|
Post by Aggie One on May 24, 2011 22:03:46 GMT -5
Read the other thread on this subject. A bad misinterpretation of rule by the reporter
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on May 24, 2011 22:36:06 GMT -5
Eight teams face postseason ban
Based on the most recent APR scores, eight teams are banned from competing in the postseason this coming academic year because of poor performance in the classroom over a number of years.
Of the eight, five are men’s basketball teams: Cal-State Northridge; Chicago State; Grambling; Southern University, Baton Rouge; and Louisiana-Monroe.
The other three are football teams: Idaho State, Jackson State and Southern University.
In addition, another seven teams faced a postseason ban but received a conditional waiver for this coming year. Waivers can be granted for a variety of reasons but generally include demonstrated academic improvement, active presidential involvement, meeting certain APR benchmarks and implementation of an APR improvement plan.
These teams remain subject to the postseason ban in future years if they do not meet their specific academic performance conditions or implement their academic improvement plans.
Five of the seven are men’s basketball teams: Ball State, Jacksonville State, Morgan State, Southern Utah and UAB. Two teams (Morgan State and Southern Utah) will incur other historical penalties, such as practice restrictions. The other three received full conditional waivers and do not appear on any penalty list.
The other two teams receiving conditional waivers are North Carolina A&T football and UT-Chattanooga women’s soccer. Both still face other historical penalties.
|
|
|
Post by aggiejazz on May 24, 2011 22:43:26 GMT -5
I don't think a lot of people really understand the peril A&T is in with its football program. This football program did qualify for a post-season ban and was essentially given probation for a year. Any academic and/or retention misfire and the football program gets ban from post-season. Further academic and retention calamity by A&T football program will be followed by the whole athletic department receiving a post-season ban and demotion from Division I.
Grambling, Southern and Jackson State are one step away from having their Division I status removed.
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on May 25, 2011 6:23:20 GMT -5
I like it. It forces schools to get their academic ship in order or get out of the ocean. There's too much emphasis on winning and not nearly enough on educating. It's past time for schools (especially hbcus) to step up to the plate and get back to our core mission.
It should cut down on the number of nominal d-1 institutions if the NCAA actually has the chutzpah to follow through with the threatened bans.
|
|
|
Post by ohsixrain on May 25, 2011 7:16:03 GMT -5
You are correct Dooms...but something tells me that the NCAA will only enforce these rules to a point. Once this rule begins affecting the big names such as: Football - Michigan, Penn State, "The" Ohio State, Nebraska, Texas & Oklahoma; Basketball - Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Louisville & Kansas. Let these schools start to become affected by these rules and they will change. It's a great gesture by the NCAA to promote students athletes getting and education as well as play sports, BUT, the almighty dollar does the most talking. So, the by the rule affecting the peon schools, it looks great on the NCAA's part, especially, PR-wise. But, let those aforementioned schools become affected and we will begin to see the rules change. I call it Politics at the highest level...trust me, it happens everyday.
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on May 25, 2011 7:25:33 GMT -5
'06, do you really think that the big names are going to allow themselves to be affected by this rule? They have more than enough money to make sure that never happens. Here's an article somebody posted on Onnidan: www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/may/ncaa+working+with+hbcus+to+clear+apr+barriersIn my opinion, since we have a different mission, we have different resources, and we have a different caliber of student, we have no business trying to play on the same field on a weekly basis. We could be really successful across the board academically and athletically if we didn't spend so much time, money, and energy trying to play with the big boys. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by aggiebred09 on May 25, 2011 9:00:47 GMT -5
The opinion of the PV President definitely creates a valid stance for HBCUs. My only concern is how deep of a divide it has the potential to create.
We cant say were being judged unfairly against the big boys and out the other side say we want to be on the same level. Academically & Competitively it makes more sense for HBCUs to have separate divisions. But we all know the resources & funding wont be equal.
