This way schools with differing missions and varying resources can still be held accountable while realizing the unique challenges facing thier student body/institution. A school like Sac St. wouldn't be penalized for taking "at risk" athletes, even though that is part of the school's mission.

Theinequality in enforcement between FCS and FBS is ridiculous too.

Good point, it does seem odd that the athletic department's graduation rates need to be higher than the school's. If it is the same today as when I attended I would imagine the general population graduation rate at FU is less than 50% and may be close to 30%. Not sure the athletic department's should be that low but there should be some comparison.

[WMTribe90]

Agreed OL Fu, there should be a minimum standard of at least 40%. My thinking is if the school graduates students at a rate of 50% after four years, why should the AD be required to graduate at 60% or better. On the opposite end of the spectrum, why should a school slide by graduating 60% of its athletes (without penalty) when the school graduates at a rate of 90%.