VTTW Board Index

Any team with an APR below 930 (the old standard was 925) is now banned from the postseason.  It was one thing to take a few schollies away, but this will drastically punish any school with a bunch of players who go pro early, or anyone who suffers the attrition that usually comes with a coaching change (see Tennessee, University of).  I think they've gone too far this time. :frown:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6853878/ncaa-committee-approves-increase-apr-cutline

This is why the schools which emphasize athletics will eventually leave the NCAA. The Division I committee on academic performance includes FCS and FBS schools (I-A and I-AA). Therefore the I_AA schools and the I-A schools which don't emphasize athletics have a certain amount, perhaps a disproportionate amount, of influence over the I-A schools which choose to emphasize athletics. Why is Dr. Walt Harrison, president of the University of Hartford, the chair of the Division I committee on academic performance? The University of Hartford? Why should the University of Hartford have anything to say about the athletics/academics at UT, or Bama, or Southern Cal?

And here's the kicker. When the big boys leave the NCAA, who is going to feel the pain? The I-AA schools and I-A holier than thou schools. The schools who stay in the NCAA won't be allowed to play the new non-NCAA schools. The I-AA schools won't be able to make a year's budget payoff by playing one game a year against the big boys. The I-AA schools' athletics will suffer. And possibly die.

So be it.

Will this get us closer to a "1-A" tourney?  If so, then so be it!   :powert:

Just think...if these new APR guidelines had been in place previously, Tennessee would have had a postseason ban in basketball in 2009-2010. The APR from 2007-2008, released in May 2009, was 924 and UT lost a scholly as a result. If these guidelines had been in place then, the Elite Eight run would have never happened...over something that Pearl and his staff nor the university really had a whole lot of control over.

Bad move by the NCAA.

Exactly...

As if academics didn't already appear to be wholly divorced from reality...

This is nuts. Methinks power conferences are a step toward doing away with the NCAA.

Wait until the #1 BCS ranked school is prevented from playing in the BCS Championship Game because they had a 929 APR. Lawyers love this kind of stuff. And get rich off of it.  :biggrin:

and Uconn, the national champs, would not have made it last yr

This is just the latest in the effort to remove college athletics as a function of universities in America.  Linda Bensel Meyers was a memeber of the group with the avowed aim to remove college athletics and the student athlete from universities and redirect said money to academic interests.  What they dont realize is that money would never make it to any university unless it is for athletics in some shape or fashion.   Once again the academic side is wiping their butts with the leather of their dreams.

Does this make a University think twice now about firing a HC over NCAA sanctions?  If the HC leaves, usually the program is set back a few years and the APR score suffer because of it with students leaving the program.  This will be one huge mess.

This is a rolling 4-year APR and is not based on a single year like the APR is now.  I think the NCAA is going to change the way the APR is determined to account for the athletes who leave early to go pro.  If you have the new rule that scholarships are multi-year and not single year, the way coaches award them and try to run people off will change.  They will adapt.

The first time a major school misses the tourney or football bowl game and it costs major bucks, the big boys will swing their weight and the rules will change.  In football, I would like to see the BCS formula penalize schools that play the old Div 1A and Div AA schools.  If you deduct points in BCS formula, this nonsense would stop.

Bingo Emeril. They just don't get it. TallVol also makes a good point about ridding a program of miscreants, be they coaches or players.

I think you've got to be careful, but I would hate for a coach never to give a kid a chance. Maybe the kid blows the chance, but I love seeing a borderline kid make it. If this comes to fruition those kids won't get a chance. To me that's unconscionable - especially since most are taking taxpayer money to serve the public.

That's not meant in a political way, btw. If it's deemed as such feel free to remove it.

They would have to make some serious changes to the way it's calculated.  Remember that our BB program took a penalty in part because Brandon Crump had already graduated a year early, came back and took grad courses to play in his final year, and then dropped out after the season ended.  We took the APR hit, and missed the cutoff by one point.  Situations like require some common sense, something that seems to be in short supply at the NCAA. :frown:

Although the NCAA does release yearly APR scores, I'm pretty sure they're already using, and have always used the rolling 4 year average for the purpose of imposing penalties.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I am all for strict academic standards.  Universities are learning institutions and athletics are supposed to be a side issue, however untrue in actual practice that is.

This does seem pretty stiff though.  I would not mind it so much if they were a bit more flexible in the rules, particularly if a kid goes pro.  I think they should also make allowances for a kid coming back to school, and also allow the school to give a non-athletic schollie in that case (which I think is already true).