Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Football only!!
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cal Poly 971
North Dakota 969
UC Davis 960
Sac St 959
NAU 949
EWU 945
Southern Utah 944
Weber St 943
UNC 943
MSU 943
Montana 929
PSU 920
ISU 881

I can see why Fullerton wanted the GWFC teams...it has more to do with academics than athletics.
South Dakota was at 963 so USD would have made it 4 GWFC teams in the top 5 of the conference in football.

I think that you are looking at old numbers. This must be the old 4 year average and it is defiantly not last years average. This was posted on athletic board for ISU. http://www.isubengals.com/news/2012/6/2 ... 23013.aspx I would not measure the strengths of a university by the academics of its athletic department. The APR rating is affected by more than grads. If a program has students that leave the program it counts against them if a student does not graduate even if they have high grads it counts against them. This was taken from another article on the athletic board” The Idaho State football team continues to excel in the classroom. In the just completed spring semester the Bengal football team had a 3.16 GPA, the highest-ever, topping the 3.06 the team had in the fall.

Since Mike Kramer was hired as head coach of the Bengal football program, the team has improved its GPA each semester. In the spring of 2011 the team earned a 2.84 and that was followed up by the 3.06 in the fall of 2011.

The ISU football program had 53 of 79 student-athletes earn a 3.0, up from the 51 of 81 in the fall and 30 of 63 student-athletes in the spring of 2011. “

Find me another school in the BSC with better numbers.
http://www.isubengals.com/news/2012/5/2 ... h=football

Not bad as a conference

Sapper wrote:I think that you are looking at old numbers. This must be the old 4 year average and it is defiantly not last years average. This was posted on athletic board for ISU. http://www.isubengals.com/news/2012/6/2 ... 23013.aspx I would not measure the strengths academics of a university by the athletic departments. The APR rating is affected by more than grads. If a program has students that leave the program it counts against them if a student does not graduate even if they have high grads it counts against them. This was taken from another article on the athletic board” The Idaho State football team continues to excel in the classroom. In the just completed spring semester the Bengal football team had a 3.16 GPA, the highest-ever, topping the 3.06 the team had in the fall.

Since Mike Kramer was hired as head coach of the Bengal football program, the team has improved its GPA each semester. In the spring of 2011 the team earned a 2.84 and that was followed up by the 3.06 in the fall of 2011.

The ISU football program had 53 of 79 student-athletes earn a 3.0, up from the 51 of 81 in the fall and 30 of 63 student-athletes in the spring of 2011. “

Find me another school in the BSC with better numbers.
http://www.isubengals.com/news/2012/5/2 ... h=football

The date of the report is 6/16/2012. Those are the latest. The numbers I used are the multiyear APR.
ISU's 2010-2011 APR for that year is 903.

I'm a little confused as to why Montana's multi-year APR is 929 when all of the single-year APRs are higher than that ('10-'11: 948; '09-'10: 950; '08-'09: 936). Unfortunately, the single-year numbers aren't listed prior to '08-'09.

My only guess is that the '07-'08 numbers are much lower than the prior ones that are now not included (the math says 882 if there are no errors). If true, though, the multi-year APR is unlikely to drop when the '11-'12 numbers are added in since those replace '07-'08. This also means whatever academic problems the Griz have actually occurred 4+ years ago and not now (though who knows what the '11-'12 numbers will say).

And Montana fans give EWU shit for accepting non-qualifiers...

Suck it!

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:And Montana fans give EWU shit for accepting non-qualifiers...

Suck it!

Probably all the Washington natives bringing us down.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:And Montana fans give EWU shit for accepting non-qualifiers...

Suck it!

Probably all the Washington natives bringing us down.

