2012-2013 4-year APR

[UrinalCake]

As for the drop in UNC's numbers, I think that's a function of the discovery and elimination of the fake classes and phony grades that artificially inflated the school's APR and graduation rate for years. With those classes finally eliminated, we're seeing how far UNC has pushed the academic envelope for football and basketball (and baseball) players.

The APR calculation uses an all-or-nothing point system. If a player is in good academic standing then he earns the school a point. Otherwise he doesn't. There is no difference between getting an A in a class or getting a C. So the question is, how many of UNC's players failed classes as a result of actually having to attend them? Which also speaks to McFinArl's question - how many Duke players had semesters when they weren't in good academic standing?

I can't find a definition anywhere of what the NCAA means by "good academic standing." Does failing one class take you out of that category? Is it not maintaining a minimum overall GPA? Or is it different for each school depending on their own grading system and the average grades of the overall (including non-athletes) student population? I haven't heard of any UNC or Duke students actually being declared academically ineligible in the past four years (maybe Will Graves would count?), but who knows what situations could have arisen that aren't made public for privacy reasons. And we don't know for sure which players who left early continued to keep up with their class work, for either school.

[Olympic Fan]

The APR calculation uses an all-or-nothing point system. If a player is in good academic standing then he earns the school a point. Otherwise he doesn't. There is no difference between getting an A in a class or getting a C. So the question is, how many of UNC's players failed classes as a result of actually having to attend them? Which also speaks to McFinArl's question - how many Duke players had semesters when they weren't in good academic standing?

I can't find a definition anywhere of what the NCAA means by "good academic standing."

Pretty sure that means the student completes the semester with the grade level that would allow him to enroll for the next semester without academic penalty.

On the whole, the NCAA allows schools to set their own standards for advancement ... but about a decade ago, they did establish minimum standards for the percentage of courses completed each year (the minimum is not quite one-fourth of the courses needed for graduation). One oddity -- the NCAA minimum only kicks in at the end of each school year ... not at the end of each semester. At a majority of schools, it's impossible to be academically ineligible after the first semester.

Duke is one of the rare schools that does impose academic penalties after one semester -- as Phil Henderson and Welden Williams can attest (and more recently Jela Duncan).

And UC, you are right that it makes no difference if a player has all A's or all C's ... and even an F or two doesn't necessarily cause a problem.

[cato]

UNC may be struggling now while they are under the media spotlight but for everyone else the NCAA sent a clear message in how they handled UConn vs UNC. It doesn't matter how you accomplish it, just don't embarrass us or call the student athlete facade into question. UK has a perfect APR. Nothing more needs to be said.

I don't like the insinuation that a perfect APR score for UK means the kids there are cheating. Could they be? Sure. So could kids at Duke.

If anyone has evidence of cheating, please share it. Otherwise, it is best to assume that the players at UK showed up and took care of business in the class room, just as they did on the court.

Now, if they had picked a school known for cheating, that would be different. But they made the decision to go to UK rather than UNC, so deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Henderson]

Pretty sure that means the student completes the semester with the grade level that would allow him to enroll for the next semester without academic penalty.

The two criteria for the APR are enrollment and good academic standing. To get full credit, a student-athlete needs to stay at the school and remain in good academic standing. If a player drops out of school while in good academic standing, that is half-bad for the school. If a player remains enrolled but is not in good academic standing, that's half-bad. If the player drops out of school while not in good academic standing, that's fully-bad. If a player leaves early to go pro, that doesn't count against the school if the player is in good academic standing when he leaves. But if the player leaves to go pro while not in good academic standing, the school gets the double-whammy: fully bad. I assume (but don't know) that the same rule applies to transfers.

What is "good academic standing" for NCAA purposes? The formula is complicated. It requires a minimum number of passing credits per term and a minimum number of passing credits per academic year. There is also a cumulative GPA requirement. And those requirements trend upward as a player continues in school. There is also a requirement that you declare a major by the third year. So at the end of each term, your cumulative and term numbers are measured against the criteria. And you either are or are not "in good academic standing." If not, your school's APR takes a hit, and every school has some sort of probation before a player has drifted all the way down to "academically ineligible.". But because of FERPA, schools don't release info about who is or is not in good academic standing at any given time, so we don't know how things are going in real time -- only when the prior year's APR comes out, and even then we don't know who the "bad apples" were who pulled the number down.

Because academic standing is calculated term by term and is based on GPA and credits successfully completed, a school could have 100% of its players graduate on time and still have a crappy APR. The converse is not true, however: If your players leave without graduating, your APR takes a hit, and doubly so if a player not in good academic standing drops out. Having a perfect APR means that every player every term has made satisfactory progress on the NCAA "good standing" criteria. It doesn't vouch for the types of classes (or even the bona fides of those classes) taken to get there.

