DI Board approves increased academic performance concept

[UNHWildCats]

Less than 24 hours after emerging from a landmark Presidential retreat, the Division I Board of Directors unanimously approved the concept of increasing the required academic performance of all teams and mandated that teams must meet those requirements in order to participate in any NCAA-sponsored championship or football bowl game.

NCAA President Mark Emmert touted the change as proof of the NCAA’s commitment to the academic success of all student-athletes. “This is about the academic performance of all of our students in all of our sports. This is about the academic expectations we have for all of our student-athletes.”

The board voted to raise the Academic Progress Rate benchmark from 900 to 930 and supported a penalty structure that will require teams to earn at least a 930 four-year, rolling APR in order to participate in postseason competition.

These changes stemmed from the two-day presidential retreat which concluded Wednesday and focused on improving intercollegiate athletics in a variety of ways: academics, fiscal responsibility and integrity. The presidents also directed NCAA President Mark Emmert to assemble whatever groups are necessary to codify the recommendations in all three areas discussed at the retreat.

“We have made some very significant recommendations that we want to turn into action. We will begin working on this immediately,” Emmert said. “We will come before this group no later than October with a clear action agenda to implement the ideas that were developed over the past two days. Some of that action began today.”

The presidents felt strongly that the academic principles be adopted swiftly and decidedly, with details to be finalized in October. The Board directed the Committee on Academic Performance to produce particulars about the new changes in academic requirements, including a timeline for phased-in implementation for both the new 930 benchmark and the penalty structure.

Currently, the most serious APR penalties are assessed when a team falls below a 900 four-year APR. The move to 930 will be significant, especially as it relates to championship participation.

The 930 APR predicts an approximately 50 percent Graduation Success Rate. Within the last year, the presidents on the Board stoutly affirmed a commitment to keeping the benchmark for penalties at a minimum 50 percent graduation rate. The relationship between the two rates had changed over the last several years as adjustments were made to improve the fairness of the APR.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... ce+concept" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jmufan]

According to this reporter these teams would have missed the NCAA tournament and or bowls

DavidTeelatDP David Teel
Seven bowl teams from last season do not have 930 APRs in latest #s. #Terps, NC State, BYU, Michigan, Tulsa, SoMiss and Louisville.
DavidTeelatDP David Teel
According to most recent APR #s, 10 teams from 2011 NCAA hoops t-ment would be ineligible, including UConn, Cuse, #FSU and Southern Cal.

[bluehenbillk]

OK - I guess this needs more clarification could it could potentially be a BIG deal. Do teams just need to beat a 930? Do they have to have a 4-year rolling average at 930? If it's the latter many schools could be effectively eliminated from postseason play before the season starts.

I went & looked at APR scores, these schools would be in some trouble, ranging from no shot to borderline:

FBS-
Maryland
Colorado
Louisville
USF
Minnesota
UAB
UTEP
Bowling Green
Kent
Temple
Buffalo
Akron
Toledo
San Diego St
Washington St
Ole Miss
FAU
FIU
La-Monroe
N Texas

FCS-
UC Sacramento
EWU
Idaho St
Montana St
Portland St
Charleston So
UMass
Bethune-Cookman
Del State
FAMU
Hampton
Howard
Morgan St
NC A&T
S Carolina St
Indiana St
Missouri St
Old Dominion
Youngstown St
Savannah St
CCSU
Robert Morris
Sacred Heart
Jacksonville St
SEMO
Tenn St
Ga Southern
Tenn-Chattanooga
W Carolina
McNeese St
Nicholls St
NW State
SE Louisiana
Stephen F Austin

[AZGrizFan]

I would have to think the new higher 930 rolling 4 year average would have to be grandfathered in.

[JayJ79]

no football player left behind.

[bluehenbillk]

I would have to think the new higher 930 rolling 4 year average would have to be grandfathered in.

Yep, supposedly would start 2016....

[cats2506]

OK - I guess this needs more clarification could it could potentially be a BIG deal. Do teams just need to beat a 930? Do they have to have a 4-year rolling average at 930? If it's the latter many schools could be effectively eliminated from postseason play before the season starts.

I went & looked at APR scores, these schools would be in some trouble, ranging from no shot to borderline:

FCS-
UC Sacramento
EWU
Idaho St
Montana St
Portland St

I think you have some old numbers

Just looking at Big Sky teams using the 09-10 multi year score I show that

ISU, PSU and WSU would fall below the 930

All the rest of the BSC is above 930
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

Football Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 953
Men's Basketball Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 947
Men's Cross Country Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 950
Men's Tennis Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 942
Men's Track, Indoor Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 959
Men's Track, Outdoor Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 958
Women's Basketball Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 981
Women's Cross Country Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 969
Women's Golf Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 992
Women's Soccer Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 984
Women's Swimming Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 979
Women's Tennis Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 983
Women's Track, Indoor Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 960
Women's Track, Outdoor Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 963
Women's Volleyball Northern Arizona University AZ 2009 - 2010 984

No problems there

[Grizalltheway]

Anyone else initially read this as "D1B approves..."?

