Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
Yeah, and I don't think there's a huge difference between a 990 score and a perfect 1000. As you said, it means we scored 99 out of a possible 100 points. If I'm understanding the calculation correctly, a player who successfully completes two semesters of school with the intent on returning the following year (or who graduates, or leaves for the NBA) earns four points (two for each semester). So out of 25 player-years there was one semester in which a player either didn't remain academically eligible or did not return. Not exactly an embarrassment. The NCAA minimum for a school is 925, which would be like 7-8 eight instances of this happening across 25 player-years.
Here is the link that is relevant to Duke (see below) and some comments.

A student that is in good standing but does not return for the second semester earns 1 out of 2 points (Olek Czyz). This is case SA2.
If the student athlete completes a year in good standing and then transfers that is case SA3 (Mike G) and earns 3 of 4 points. So Mike's transfer will count against Duke's APR in the future as does Olek's.

What is interesting is that there is no explicit case mentioned about leaving early to go pro, but this could be similar to SA3 so Kyrie and Austin would gain only 3 out of 4 points toward the APR or they may consider Kyrie and Austin as "graduates" and they gain 4 out of 4 points.

The overall message is that none of the Duke players left in poor standing (as far as we know) but the simple fact that Olek and Mike transfered counts against the APR.

This actually might be a "catch 22" for UConn. They can not play in the NCAAs next year due to a low APR. Most of their team is transfering so the APR will continue to be low.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArch...aa%2Bnews.html