PonyFans.com

Rutgers 978
UCF 975
South Florida 970
Temple 963
Pittsburgh 962
Tulane University 960
Connecticut 958
Syracuse 958
East Carolina 945
SMU 945
Cincinnati 943
Houston 937

SMU scored a 940 in Men's Basketball

assorted APR scores-the highs and lows. In a few years the minimum for post season will be 930 or it 935?

Top FBS APRs:
Northwestern 996,
Boise 993,
Duke 989,
Clem & Wis 985,
GT 983,
BC, Mizzou & OhioSt 982,
Rice 979,
Bama, Rutgers, Stan 978,
Miami 977


Bottom FBS APRs:
NM St 916,
UTEP 917,
Idaho 919,
Troy 921,
UL & Tenn 924,
OkSt 926,
IowaSt 928,
Tulsa 929,
FIU 930,
BYU 931
UNC 934

I'm not sure what the scoring system is, but there appear to be no material differences between the highest and lowest scores

you would appear to be wrong

I'm not wrong. There appears to be no material difference between Northwestern's number of 996 and NMSU"s number of 916. This, Kemosabe, is your chance to explain why a mere 80 points is an enormous gulf.

ponyboy wrote:I'm not sure what the scoring system is, but there appear to be no material differences between the highest and lowest scores

The entire APR systems is a fraud. Imagine you are back in Stats class: look around and identify the class moron (hopefully, it isn't you or me ). The APR systems was designed by that person.

In particular, most (if not all) teams will not have enough players to obtain a statistically significant sample size.

Let's look at MMB:
2012 Class Size: 4
2011 Class Size: 4
2010 Class Size: 4
2009 Class Size: 3

Thus, the maximum sample size over 4 years is 15. But, since transfers do not always count, the real sample size is probably around 6-8. With such a small sample, each recruit can cause an enormous swing in the team's score.

See: How to game the system: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... e-ncaa-apr

The NCAA is not set up to make sure Johnny wakes up in the morning and attends class or makes the Honor Roll. Its simply designed to establish minimum standards of progress toward degrees and graduating students. In fact, it has been unquestionably successful at that goal. The individual universities are responsible for the academic programs and performance on their campuses and their players. Another example of fans blaming the NCAA for the sleaze factor in some big time athletic departments. The schools annually at the top of the APR rankings-each and every year-show its not just random although it may have some imperfections

How much do non revenue sports, and women’s' sports affect these ratings? Not trying to be sexist, here, but one wonders if a significant women’s sports presence can make a material difference in scores.

ponyte wrote:How much do non revenue sports, and women’s' sports affect these ratings? Not trying to be sexist, here, but one wonders if a significant women’s sports presence can make a material difference in scores.

They report scores separately for each sport.

OK, I'm not really sure what I'm reading. So SMU, near the bottom of AAC, means we are now allowing not so smart football players on our team? So for many years while we were not recruiting competitively, SMU was refusing admittance to our school because of low academics, but now we are? help!

bubba pony wrote:OK, I'm not really sure what I'm reading. So SMU, near the bottom of AAC, means we are now allowing not so smart football players on our team? So for many years while we were not recruiting competitively, SMU was refusing admittance to our school because of low academics, but now we are? help!

...or the other schools do a better job of keeping their less than briliant football players in school and eligible. How? Hmmmmm.

SMU hasn't had high admission standards for FB or BB since the day June Jones became Coach

Wow, UCF, Boise, Bama, and UConn (and UConn was put on probation for low APR scores) are ahead of SMU. And SMU just barely ahead of Houston.

Stallion wrote:SMU hasn't had high admission standards for FB or BB since the day June Jones became Coach

And that's good, right? Is that not exactly what you called for lo those many years ago?

Yes the Stallion Model = SMU Model and it only took 2 decades

My only remaining criticism was that they should hold a retirement party for 3 non-performing recruiters and pay big bucks for young recruiters like BB has. They retired the 3 Amigos but have not stepped up with the big bucks to hire stud experienced Texas recruiters