DECKS
Official BDF member
2008 Poster of the Year
Charter Member of the BDF
Posts: 10,425
|
Post by DECKS on Aug 8, 2011 20:09:58 GMT -5
If we get the APR over 900 for this year we should be adding some schollys back next season.
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Aggie77 on Aug 8, 2011 21:02:44 GMT -5
If we get the APR over 900 for this year we should be adding some schollys back next season. Why do you say that, isn't the threshold 925? Are you hoping for some type of waiver?
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on Aug 8, 2011 21:32:12 GMT -5
If we get the APR over 900 for this year we should be adding some schollys back next season. Why do you say that, isn't the threshold 925? Are you hoping for some type of waiver? I think that is what Deck is thinking, along with A&T and a waiver means a continuation of restrictions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 10:34:48 GMT -5
If we get the APR over 900 for this year we should be adding some schollys back next season. Why do you say that, isn't the threshold 925? Are you hoping for some type of waiver? Actually, it depends on the conditions of the waiver itself. Yes the threshold all Div-1 schools want to stay over is 925 and ones single year APR score dip under that number will bring fourth immediate penalties. However, we have incurred historical penalties, which means our multiyear APR score has been under 900 for sometime and we must bring it over 900 or whatever number as required for satisfying the stipulations in our waiver. Check this blog out regarding Jackson State's APR situation. It should really clarify things about our situation as well. blogs.clarionledger.com/jsu/2011/08/03/an-apr-refresher/
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Aggie77 on Aug 9, 2011 11:14:10 GMT -5
A glossary of definitions related to the common terms used in the NCAA's academic reform efforts. www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Academics and Athletes/Education and Research/Academic Reform/General Information/defining_academic_reform.html I think Decks may be right, there may be a possibility of a reduction/elimination of historic penalties for crossing the 900 mark.
|
|
|
Post by Aggie One on Aug 9, 2011 11:45:26 GMT -5
He just got one with the 927 just released. Another 900 plus score will get Broadway out of the woods. Three in a row will put him on the highway in the fast lane.
Comegys and JSU problems are a neverending soap opera all to itself.
|
|
oleschoolaggie
Official BDF member
2009 Poster of the Year, 2009 Most Knowledgeable Poster
Posts: 24,243
|
Post by oleschoolaggie on Aug 9, 2011 12:07:44 GMT -5
but hasn't there been rumors that a&t "is not" expected to have a good apr for the 2010-11 school year? i think several football players left a&t which hurts our apr and i'm not sure about how well the guys who returned performed in the classroom last school year...
|
|
|
Post by 4XLAGGIE on Aug 9, 2011 12:24:13 GMT -5
Everytime there is a coaching change the APR takes a negative dive. This will be no different.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Aug 9, 2011 12:53:11 GMT -5
If that is the case we should have dove off the deep end by now!!!
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on Aug 9, 2011 12:57:56 GMT -5
We pretty much have.
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on Aug 9, 2011 14:03:43 GMT -5
In reality, the overall goal is to have a multiyear APR of 925 or more. HBCUs have been given time to get to this level and now the NCAA is giving HBCUs waivers. Other HBCUs have proven it can be done, A&T just has to do it, also. Checkout the info below: What is the APR?The Academic Progress Rate is an NCAA measure to track the academic achievement of Division I teams during each academic term. Each student-athlete earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible and multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s APR. Teams that fall below the minimum APR of 925 face possible sanctions ranging from scholarship reductions to more severe penalties. Why was the APR established?Leaders within college athletics recognized a need to track how student-athletes are performing academically throughout their college experience. The APR does that by providing a snapshot for each academic term. This measure allows schools to intercede and help academically challenged student-athletes before it is too late. Do student-athletes who leave school early to go pro hurt their teams’ APR?If a student-athlete is in good academic standing and leaves school early to pursue a professional career, the team is NOT penalized and loses no APR points. But if a student-athlete leaves early and is in poor academic standing, the team loses two points, making it harder for the team’s APR to recover.Average four-year APRs Includes 2005-06 through 2008-09 academic years. Baseball 954 Men's Basketball 940 Football 944 Overall 967 NCAA Research How does the NCAA assist teams with APR challenges?When a school has APR challenges, it may be encouraged or even required to present an academic improvement plan to the NCAA. In reviewing these plans, the national office staff encourages schools to work with other campus units to achieve a positive outcome. The staff also works with APR-challenged schools to create reasonable timelines for improvement. Doesn’t the APR favor big schools that can afford extensive academic support programs?The “improvement-plus” model the NCAA uses provides special consideration for teams that show improvement and succeed in meeting their school’s academic mission. It also takes into account school resource levels when determining APR penalties. This model helps keep the APR fair for a diverse membership and holds all schools accountable for the academic achievement of their student-athletes.Historically, how have teams responded to the APR?In 2005, the aggregate APR data showed a need for improvement, especially in baseball, men’s basketball and football. The average Division I rate for all sports at that time was 950. In four years, this number has increased to an overall 967 average and all sport averages now surpass the 925 benchmark.www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/behind+the+blue+disk/behind+the+blue+disk+-+division+i+academic+progress+rate+%28apr%29
|
|
@ProfBellamy
Official BDF member
Aggie Born, Aggie Bred
Posts: 764
|
Post by @ProfBellamy on Aug 9, 2011 14:19:56 GMT -5
Thus making it more advantageous for student-athletes at a junior college/community college to complete the Associates. I know many of our athletes don't think past their academics, but if they think wisely... that degree can make them more attractive.
