Michigan (would be) Ineligible for Bowl / MBB Tourny *updated

Submitted by robmorren2 on December 6th, 2011 at 4:57 PM

According to a report by the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports, Michigan would not be eligible for a Bowl Game or the NCAA Basketball Tournament ... due to graduation rates (If new rule change was in effect for this year).

  •   "If the new 930 APR standard had been in place for in March, 12 schools would not have qualified for the men’s NCAA basketball tournament and seven teams, including Michigan and Louisville, would not have been eligible to play in this season’s bowls."
  • "Michigan has the second-lowest APR score (928) out of all 70 bowl teams. Louisville is the only team below the multi-year penalty line with a score of 908."

*update*  The new rule is 930, and Michigan is at 928, but this won't be in effect until next year (to my understanding). The recent string of transfers made these articles jump out at me. If we are currently below standards, what is our outlook for next year? Again, I'm looking for insight to ease my mind. I'm not trying to set off any alarms. Th

I live in the South Bend area and of course the Notre Dame slappies are attacking me with this propaganda. "Michigan Thugs" "Notre Dame has standards" etc etc etc ... of course ND & Northwestern were amongst the best in the nation in GSR.

I'm not very familiar with APR & GSR so maybe someone else can shed some light. Either way, the source/link is below.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bowlgraduationrates

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/study-bowl-team-graduation-rates-up-racial-gap-persists/ 

*** I searched the site for APR & GSR for anything recent and didn't turn anything up, so if this is old news I apologize and please delete.

Comments

Jedelman11

December 6th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^

Your use of the word "slappies" instantly jumped out at me, but I'm not sure if you're using it right...

 

The article points out that Gruden routinely is “criticized for overpraising players” publicly, but also points out that, in private settings, Gruden displays far less charity.Writes Kelefa Sanneh of Gruden: “He is forever judging players who don’t or can’t excel — ‘slapdicks,’ he calls them, or, more familiarly, ‘slappies.’ ...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/05/new-yorker-profile-of-j…

dennisblundon

December 6th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^

This graduating class played under 3 different coaches so there is going to be more players leaving any time the coach who recruited them leaves. Congrats to ND for being relevant in something other than Kelly's latest fuck up and Damefan. Also any report or research done at UCF has as much credibility as a chinese fortune cookie. Now I need to get back to making my reservations for the SUGAR BOWL.

CLord

December 6th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^

Never heard this come up before so doubt it would actually result in a ban, but the "we has standards" argument is basically the tired mantra of any decent academic school who's sports teams blow.  No news there.

Erik_in_Dayton

December 6th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^

Finishing the sentence with "...but for..." would be helpful. 

Also, I don't know how to do a block quote, but here's a paragraph from the article that I think sheds a lot of light on the meaningfulness of the numbers in question:

But unlike past years, when BCS title game teams often had less than stellar academic credentials, both of this year’s participants—LSU and Alabama—rank high, with APRs of 966 and 963, respectively.

If Les Miles and Nick Saban are doing well, then something is wrong.

justingoblue

December 6th, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^

  1. Switch MGoBlog to plain text editor.
  2. Write <blockquote> </blockquote>
  3. Paste any text you want between the two.
  4. Switch back to rich text editor and make any formatting changes needed.
  5. ?
  6. Profit

But unlike past years, when BCS title game teams often had less than stellar academic credentials, both of this year’s participants—LSU and Alabama—rank high, with APRs of 966 and 963, respectively.

Bosch

December 6th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^

come up with a response that will trump anything that those "Notre Dame slappies" throw at you, then this thread should be locked right now.

julesh

December 6th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^

The article doesn't say anything about Michigan being in danger of bowl ineligibility. It said that if the standards had been in place in March, they wouldn't have been eligible for the basketball tourney. But it is in place now, so I assume Michigan is now over the 930 threshold. (Or is that score separated by sports? Basketball has one and football has a different one?)

WolvinLA2

December 6th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^

Ask your ND friend if he knows what APR is, and if he says yes then ask him what that has to do with being a thug. When Michigan switched from the Lloyd era to the RR era, and went from winning a lot to losing a lot, a number of players transferred. This hurt our APR for a few seasons. It's not the only reason, but it's a big one.

