First APR to Have Scholarship Impact - Due Weds [Archive]

View Full Version : First APR to Have Scholarship Impact - Due Weds

TexasTerror

February 24th, 2006, 03:49 PM

Scholarships across the board from I-AA football to baseball all the way to softball are being released on Wednesday.

Which I-AA schools will be effected? Has word gotten out that your school is expecting to lose scholarships in football because of this new system that the NCAA is instituting?

If you don't recall, "The NCAA adopted the academic progress rate system in 2004, with the goal of upgrading academic performance by student-athletes. The APR is viewed as a more accurate gauge than the graduation rates formerly used as a measure. It's also the first system the NCAA has used that includes penalties for poor academic performance."

DetroitFlyer

February 26th, 2006, 04:59 PM

I predict that ZERO PFL schools will lose a single football scholarship due to this process!!

aggie6thman

February 27th, 2006, 01:19 PM

I remember reading something on the Cal Poly board that said they might lose scholarships in basketball. This is due to some players transferring and leaving the team. I guess that counts against the school, even though I don't think it should.

soweagle

February 27th, 2006, 03:36 PM

Apparently dropouts, flunkouts, and transfers are treated the same with the APR.

colgate13

February 27th, 2006, 03:55 PM

Apparently dropouts, flunkouts, and transfers are treated the same with the APR.

Considering the business of colleges is to graduate their students, that kinda seems right to me.

Stang Fever

February 27th, 2006, 04:07 PM

Yeah Poly Basket ball is loosing 2...becuase of tranfers and one failout...

what sucks about the transfers is that the ones who left....left because of home sickness.....i know one went home to play closer to his mom who is ill....i feel transfers should be on a case by case....

also i believe that are number was 1.3 or something like that...and it got rounded it to 2 schollies being taken away

DTSpider

February 27th, 2006, 07:42 PM

Transfers only count against you if they do not graduate in 5 years. So, if the kid went to another school and graduated you're fine. If he didn't graduate then it counts against both schools. I'm too lazy to look it up, but transfers will not cost you scholarships if the kid does well at the next school.

blukeys

February 27th, 2006, 07:46 PM

I'm not worried about our football team. If it can make out Men's BB Coach look bad so he gets fired then it will be a small price to pay!!!

blueballs

February 27th, 2006, 09:59 PM

Considering the business of colleges is to graduate their students, that kinda seems right to me.

So if a kid does everything he can do in 3 years in college football and leaves under advisement of the NFL draft review board, which is endorsed by the NCAA, and is drafted high and is able to set up his family for life and perhaps donate back to his alma mater, under this statute he should be treated the same as a guy who got kicked off the team for disciplinary reasons?

I thought the object of college, and any institution of learning, is to educate and prepare students to be productive well rounded members of society- with or without a degree.

Not calling you out 13, because I know where your head's at, but this demonstrates the hypocracy of the NCAA yet again.

DTSpider

February 28th, 2006, 09:48 AM

The system is set up so that you credit for every year. So, if a guy finishes 3 years and is in good standing, you get more points than a guy who flunks out after his sophomore year.

However, if a guy spends 3 years barely staying eligible so that he can go to the NFL, why should a school be rewarded? The rules allow for some transgressions. It is designed to punish schools like Cincinnati, who have graduated zero men's basketball players in the last 10 years. Having 5 kids leave early for the NFL will not hurt you. Having 15 kids flunk out every year will hurt you.

I cannot find the link, but last year the local Richmond paper did a huge two page article on this. Either paper or a local radio station did a follow up on how it would impact UVA and Tech. Both schools are far from role models when it comes to football programs, but the analysis showed that mostly likely neither would be hurt. If you're losing scholarships, it is not because of two guys, but probably something more than that. To be honest, if you only had two guys not finish you would have one of the highest ratings in the country. UR had the 4th highest in the country and we lost some kids.

colgate13

February 28th, 2006, 10:27 AM

blueballs

February 28th, 2006, 01:30 PM

Cocky

February 28th, 2006, 01:57 PM

We're expecting to lose some, but I'm not sure how many.