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,578
|
Post by Aggie77 on May 25, 2011 9:19:58 GMT -5
The misconceptions many buy into, is that they think the Big Boys haven't already blessed these types of events. Do you really think things like this don't get vetted by the Big Conference before it becomes common knowledge? Do you really think the NCAA independently determines the thresholds? Politics is one thing (and can change based on critical mass), but money drives politics, not the other way around. The rich will continue to get richer, while the rest will continue to hold on as best as they can.
|
|
bluehaze
Official BDF member
Posts: 6,026
|
Post by bluehaze on May 25, 2011 9:24:18 GMT -5
I am 100% behind the President on this quote:
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on May 25, 2011 9:44:02 GMT -5
I think the NCAA has understood and addressed it. Division II does not have APR requirements to my knowledge. Neither does the NAIA, and nobody said that hbcus had to be married to NCAA membership.
The NCAA is in effect stating that if you want to play ball with us, you have to play by our rules. It ain't like we don't have other options, we just choose not to use any of the other options.
This is a case where the ball is in our court. To me, asking the NCAA for some kind of hbcu waiver is akin to asking for free cheese, when we already have cheese in the fridge.
|
|
|
Post by ohsixrain on May 25, 2011 9:50:05 GMT -5
Well then Dooms what you are spelling out to me is an example of the "haves" and the "have nots". So, money conquers all ills...you have an average student at best in the classroom and an outstanding athlete on the field go to the top colleges and universities and go through 4 years and graduate with no problems...makes you go hmmm. Makes you wonder what education they really receive. But that's another topic. So, what's the solution to our problem then??? MONEY!! Most of the problems with our Athletics point to that common denominator.
|
|
oleschoolaggie
Official BDF member
2009 Poster of the Year, 2009 Most Knowledgeable Poster
Posts: 24,236
|
Post by oleschoolaggie on May 25, 2011 10:00:56 GMT -5
i like the apr "concept" in principle, but i think it puts hbcu's at a disadvantage. to me, its plain and simple. we hbcu's often get the less preferable student athletes. and what i mean by that is the major d1's not only get the best athletes, but they also target and get the best athletes who also happen to be great students academically.
we hbcu's are often left with less desirable athletes (academically) because the major d1's scoop up the vast majority of the academically sound athletes. like all d1 schools, there's a premium placed on talented athletes who also perform well in the classroom because its beneficial to the schools in terms of the apr. and for those athletes who struggle academically but are too talented athletically to pass up, the major d1's have superior academic support systems in place for them whereas hbcu's don't have the funds to match that.
to me, that's why we see a disproportionate number of hbcu's falling victim to the apr system. we're left with low academically performing athletes and we don't have an adequate academic support system for athletes to help those who need help...
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on May 25, 2011 10:08:24 GMT -5
Well then Dooms what you are spelling out to me is an example of the "haves" and the "have nots". So, money conquers all ills...you have an average student at best in the classroom and an outstanding athlete on the field go to the top colleges and universities and go through 4 years and graduate with no problems...makes you go hmmm. Makes you wonder what education they really receive. But that's another topic. So, what's the solution to our problem then??? MONEY!! Most of the problems with our Athletics point to that common denominator. Shoot, most of our problems period point to that common denominator. I know it's easy to assume that these kids aren't getting a decent education at majors, but 1) what are they getting from us? 2) the schools have the tools to at least help them if they show interest in learning, and 3) that's an issue they should negotiate before even accepting a scholarship. Don't base your scholly on tv time, base it on tutor time. But that too is another topic. I just can't look at d-1 competition logically and see where we (and I mean a whole lot of "d1 schools") have any business there. Now I can look at it emotionally and get mad and say we belong all day, but logically, naw. The d1 APR requirements are just an additional reminder.
|
|
|
Post by aggiebred09 on May 25, 2011 10:57:03 GMT -5
We are forgetting the bigger picture. We left the lower divisions behind to give our players the national attention and professional possibilities not offered in the lower conference levels. I agree that asking for HBCU exceptions is almost like asking for extra when we got it but imagine how hard it would be for our players to make it to the next level if they aren't matched up with the big boys.
|
|
|
Post by DOOMS on May 25, 2011 10:59:45 GMT -5
You might want to check your research on that one.
|
|