[BD80]

... UNC is certainly well aware of how APR works and what goes into it. Unless something really unforeseen happens, they won't allow their APR to drop into the "skip the tourney" range.

-Jason "anyone know if JMM dropped out after declaring?" Evans

But it was my understanding that unc had no idea that its athletes were involved in taking paper classes.

How could they be completely aware on one hand and completely unaware on the other?

I beginning to think perhaps someone at unc has not been entirely forthright ...

[77devil]

UNC may be struggling now while they are under the media spotlight but for everyone else the NCAA sent a clear message in how they handled UConn vs UNC. It doesn't matter how you accomplish it, just don't embarrass us or call the student athlete facade into question. UK has a perfect APR. Nothing more needs to be said.

I don't like the insinuation that a perfect APR score for UK means the kids there are cheating. Could they be? Sure. So could kids at Duke.

If anyone has evidence of cheating, please share it. Otherwise, it is best to assume that the players at UK showed up and took care of business in the class room, just as they did on the court.

Now, if they had picked a school known for cheating, that would be different. But they made the decision to go to UK rather than UNC, so deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I almost fell off my chair when I read above that UK, The University of Kentucky, had a perfect APR. And, indeed, it is a school well known for cheating. But my equilibrium was restored when I determined that it was KU, The University of Kansas, instead of UK, that has a perfect score, though I still find it somewhat improbable.

[BigWayne]

But it was my understanding that unc had no idea that its athletes were involved in taking paper classes.

How could they be completely aware on one hand and completely unaware on the other?

I beginning to think perhaps someone at unc has not been entirely forthright ...

The guy I would like to have questioned under oath is Robert Mercer. I don't know why his name
doesn't come up more often in UNC scandal news stories.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/...res-fraud.html

[johnb]

The Daily Oklahoman is reporting that Oklahoma State is getting dinged for its football APR which barely missed the 930 (they got a 929.41; 0.09 higher and it would have been rounded up to 930).

Punishment? one fewer day of football practice throughout the season plus a reduction of two additional hours of practice/week. While not as bad as a bowl ban like that apparently received by UNLV and Idaho, it's pretty significant. As the article points out, penalties have been largely restricted to sports away from football. Hitting OSU, which lives for football, is a big deal.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...ctice-per-week

[MCFinARL]

The two criteria for the APR are enrollment and good academic standing. To get full credit, a student-athlete needs to stay at the school and remain in good academic standing. If a player drops out of school while in good academic standing, that is half-bad for the school. If a player remains enrolled but is not in good academic standing, that's half-bad. If the player drops out of school while not in good academic standing, that's fully-bad. If a player leaves early to go pro, that doesn't count against the school if the player is in good academic standing when he leaves. But if the player leaves to go pro while not in good academic standing, the school gets the double-whammy: fully bad. I assume (but don't know) that the same rule applies to transfers.

What is "good academic standing" for NCAA purposes? The formula is complicated. It requires a minimum number of passing credits per term and a minimum number of passing credits per academic year. There is also a cumulative GPA requirement. And those requirements trend upward as a player continues in school. There is also a requirement that you declare a major by the third year. So at the end of each term, your cumulative and term numbers are measured against the criteria. And you either are or are not "in good academic standing." If not, your school's APR takes a hit, and every school has some sort of probation before a player has drifted all the way down to "academically ineligible.". But because of FERPA, schools don't release info about who is or is not in good academic standing at any given time, so we don't know how things are going in real time -- only when the prior year's APR comes out, and even then we don't know who the "bad apples" were who pulled the number down.

Because academic standing is calculated term by term and is based on GPA and credits successfully completed, a school could have 100% of its players graduate on time and still have a crappy APR. The converse is not true, however: If your players leave without graduating, your APR takes a hit, and doubly so if a player not in good academic standing drops out. Having a perfect APR means that every player every term has made satisfactory progress on the NCAA "good standing" criteria. It doesn't vouch for the types of classes (or even the bona fides of those classes) taken to get there.

Thanks. I think this thorough explanation answers my question about Duke; I was assuming that if a player was not in "good academic standing" he would be ineligible for some period of time. But if that is not the case, clearly someone could have cost Duke a point or so along the way by having a bad semester and we would never know--which is as it should be. As long as the student is maintaining the academic standing necessary to play, it's none of our business.

I almost fell off my chair when I read above that UK, The University of Kentucky, had a perfect APR. And, indeed, it is a school well known for cheating. But my equilibrium was restored when I determined that it was KU, The University of Kansas, instead of UK, that has a perfect score, though I still find it somewhat improbable.

