Brian, we get it, you hated the process, love RR, and hate Hoke. Why even bother writing anything anymore when that's all anyone is every going to get out of whatever it is you choose to put on your website.
NCAA: Let's Ramp Up The APR Doom
this will soon be the literal truth, literally
This site has fretted about, then documented the bad things massive attrition under Rich Rodriguez did to Michigan's Academic Progress Rating. The APR is a complicated number that's supposed to equate a 60% graduation rate to 925. Once you drop below that the NCAA starts glaring at you. Michigan put up a 897 in 2010, a 940 in 2009, and a 918 in 2008 (Carr's last year). They need a 945 this year to keep their head above water; that 897 will be an anchor for the next three years.
Right now, dropping below 925 doesn't automatically start hurting you. Between 900 and 925 the only punishments are a one-for-one scholarship reduction for every player who leaves ineligible. This results in yearly complaints about the various schools that didn't meet the minimum but didn't get punished. It's confusing and a little limp-wristed.
That would change if random NCAA committee has its way:
Currently in the Academic Performance Program, teams face two penalty benchmarks – 925 for more immediate penalties and 900 for longer-term, more serious sanctions. The committee is proposing the penalty structure be consolidated, with a single benchmark set at a projected 50 percent GSR. [Ed: this is estimated to be 925-930.]
While the 50 percent GSR is considered a minimum standard, Harrison said the committee also recommends that the long-term goal be stated clearly for the membership to raise the expectations above a projected 50 percent GSR.
Eliminating that grace zone and a lot of the exemptions that go with it is probably a good idea in the wider view. Right now you get things like South Florida dropping under the 925 level, losing ground the next year without penalty (which totally happened but I can't find the relevant link—their numbers are the worst the BCS FWIW), or Kentucky basketball graduating half of the 60% minimum but still checking out A-OK. Right now the APR is weaker than it should be.
In the shorter view, Michigan David Letterman puts his finger under his collar to go "yeeargh" when he reads this proposed penalty for dropping under the 925-ish level that corresponds to a 50% GSR:
Level One: Public notice and a financial aid penalty of 10 percent from the four-year average of total aid awarded. If the team demonstrates improvement, the financial aid penalty would be reduced to 5 percent. For example, a Football Bowl Subdivision team that awards the full complement of scholarships would be penalized nine overall counters and three initial counters at the 10 percent level, while men’s and women’s basketball would be penalized two scholarships.
Hypothetically, not hitting a 925-ish APR results in scholarship penalties equivalent to the worst NCAA sanctions in twenty years. That's level one! If you get to level two you have to eat your own face. Albert Lin writes your obituary if you hit level three.
A change that drastic would have to come with a lot of warning. (I mean, right? /finger under collar) Presumably by then Michigan will have pulled its APR out of the danger zone, at which point they'd be cheering on any NCAA committee itching to rip the spine out of schools not as committed to graduating kids. So… a qualified hurrah with the stipulation this has to be one of those committee-type timelines where it takes forever to do anything.
Huh? did you even read the article? There is no mention of the process/hoke. No love for rich rich rod either. He's just pointing a crappy situation out that developed after all the transfers/dropouts/crap luck during the RR era.
errr, not you. colt mcbaby jesus.
You know, your rant and your avatar suddenly make way more sense.
Sorry everyone, my faith that putting "/s" at the end wasn't necessary has not been rewarded. Fail on my part. I was being sarcastic. clearly this post has nothing to do with anything I wrote. That is all.
I interpreted your post as sarcasm. I guess there's been too many posts similar to yours lately so it's difficult to tell sometimes. No worries :)
Having seen many of your posts over time, I had confidence that this was being sarcastic. Also, the "your" kinda gave it away at the end I thought.
I guess it is just the fact that this is still such a touchy subject that has some people sarcasm meters in need of calibration.
I wonder what this will do to the wonderful SEC schools.
What gets me about the APR is that is seemingly doesn't make a distinction between kids who leave voluntarily and those who leave because of academic failings. I know that there are a couple of guys who left who were academically ineligible, but the problems you see at South Florida and Kentucky are far more in line with the spirit of the APR than RR losing a bunch of kids who didn't want to be there/didn't like him/saw the ship sinking. I know that other schools have those problems and seemingly handle it better, but UM has always graduated kids at a decent rate, and the team GPA under RR was fine (though all of the claims that it was the best ever might have been a bit of an overstatement). To have them potentially lose scholarships because of transfers doesn't seem like the right punishment.
"Several APR adjustments, originated outside of CAP, designed to improve the fairness of the rate have affected how it projects to graduation rates, including automatic adjustments for student-athletes who transfer to another four-year institution after earning at least a 2.6 grade-point average." (link)
This is horribly written but seems to indicate that transfers of students in good academic standing won't count against schools. Would these changes be grandfathered in to calculations from past years? I would imagine so...
