Just a quick question. Why if an athlete transfers, but is in good academic standing, does it count against a program? I ask because it does not make sense to me that if the school was holding up its end of the bargain but the athlete decides to leave, it ends up negatively affecting the school. Thank you for any input.
APR Explanation Needed
You could see this easily being abused as students who are good students are used for their academic standing in Fall term, and then when next year's recruiting class signs, said student with good grades but little chance of playing next year is shown the door as early as Winter term.
Rosenberg? Planning another expose?
Michigan 2008-2010 = Wile E. Coyote:
hurt the APR. The NCAA modified their accouting system if a kid transfers with a 2.6 to another D-1 school.
This slew of transfers will not hurt Oregon in the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate (APR), as long as Wiley, Humphrey and Crittle are in good academic standing. Under since-dismissed coach Ernie Kent, the Ducks led the Pacific-10 Conference with a 975 APR.
In the early days of the APR, transfers such as these would have resulted in dings to the APR, but the NCAA tweaked those rules a few years ago.
"If the kid leaves the institution and has a 2.6 or above and matriculates to (Division I or Division II), we do not lose the retention point,'' Oregon's director of compliance Bill Clever said.
In other words, a player earns one point for staying in school and one point for remaining academically eligible. Wiley, Humphrey and Crittle would earn the one point for academic eligibility - if they carry a 2.6 grade-point average - but not the one point for staying in school. They would be 1 for 1 instead of 2 for 2. They would not help the APR as much as if they had stayed, but neither would they hurt it.
The simple reason is the NCAA members wanted schools to push students to stay and graduate. Read Meat Market, after the last game of the season, a lot of Seniors--not just the future NFL types, basically packed up and left campus immediately. This is an incentive for the schools to make an extra effort to not just keep athletes eligible, but also get them to graduate.
Remember, the NCAA doesn't impose rules on its members, the members (read: Presidents) use the NCAA to further their own objectives and the Presidents really do care about academics.
so why does there seem to be impending APR problem coming if we can assume that the majority have left in good academic standing?
APR is a good idea in theory because it forces schools to at least try to keep kids enrolled and learning, but in practice it has enough loopholes that programs with bad luck (like UM) will be punished while schools that can skirt the rules (*cough* Alabama *cough*) fly by. Personally, I rather the NCAA just look at the transfers each year and determine which look fishy and which are unexpected changes.
Thanks for the replies!