[bluehenbillk]

OK - I guess this needs more clarification could it could potentially be a BIG deal. Do teams just need to beat a 930? Do they have to have a 4-year rolling average at 930? If it's the latter many schools could be effectively eliminated from postseason play before the season starts.

I went & looked at APR scores, these schools would be in some trouble, ranging from no shot to borderline:

FCS-
UC Sacramento
EWU
Idaho St
Montana St
Portland St

I think you have some old numbers

Just looking at Big Sky teams using the 09-10 multi year score I show that

ISU, PSU and WSU would fall below the 930

All the rest of the BSC is above 930
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's on a 4-year average, all those schools are either under 930 on a 4-year average or basically within a point or two of it....

GRR OK now you made my pull out the calculator, Oh & I missed Weber St somehow too:

Idaho St: 884
Weber: 885
CS-Sac 897
Montana St: 902
Portland St: 915
E Wash: 933

[JohnStOnge]

This is ridiculous. It was already out of hand and over the top. "The academic success of all student athletes" is not a realistic goal and if that's the goal it means unrealistic standards are going to be imposed. I don't see why these people think student athletes should be any more successful as a group than students in general are within their given demographic groups.

[CAA Flagship]

This is ridiculous. It was already out of hand and over the top. "The academic success of all student athletes" is not a realistic goal and if that's the goal it means unrealistic standards are going to be imposed. I don't see why these people think student athletes should be any more successful as a group than students in general are within their given demographic groups.

OK. Then they should only count SCHOLARSHIP athletes. Walk-ons pay their own way so they should be treated like the rest of the student body. Hey, speaking of student bodies, isn't it about time for a cheerleader pic thread?

[Mvemjsunpx]

I think you have some old numbers

Just looking at Big Sky teams using the 09-10 multi year score I show that

ISU, PSU and WSU would fall below the 930

All the rest of the BSC is above 930
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's on a 4-year average, all those schools are either under 930 on a 4-year average or basically within a point or two of it....

GRR OK now you made my pull out the calculator, Oh & I missed Weber St somehow too:

Idaho St: 884
Weber: 885
CS-Sac 897
Montana St: 902
Portland St: 915
E Wash: 933

I believe the listed numbers are already 4-year averaged (it says "multi-year rate"). I don't think you need to do it manually.

[Skjellyfetti]

Bad news for Georgia Southern's "return to glory."

[Skjellyfetti]

This is ridiculous. It was already out of hand and over the top. "The academic success of all student athletes" is not a realistic goal and if that's the goal it means unrealistic standards are going to be imposed. I don't see why these people think student athletes should be any more successful as a group than students in general are within their given demographic groups.

They shouldn't be. But, to compete in extracurricular activities... especially ones as demanding as D-I football... you should have your school work in order.

Having said that, the fact that transfers, folks that leave school in good standing, etc. hurts your APR is bullshit.

[cats2506]

I think you have some old numbers

Just looking at Big Sky teams using the 09-10 multi year score I show that

ISU, PSU and WSU would fall below the 930

All the rest of the BSC is above 930
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public ... ndex5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's on a 4-year average, all those schools are either under 930 on a 4-year average or basically within a point or two of it....

GRR OK now you made my pull out the calculator, Oh & I missed Weber St somehow too:

Idaho St: 884
Weber: 885
CS-Sac 897
Montana St: 902
Portland St: 915
E Wash: 933

Yes its a 4 year rolling average, but you dont average the 4 year average.

Montana States FB APR in 2010 was 954, but in 2010 the multi year rate (the rolling average of the last 4 years) was 932 which puts them above the cutoff.

the only way I get MSU at 902 (901.5 actually) is by averaging the last 4 years of the multi year average

I think you have a fundamental flaw in your process. rather than getting out your calculator just look for teams in 2010 that have a multi year rate below 930, in the big sky that is ISU (888 ), PSU(921) and WSU(913)

you boys back east sure do some funny math

[bluehenbillk]

Yep, you guys are right I was averaging the last 4-year averages, haha. Regardless many of those teams still have issues, because their last APR score for most is still below 930 & those above aren't above by much.

[Aho Old Guy]

Bad news for Georgia Southern's "return to glory."