Well, it appears Kentucky does have an APR of 1000--but that is just for 2012-13. Their multi-year rate (these are the 4-year cumulative numbers that are, I believe, the ones published on the front page) for 2010-2013 is 989, which was a considerable jump from its previous score of 963. So clearly either last year was just an exceptional year for the program or they are paying closer attention to keeping it up, one way or another. I'm going to try to control my cynicism and give them the benefit of the doubt; the truth is it's no great challenge to eke out a pass in real classes at most schools, and certainly at state schools that serve a pretty broad range of the population, if you are careful about what classes you sign up for and actually complete the assignments. Obviously it gets harder if you stay in school longer and take higher-level classes.

[MCFinARL]

The Daily Oklahoman is reporting that Oklahoma State is getting dinged for its football APR which barely missed the 930 (they got a 929.41; 0.09 higher and it would have been rounded up to 930).

Punishment? one fewer day of football practice throughout the season plus a reduction of two additional hours of practice/week. While not as bad as a bowl ban like that apparently received by UNLV and Idaho, it's pretty significant. As the article points out, penalties have been largely restricted to sports away from football. Hitting OSU, which lives for football, is a big deal.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...ctice-per-week

What I like about this is that it is a penalty that is directly related to the problem--i.e., if there is less practice time, that is theoretically time athletes could spend keeping up with their school work.

[johnb]

Thanks. I think this thorough explanation answers my question about Duke; I was assuming that if a player was not in "good academic standing" he would be ineligible for some period of time. But if that is not the case, clearly someone could have cost Duke a point or so along the way by having a bad semester and we would never know--which is as it should be. As long as the student is maintaining the academic standing necessary to play, it's none of our business.



Well, it appears Kentucky does have an APR of 1000--but that is just for 2012-13. Their multi-year rate (these are the 4-year cumulative numbers that are, I believe, the ones published on the front page) for 2010-2013 is 989, which was a considerable jump from its previous score of 963. So clearly either last year was just an exceptional year for the program or they are paying closer attention to keeping it up, one way or another. I'm going to try to control my cynicism and give them the benefit of the doubt; the truth is it's no great challenge to eke out a pass in real classes at most schools, and certainly at state schools that serve a pretty broad range of the population, if you are careful about what classes you sign up for and actually complete the assignments. Obviously it gets harder if you stay in school longer and take higher-level classes.

While the UK coach has some chinks in his academic armor, I don't recall any particular negative junk about the Kentucky players over the past 5 or 10 years. More than one also received a Duke offer, and if they continue to go to classes in the spring when they know that they are going pro, more power to them...

[MCFinARL]

While the UK coach has some chinks in his academic armor, I don't recall any particular negative junk about the Kentucky players over the past 5 or 10 years. More than one also received a Duke offer, and if they continue to go to classes in the spring when they know that they are going pro, more power to them...

Yes, I agree--there were some questions about Eric Bledsoe, who just makes it into your 5-year time frame, but they pertained more to his qualifying record than his record once he got to Kentucky.

[rocketeli]

What I like about this is that it is a penalty that is directly related to the problem--i.e., if there is less practice time, that is theoretically time athletes could spend keeping up with their school work.

It could actually work in OSUs favor. Addition by subtraction, work expands to fill the time available, etc. etc. Practices will have to be more efficient, players will have less chance to be injured, and be better rested. Of course, they'll probably make the least of their opportunity by sneaking in "voluntary" work outs somewhere.

[Henderson]

It could actually work in OSUs favor. Addition by subtraction, work expands to fill the time available, etc. etc. Practices will have to be more efficient, players will have less chance to be injured, and be better rested. Of course, they'll probably make the least of their opportunity by sneaking in "voluntary" work outs somewhere.

I disagree. If holding fewer practices would benefit a team, a team could just hold fewer practices than allowed, and I'm sure they do. There is no advantage to OSU's team in having it forced on them. But as MCFinARL pointed out, it could allow for more book time, meaning it may benefit individual players in their course work.

Falling below the APR threshold is bad on a lot of fronts, but I think losing practice time is the least of it. It looks bad to recruits and their parents and is an embarrassment to the school. It also could lead to more serious consequences if the situation isn't improved. It also happens to be a very common compensation metric in head coaches' contracts.

[Kfanarmy]

I don't like the insinuation that a perfect APR score for UK means the kids there are cheating. Could they be? Sure. So could kids at Duke.

If anyone has evidence of cheating, please share it. Otherwise, it is best to assume that the players at UK showed up and took care of business in the class room, just as they did on the court.

Now, if they had picked a school known for cheating, that would be different. But they made the decision to go to UK rather than UNC, so deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Right because John Calipari has run clean programs everywhere he's been...No. Wait a minute. Maybe? What were you saying about UK?