SMU Football and Basketball APR Scores Disconcerting

[Stallion]

Scoop-I'm breaking this news first-if I'm reading this right both Football and Basketball fell well below the required 925 APR for most recent year but remain above the requirement during cumulative years. The Basketball score of 875? WTH?

https://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/apr2010/663_2010_apr.pdf

[RGV Pony]

guess that's why neither of those programs were mentioned in the athletic dept fluff piece

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53067&p=653730&hilit=APR#p653730

[Stallion]

they have two release dates. One for the general report and a second where the reports of individual schools are released. This report was released some time yesterday. I think you have at least 1 year to improve and I''m not sure if its the multi-year score or the latest score that subjects a school to sanctions. But if you go back and check the headline it was a carefully worded story saying all NCAA teams exceeded the NCAA standards UNDER MULTI-YEAR AVERAGE but failed to note both Football and Basketball fell below 925

[Stallion]

Why I have concern over June Jones having unfettered control over minimum NCAA entrance standards-the NCAA Report on June Jones-remember 925 is the minimum-most of the years he's passed have been with players from other Coaches:


2003-04 914 University of Hawaii, Manoa Jul 2003* Jan 2008
2004-05 885
2005-06 906
2006-07 974
2007-08 943
2007-08 939 Southern Methodist University Jan 2008
2008-09 955
2009-10 906


http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex2.html

[ponyte]

We had some academic casualties recently. How does that affect the scoring? Especially since one kid was ruled ineligible but worked to get his grades up? Also, as I read this McNeil would hurt us by leaving early for the NFL. Not complaining but this was one situation we haven’t had to deal with in the past. What would the score be if we had admitted those 3 kids last spring based on JJ’s desire and they didn’t make it? Not making excuses but I would be interested in knowing the cause (whether it is a statistical model flaw or the fault of the university).

[Stallion]

Here's NCAA explanation how APR is calculated. Under this explanation SMU would receive a public warning in Basketball (for a score under 900). I'm not sure I understand the possible sanctions for schools score below 925.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... calculated

[Stallion]

Matt Doherty doesn't have such a shining record either-but at a less rigurous school before he got here.

2004-05 917 Florida Atlantic University Apr 2005 Apr 2006
2005-06 894
2005-06 907 Southern Methodist University Apr 2006
2006-07 977
2007-08 979
2008-09 957
2009-10 875
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex2.html

[ponyte]

From the NCAA explanation (link provided by Stallion)

"The NCAA calculates the rate as a rolling, four-year figure that takes into account all the points student-athletes could earn for remaining in school and academically eligible during that period. Teams that do not earn an Academic Progress Rate above specific benchmarks face penalties ranging from scholarship reductions to more severe sanctions."

Looks like we are cool as it is a four year rolling figure.

Also from the NCAA expalantion:

"The Division I Committee on Academic Performance continues to examine data produced by the Academic Progress Rate and has adjusted the calculation over the years in response. Changes have included exceptions for student-athletes in good academic standing who leave school early to pursue a professional career, student-athletes who transfer to another school while meeting minimum academic requirements and student-athletes who return to graduate at a later date."

Looks like Ford's graduation this spring will help us in the next ratings.

One wonders if that is why Turner bent over backwards to help Ford earn his degree.

[Nacho]

i thought you always wanted a level playing field. you got it and now you don't want it.
fickle.

[Stallion]

No I have always wanted SMU to admit based upon what was traditionally NCAA minimums (ie full qualifiers with a 700 minimum SAT recentered to what is now 820)-not the modified NCAA minimums which allows schools to now admit "qualified" athletes with apparent vanishing SAT bottoms. Many of those kids have no business being in any decent school just as the non-qualifiers and partial qualifiers of past years had no business being admittted. Never supported partial qualifiers, non-qualifiers or these new low SAT "qualifiers" My stance has remained the same-its the NCAA standards which have changed. You can win without these marginal academic recruits.

[One Trick Pony]

Higher education is wonderfull.

Sometimes you've got to hood it up in that [deleted]...

[RGV Pony]

Sometimes you've got to hood it up in that [deleted]...

[Stallion]

UTEP loses 4 scholarships in Football and 1 scholarship in Basketball

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/159531623

[RGV Pony]

UTEP loses 4 scholarships in Football and 1 scholarship in Basketball

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/159531623

[No Quarter]

In Atlanta GA this morning the word is that Georgia Tech will loose one and Kennesaw State two BB scholarships because of the APR rule.

Some years ago I read an article that pointed out the very limited number of top football recruits who could play anywhere and be admitted anywhere. I don't recall what the number was then, one hundred maybe, or perhaps more. I'm sure the number is larger today with the growth in population. Obviously the elite programs got their share then and will today.

For the others, including us at present, this issue will work out like the question of signing more than the permitted number of football recruits - if you never sign too many your squad may be a player or two short. Similarly, if you don't take a few recruits who will never graduate then you'll miss some who might help for a season or two.