That's good for ND that their APR is high. That has a lot more to do with transfers than anything academic, and certainly has nothing to do with crime or thuggery. On the academic part alone, you can look at it two ways. ND fans like to frame it as ND having higher standards. You could also say that UM offers more underprivileged players the opportunity at a good education, or simply that classes are easier to pass at ND than they are at UM.

Mr Miggle

December 6th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^

But this was a reading comprehension fail.

It explicitly states that the only penalties for falling below the APR are scholarship reductions. There are no bowl bans.

Where do you get UM's MBB not meeting the APR standard? They're at 980 the last I saw.

julesh

December 6th, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^

You must have missed the following:

"The NCAA Board of Directors responded and during an August meeting voted to raise the APR standard across Division I to 930. It includes a provision that bans all teams below that from participating in the postseason, including all NCAA tournaments and football bowl games.

Previously, only when a school fell below a 900 APR had it been considered to be doing poor enough to receive a postseason ban.

If the new 930 APR standard had been in place for in March, 12 schools would not have qualified for the men’s NCAA basketball tournament and seven teams, including Michigan and Louisville, would not have been eligible to play in this season’s bowls."

I don't know if they are incorrect about UM's MBB's APR, but the article does state that.

Mr Miggle

December 6th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^

I read the original Tidesport article which was referenced. It makes no mention of the recent changes to include postseason bans. I should have checked the Yahoo story too.

It definitely does not say UM would have been ineligible for the NCAA basketball tournament.

FreddieMercuryHayes

December 6th, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^

And if having a mural of Jesus over-looking your football stadium were against the rules, then ND would be ineligable as well.  The great thing about hypotheticals is that they make everyone look stupid.

LSAClassOf2000

December 6th, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

This also shows ranking in FBS:

2. Northwestern 986

13. Wisconsin 969

17. Penn State 967 

18. Purdue 966

19. Minnesota 965

21. Indiana 964

26. Ohio State 960

31. Nebraska 957

41. Iowa 951

51.  Illinois 946

59. Michigan 943

68. Michigan State 939

NOTRE DAME:

80. Notre Dame 933

ChiBlueBoy

December 6th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

...on this when the rules came through. I also think the final conclusion was that we won't have short-term problems with meeting this standard once it takes effect.

myrtlebeachmai…

December 6th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^

back when the increase was announced.  There's still one other piece that I haven't heard anyone confirm or deny:

The old "severe penalty limit (i.e. postseason)" was 900, and was increased to 930.

The "lesser penalty limit" kicked in at 925, and included probabtion and scholly loses.

I'd assume (yet haven't found any mention of it) that if the "severe" level went up, then so would the "lesser" limit - especially since it's now below the new severe one.

We were in "danger territory" (no room for error anyway) of the 925 mark.  I've wondered if we're now below whatever that's gone to - OR - did the NCAA just get rid of that mark and now has just the one magic number?

oriental andrew

December 6th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^

I might be misremembering, but I recall that the limit was raised due to a change in the APR calculation.  If that is, indeed, the case, you would think that the calculation for the individual schools' APRs would also have changed.  That is to say that you wouldn't be able to just take the old number and apply it to the new standard with a new calculation - you'd have to recalculate the respective schools' numbers as well. 

Then again, I could be completely wrong, but my logic sure sounds good, darn it!

bronxblue

December 6th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^

So wait a minute - you're saying that if rules that are not due to go into effect for at least a year WERE to go into effect now, then UM would be ineligible to play football or basketball?  And in this same universe, if Terrelle Pryor had NOT been caught trading gold pants and signatures for crappy tattoos, then Jim Tressell would STILL be the coach of Ohio?

This whole report is a bunch of supposition about rules that are not in effect; UM would obviously appeal any negative elements of these rules if they actuall applied, pointing out the unique nature of the graduation numbers and probably receive a lesser penalty than a bowl ban.  So yeah, this thread is going to create a whole bunch of stress for no real reason.

robmorren2

December 7th, 2011 at 12:24 AM ^

The rule has been passed and it will go into effect next bowl season. We are currently below the mark set to be eligible for bowls. I have NO idea how APR will change for us. All I know is we continue to have a ton of transfers. That is why I was asking if anyone could tell me if I should worry about our APR going up to 130 next season.