Yep…

Smartest State Rankings

# 1 Vermont:
# 2 Connecticut:
# 3 Massachusetts:
# 4 New Jersey:
# 5 Maine:
# 6 Minnesota:
# 7 Virginia:
# 8 Wisconsin:
# 9 Montana:
# 10 New York:
# 11 Pennsylvania:
# 12 Nebraska:
# 13 Kansas:
# 14 Iowa:
# 15 New Hampshire:
# 16 Rhode Island:
# 17 Wyoming:
# 18 South Dakota:
# 19 Maryland:
# 20 North Dakota:
# 21 Missouri:
# 22 North Carolina:
# 23 Colorado:
# 24 Texas:
# 25 Delaware:
# 26 Indiana:
# 27 Michigan:
# 28 Idaho:
# 29 South Carolina:
# 30 Washington:
# 31 Ohio:
# 32 Illinois:
# 33 Utah:
# 34 West Virginia:
# 35 Kentucky:
# 36 Florida:
# 37 Arkansas:
# 38 Oregon:
# 39 Oklahoma:
# 40 Georgia:
# 41 Tennessee:
# 42 Hawaii:
# 43 Alabama:
# 44 Alaska:
# 45 Louisiana:
# 46 California:
# 47 Nevada:
# 48 New Mexico:
# 49 Mississippi:
# 50 Arizona:

Grizalltheway wrote:

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:And Montana fans give EWU shit for accepting non-qualifiers...

Suck it!

Probably all the Washington natives bringing us down.

Defies logic, since EWU's roster primarily consists of WA kids. It's likely that WA kids are keeping UM's APR barely above satisfactory.

I'm sure not happy with that multi-year football 920. That's an average of 2007-2011. That includes 3 years of the wretched previous coach, who paid no attention to academic performance. Since Burton has come in it's been considerably better. I can't find the 2010-2011 score, but it must be high - over 950 - since we didn't get any penalties. Football tends to be low. In 2010-2011 nine of our fifteen sports were a perfect 1000, including men's basketball. Women's teams are always good - softball, volleyball, cross country and tennis were all 1000s. On the multi-year, volleyball was 983, women's basketball was 973. Why are the women so all-fired good at academics?

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Probably all the Washington natives bringing us down.

Yep…

Smartest State Rankings

# 1 Vermont:
# 2 Connecticut:
# 3 Massachusetts:
# 4 New Jersey:
# 5 Maine:
# 6 Minnesota:
# 7 Virginia:
# 8 Wisconsin:
# 9 Montana:
# 10 New York:
# 11 Pennsylvania:
# 12 Nebraska:
# 13 Kansas:
# 14 Iowa:
# 15 New Hampshire:
# 16 Rhode Island:
# 17 Wyoming:
# 18 South Dakota:
# 19 Maryland:
# 20 North Dakota:
# 21 Missouri:
# 22 North Carolina:
# 23 Colorado:
# 24 Texas:
# 25 Delaware:
# 26 Indiana:
# 27 Michigan:
# 28 Idaho:
# 29 South Carolina:
# 30 Washington:
# 31 Ohio:
# 32 Illinois:
# 33 Utah:
# 34 West Virginia:
# 35 Kentucky:
# 36 Florida:
# 37 Arkansas:
# 38 Oregon:
# 39 Oklahoma:
# 40 Georgia:
# 41 Tennessee:
# 42 Hawaii:
# 43 Alabama:
# 44 Alaska:
# 45 Louisiana:
# 46 California:
# 47 Nevada:
# 48 New Mexico:
# 49 Mississippi:
# 50 Arizona:

New Jersey is in the top 5. Real credible ranking.

DEFINITION: "This fourth Smartest State designation is awarded based on 21 factors chosen from Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book, Education State Rankings, 2005-2006. Featuring four new factors, this year’s award de-emphasizes spending for public schools and instead measures states based on student achievement, positive outcomes and personal attention from teachers." - Morgan Quitno Press

Glad teachers in Montana showed more "attention" to their students in 2005-2006. If the coaching at staff at UM did the same, maybe there wouldn't be so much rape. Then again, there might be a lot more.

The '07-'08 year was dragging us down. It's gone next year

Of course we do still have all those incoming WA players to bring the numbers back down...

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote: Glad teachers in Montana showed more "attention" to their students in 2005-2006. If the coaching at staff at UM did the same, maybe there wouldn't be so much rape. Then again, there might be a lot more.