For the record it should be noted that Appalachian should surpass Furman in APR this year


Take that, Vermin!

[wmtribe90]

This is ridiculous. It was already out of hand and over the top. "The academic success of all student athletes" is not a realistic goal and if that's the goal it means unrealistic standards are going to be imposed. I don't see why these people think student athletes should be any more successful as a group than students in general are within their given demographic groups.

The APR only tracks the progress of scholarship athletes. Scholarship student athletes don't have to work to help pay for their tuition, board, and books and they have access to support services, tuitors, counseling, etc., that the general student population doesn't. Most universities with low graduation rates suffer attrition because students can't afford to stay in school or are forced into the workforce to support themselves before they can complete college. This isn't nearly as much of a factor for scholarship athletes that go for free and incur no debt. Not unreasonable to require them to graduate at a level higher than the general student pop given their inherent advantages. Anybody that thinks the NCAA has been over-emphasizing academics hasn't been paying attention. I'm just glad they are finally doing something meaninful unlike the hostile and abusive mascot fiasco.

Edit: Just read that a 930 APR equates to roughlya 50% graduation rate. If a program can't graduate 50% of its scholarship players then they don't deserve to be in the post-season. Its embarassing that its taken the NCAA this long to address the biggest problem DI college athletics.

[wmtribe90]

This is ridiculous. It was already out of hand and over the top. "The academic success of all student athletes" is not a realistic goal and if that's the goal it means unrealistic standards are going to be imposed. I don't see why these people think student athletes should be any more successful as a group than students in general are within their given demographic groups.

They shouldn't be. But, to compete in extracurricular activities... especially ones as demanding as D-I football... you should have your school work in order.

Having said that, the fact that transfers, folks that leave school in good standing, etc. hurts your APR is bullshit.

It is my understanding that the APR does not take a hit when players leave the program (Pro career or transfer) as long as they are in good standing. This was a problem in the past hat has been corrected.

[biobengal]

Edit: Just read that a 930 APR equates to roughlya 50% graduation rate. If a program can't graduate 50% of its scholarship players then they don't deserve to be in the post-season. Its embarassing that its taken the NCAA this long to address the biggest problem DI college athletics.

It's just not that simple. I know ISU's situation and the problem is one of retention due to 3 consecutive 1 win seasons; obviously, this will affect retention and lead to a viscious feedback loop. Instead, APR tengentially addresses academics. As you suggest, 930 APR may be roughly 50% graduation rate, but this assumes a certain level of player retention.

To illustrate how bad player retention had been under the previous staff, it was noted on the Bengal board that only 4 players remain from Zamberlin's first recruiting class. Instead, ISU's competitive ability is affecting their academics, as strange as that sounds.

[biobengal]

It is my understanding that the APR does not take a hit when players leave the program (Pro career or transfer) as long as they are in good standing. This was a problem in the past hat has been corrected.

Unless the NCAA web page is not up to date, this doesn't appear to be true, as of June 10, 2010 these are the rules:

Stays at Institution in Good Academic Standing: 2
Stays at Institution in Poor Academic Standing: 1
Leaves Institution in Good Academic Standing: 1
Leaves Institution in Poor Academic Standing: 0

This from the NCAA:

Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one retention point for staying in school and one eligibility point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by one thousand to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate score.

[wmtribe90]

It is my understanding that the APR does not take a hit when players leave the program (Pro career or transfer) as long as they are in good standing. This was a problem in the past hat has been corrected.

Unless the NCAA web page is not up to date, this doesn't appear to be true, as of June 10, 2010 these are the rules:

Stays at Institution in Good Academic Standing: 2
Stays at Institution in Poor Academic Standing: 1
Leaves Institution in Good Academic Standing: 1
Leaves Institution in Poor Academic Standing: 0

This from the NCAA:

Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one retention point for staying in school and one eligibility point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by one thousand to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate score.

Also from the NCAA:

The Division I Committee on Academic Performance continues to examine data produced by the Academic Progress Rate and has adjusted the calculation over the years in response. Changes have included exceptions for student-athletes in good academic standing who leave school early to pursue a professional career, student-athletes who transfer to another school while meeting minimum academic requirements and student-athletes who return to graduate at a later date.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... calculated" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the above quote it seems to me that if players are leaving the Bengal program it shouldn't hurt your APR as long as they transfer to another school in good academic standing. I think the key here being that they enroll at another school and not just drop out. Maybe someone with more knowledge could give a definitive answer though.

[BDKJMU]

How many years do players have to graduate to count?

[clenz]

5 would be my guess due ti being able to redshirt....and the average student takin 4..5-5 years