GannonFan

March 1st, 2006, 10:18 AM

What DTS Said... but blueballs, I stand by my larger philosphical point: College is for college, not minor league preparation.

The NCAA does have a double standard on this, but at least with the APR they are taking a step in the right direction IMO.

Hey, I'll take this system over that in Europe, where kids start dropping out of school in their early teens to play with soccer club teams. Sure it's a little bit of a double standard, but having college be the de facto minor league for the NFL does keep kids in school and gets a lot of them college degrees who may not have gotten them before. If the purpose of colleges is to educate people, then at least in that regard I think the "double standard" actually helps them to increase their reach.

WMTribe90

March 1st, 2006, 12:01 PM

Hey, I'll take this system over that in Europe, where kids start dropping out of school in their early teens to play with soccer club teams. Sure it's a little bit of a double standard, but having college be the de facto minor league for the NFL does keep kids in school and gets a lot of them college degrees who may not have gotten them before. If the purpose of colleges is to educate people, then at least in that regard I think the "double standard" actually helps them to increase their reach.

GF,

Education for education sake is fine and you can argue two years of college is better than none. However, I have a few problems with this rationale. Alot of DI schools are slective or very selective, meaning there are many more applicants than spots in the entering class. I have no problems rewarding athletes with spots in the class over more "academically qualified" students becuase they bring something extra to the table and can be a benefit to the university. However, in this instance I feel the athletes have an obligation to graduate a rate at least on level with that of the general student population or otherwise your denying a student who would have made full use of the opportunity and earned a degree.

I also don't buy your theory that dreams of the NFL are what are keeping kids in school. If anything, it is dreams of an NFL career which lead many players to blow off school and fail where thay may otherwise have achieved. I agree college football can get kids college degrees who may not have otherwise, but that doesn't require turning college football into a farm system for the NFL. This is still COLLEGE football not minor league football.

With a few exceptions IAA football has done a much better job of maintaining perspective and sticking to the core mission of college athletics. To me college football is about (in order of importance) getting an education, earning a degree, learning important life skills, building friendships, competition, representing the school, and anything beyond that (i.e. NFL) is gravy. I'm glad the NCAA is finally taking some steps to reinforce this mission and bring back some perspective.

UCABEARS75

March 1st, 2006, 01:05 PM

GF,

Education for education sake is fine and you can argue two years of college is better than none. However, I have a few problems with this rationale. Alot of DI schools are slective or very selective, meaning there are many more applicants than spots in the entering class. I have no problems rewarding athletes with spots in the class over more "academically qualified" students becuase they bring something extra to the table and can be a benefit to the university. However, in this instance I feel the athletes have an obligation to graduate a rate at least on level with that of the general student population or otherwise your denying a student who would have made full use of the opportunity and earned a degree.

I also don't buy your theory that dreams of the NFL are what are keeping kids in school. If anything, it is dreams of an NFL career which lead many players to blow off school and fail where thay may otherwise have achieved. I agree college football can get kids college degrees who may not have otherwise, but that doesn't require turning college football into a farm system for the NFL. This is still COLLEGE football not minor league football.

With a few exceptions IAA football has done a much better job of maintaining perspective and sticking to the core mission of college athletics. To me college football is about (in order of importance) getting an education, earning a degree, learning important life skills, building friendships, competition, representing the school, and anything beyond that (i.e. NFL) is gravy. I'm glad the NCAA is finally taking some steps to reinforce this mission and bring back some perspective.

BRAVO, very well said.

DetroitFlyer

March 1st, 2006, 02:59 PM

"With a few exceptions IAA football has done a much better job of maintaining perspective and sticking to the core mission of college athletics. To me college football is about (in order of importance) getting an education, earning a degree, learning important life skills, building friendships, competition, representing the school, and anything beyond that (i.e. NFL) is gravy. I'm glad the NCAA is finally taking some steps to reinforce this mission and bring back some perspective."

Sounds EXACTLY like football being played in the 1-AA Pioneer Football League by Dayton, San Diego, Drake, Morehead State, Butler, Valparaiso, Davidson and Jacksonville....

Bub

March 1st, 2006, 03:23 PM