However, the balance is how will they stay in shape and be successful. That's something to look at. However, it would make it worthwhile to us as we mentor young student-athletes who may not be ready academically to be successful at an A&T or other school to take seriously their time at a juco/cc.
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on Aug 9, 2011 15:25:19 GMT -5
more helpful info from NCAA report, June 9, 2010:The number of teams not meeting the benchmarks for historically based penalties (900 APR) and more immediate penalties (925 APR) continues to decline. Less than six percent of teams have multi-year APR scores below 925, and less than two percent have multi-year APR scores under 900.On the penalty side of academic reform, 137 teams at 80 different colleges and universities have received an immediate or historical sanction. A total of 79 teams did not earn a 925 APR and had a student-athlete leave school ineligible, and they have incurred immediate scholarship losses. Eleven teams have lost immediate scholarships and received the first historically based penalty (public warning) as well for posting an APR below 900.Another 15 teams under 900 APR received a public warning; 31 teams received practice restrictions; and one has received a postseason ban. Nine other teams faced the possibility of a championship ban but received conditional waivers this year because of demonstrated academic improvement. Six of those teams received scholarship and/or practice time penalties and three received waivers from all penalties. These teams must remain above the historical penalty threshold for three straight years or face the postseason ban penalty in the future.www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/academic+reform/20100609+apr+release---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, this tells me that A&T's football program must have 3 straight years of a APR over 900. A&T has one year and needs 2 more. I am assuming that if A&T doesn't get over 900 for this recent school year (2010-2011), then the count starts over. This may be a huge assumption since the NCAA is not looking to ban any team unless the athletic program is chronic.
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on Aug 11, 2011 9:22:15 GMT -5
Panel mulls simplifying NCAA rulebook By Brian Bennett, ESPN.com, Archive
INDIANAPOLIS -- Tougher penalties for cheaters, higher academic standards that could keep some teams out postseason tournaments and a streamlined rule book are some of the radical changes that NCAA leaders hope to adopt after a two-day presidential retreat.
Some of those changes could start to become reality as soon as Thursday when the Division I board of directors convenes. The presidents say they're that serious about reining in some of the excesses and rule-breaking that are rampant in college sports.
"Things have reached a boiling point," Penn State president Graham Spanier. "Some of these things our coaches and our boosters might not like. But we need to do what I think you're going to see happen in the next year."
The proposals came out of a two-day retreat organized by NCAA president Mark Emmert that brought together more than 50 university presidents, plus a handful of conference commissioners, athletic directors and other leaders. Emmert said there was strong consensus to move forward quickly on a number of major changes, including:
• Stricter enforcement of major infractions. Emmert said he wants to see penalties for NCAA violations that not only provide a disincentive to cheat "but in fact a healthy fear of being caught."
The penalties the NCAA can use, such as bowl bans and barring coaches from working at other programs, won't change. But Emmert said those punishments will be handed down, schools will understand the range of sentencing possibilities and that NCAA enforcement and investigative staffs will be beefed up to go after rule-breakers.
Emmert also said the NCAA would focus on the schools and programs "that make the biggest impact on college athletics" while not spending nearly as much time prosecuting minor violations.
"Coaches and athletes and boosters should be afraid if they're going to go out and break any rules, because people have had enough of that," Spanier said. "The folks that are trying to disrupt the integrity of intercollegiate athletics in this country are going to have to be held more accountable."
• Higher academic standards both for incoming players and programs. The NCAA implemented the Academic Progress Rate in 2004 as a way to measure how teams were graduating and retaining their players. Teams that score below 925 on the APR four-year average are subject to penalties like loss of scholarships.
Emmert said the presidents agreed that it's time to increase the baseline score, most likely to 930. And teams that score below that level now could be held out of postseason tournaments. To put that in perspective, 12 teams in this year's NCAA basketball tournament scored below 930, while national champion Connecticut had a 930.
Judy Genshaft, chairwoman of the Division I board of directors, said her group could approve the new 930 cutoff as soon as Thursday. Emmert said any tournament bans would likely not take place for another year or two.
"We have to make the decisions now and let everyone know what's coming," he said. The presidents also proposed higher test scores and curriculum requirements for incoming freshmen and junior college transfers.
• Rewriting the NCAA rulebook. The current NCAA manual is a 434-page manuscript that has long been criticized for being too arcane. Even long-time coaches sometimes claim not to understand the rules they have broken.
The presidential group expressed strong support for what Emmert called "some serious editing." Their goal is to streamline the rules handbook and get rid of outdated rules that prevent coaches from communicating via text messaging and other technology. "We'd love to probably throw the rule book out and start all over again, but that's actually impractical," Emmert said.
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on Aug 11, 2011 9:25:49 GMT -5
A&T has to make some serious academic changes now in football or they will never get from behind this APR "8-ball" with the increased pressure to raise the APR threshold.
|
|