Burn...too soon though?

frinq wrote:I'm sure not happy with that multi-year football 920. That's an average of 2007-2011. That includes 3 years of the wretched previous coach, who paid no attention to academic performance. Since Burton has come in it's been considerably better. I can't find the 2010-2011 score, but it must be high - over 950 - since we didn't get any penalties. Football tends to be low. In 2010-2011 nine of our fifteen sports were a perfect 1000, including men's basketball. Women's teams are always good - softball, volleyball, cross country and tennis were all 1000s. On the multi-year, volleyball was 983, women's basketball was 973. Why are the women so all-fired good at academics?

That's the problem with the APR system as we know it. You have a SHORT string of bad academic years (say the coaching staff and the compliance folk weren't doing their jobs), and the previous good years balance it out until they're dropped off. At some point, someone puts their foot down, and classroom performance improves, but those bad years come back to bite you in the rear AFTER the problem has been fixed. So, you get punished AFTER you already fixed the problem. UCONN is reaping the "rewards" of the NCAA's stupid system as we speak.

Yes, we want kids to do well in the classroom. But THIS method isn't the way to do it. Kids are getting screwed over by PREVIOUS kids who didn't give a rip. And THAT is NOT fair.

You do have a point, Super. But the NCAA works on trends, not individuals. Graduation rates take time to show up. I'm not sure it would be fair to penalize a school for one flukey year of grades.

And after thinking about it, I'll answer my own question. Women have no pie-in-the-sky-after-graduation to distract them; they're more likely to balance academics with athletics. Young men are easily distracted with dreams of the NFL/NBA pot of gold, never mind the grades and school.

That may be true GENERALLY, frinq, but not in every case. At UOP, we had a quarterback who was an engineering major; UOP is considered to be one of the best engineering schools in our area. He got outstanding grades in a tough program despite having to bail out two fifth-year seniors as a redshirt freshman. After the team got the boot, he took New Mexico to a couple of bowl games before having a cup of coffee in the XFL. He was looking at a professional opportunity, yet excelled in the classroom.

Of course, he just might be the exception that proves the rule. But nowadays, I see better grades on football teams everywhere than there were before, and they're doing it with courses that are decidedly NOT underwater basketweaving. You HAVE to have a brain to handle the complex offenses and defenses we foist on kids these days, and for the most part they're holding up their end of the bargain. You can't help the team ON the field if you're not working your butt off OFF the field. Most student-athletes have learned that lesson. We just have to help those who are struggling, boot those who don't care, and have the wisdom to know the difference.

frinq wrote:You do have a point, Super. But the NCAA works on trends, not individuals. Graduation rates take time to show up. I'm not sure it would be fair to penalize a school for one flukey year of grades.

And after thinking about it, I'll answer my own question. Women have no pie-in-the-sky-after-graduation to distract them; they're more likely to balance academics with athletics. Young men are easily distracted with dreams of the NFL/NBA pot of gold, never mind the grades and school.

Most of these young men are using this as a way to escape to a better life and were never told about academics to begin with and unfortunately that part of their college life suffers.Then when they no longer hear 70,000 ppl screaming their names in football stadiums they have a difficult time adjusting to life without sports and that is where academics should have kicked in.

SuperHornet wrote:That's the problem with the APR system as we know it. You have a SHORT string of bad academic years (say the coaching staff and the compliance folk weren't doing their jobs), and the previous good years balance it out until they're dropped off. At some point, someone puts their foot down, and classroom performance improves, but those bad years come back to bite you in the rear AFTER the problem has been fixed. So, you get punished AFTER you already fixed the problem. UCONN is reaping the "rewards" of the NCAA's stupid system as we speak.

Yes, we want kids to do well in the classroom. But THIS method isn't the way to do it. Kids are getting screwed over by PREVIOUS kids who didn't give a rip. And THAT is NOT fair.

I tend to agree. I think we see this in a lot of things; by the time violations and problems can be reported, those responsible are gone and we simply penalize those that weren't part of the problem.

On the other hand, I think that because schools know they will be penalized, we see more efforts to prevent this and thus the academic quality of student-athletes has been improving.