PS: does anyone else find it funny how poorly written the piece on NCAA.org is (it verges on the ungrammatical, and is really unclear in parts), given that it's all about maintaining academic standards?
"but seems to indicate that transfers of students in good academic standing won't count against schools."
This rule has been in place for several years now and schools have taking advantage of it. As I understand it what it does is the school does not count a retention point but gets to keep an eligibility point.
As way of example, each student every semester is worth up to 2 points. One for staying in school and one for staying eligible. You add up all the points and apply some math and you get the APR. So if a student leaves in bad standing, a school gets 0 for 2 for that kid. It hurts. What this adjustment allows is that a kid who leaves in goo academic standing counts as 1 for 1. The retention point is no longer considered gained or lost, so it is removed from the equation.
that's my understanding anyway
That, and I don't think players who leave for the pros should count against APR--even if they don't get drafted. That's Kentucky's problem, kids stay for 1.5 semesters and leave to make millions. Litmus test could be that anyone who makes 10 or more times what an average graduate makes doesn't count.
"The Academic Performance Program examination began more than a year ago after a series of adjustments to the Academic Progress Rate altered the way the APR predicted graduation. While the adjustments (like those for professional departures and student-athletes who transfer while earning at least a 2.6 grade-point average) were designed to improve the perceived fairness of the rate, they did change the way the benchmarks predict graduation. The committee’s recommendations to the Board of Directors this summer will address these issues and show a clear commitment to improving the graduation success of student-athletes." (link)
Another important point that Brian left out, from the same article (dated today, May 16th): "The adjustments to the Academic Performance Program would go into effect for the 2013-14 academic year to allow schools time to adjust to the new guidelines."
it did take that into account. Full disclosure I am just going on memory of what I have read on this site previous and could most definitely be wrong, but I thought I had read in a previous post Brian made that if the left but were academically eligible than they didn't count againts the APR....Again, I could be way off on that as it was from last year.
Additionally, would Dantonio have been a fool if he had booted everyone involved in the Rather Hall incident off of his team? Wouldn't that hurt his APR and then stick him with scholarship reductions.
Since UofM is on the borderline with the RR era losses, should Hoke think twice about booting anyone off the team?
Will some colleges make for easier majors and easier classes to keep the APR up?
It seems like there might be some unitended consequences.
All of those are scenarios make sense. Kick eight players out, and you could all of a sudden be in seriously deep water for doing the right thing.
Schools always have made easy majors for athletes. Always have and always will.
Right after I wrote it I realized that I should have written that colleges might make even "more" easier majors and classes to keep up APR numbers.
Why is the really bad APR score from 2010--RichRod's 3rd season? Unless I misunderstand, that suggests attrition was getting worse as time went by and not better.
Did that happen or have I just blacked the entire RichRod Era out of my memory?
Because a bajillion kids transferred after RR was fired.
A "bajillion" transfers? As far as I know, since Rodriguez was fired, there have been two confirmed transfers (Vinopal, Christian), one rumored transfer (DJ Williamson), and whatever you want to consider Forcier. Four players doesn't seem like much; I know a lot of people have been pretty impressed with the new staff's ability to retain players.
EDIT: Prior to Rodriguez being fired, there was that strange rash of defensive transfers at the start of the season. I don't remember who all left, but for like the first three weeks, players were leaving come Monday morning.
but the pre- or early-season transfers would also count toward the depressing 2010 APR figure, which was my point. (inaccurately stated though it was)
is for the 2008-2009 academic year
If 925 equates to a 60% GSR in the current system and 50% in the proposed system, there has to be a way to reconcile the figures. It wouldn't make sense to say "Hey, you were at 910 in 2010" as a benchmark to the new way of calculating things. Since a 900 is about 45% GSR in the current system, assuming a straight scale, a 50% GSR currently equates to about a 908 APR. If that's the new benchmark, things are not as dire as they appear.
Or am I just misinterpreting this whole thing?
Random question - does Marell Evans coming back help us in any significant way? He left between 08 and 09, but is now going to finish his degree here. So, A) Can we uncount him? and B) Does it matter for our count this year or next?
When the NCAA starts to make sense and run their business like, well, a well run business, I'll take shit like APR more serious. They're like big government and incapable of actually doing anything that makes sense other than avoid pimping the goose that lays the golden egg.
I'm just typing and ranting aimlessly. I don't even make much sense to myself, but I know the NCAA is run by a bunch of turds. I like that word to describe people I don't admire.....turds. Michigan State has a lot of turds, in my opinion. Not everyone, just a lot.
I'll go have another cup of coffee now and you can scratch your head and wonder wtf I'm even talking about.