APR | The Boneyard

APR

Status
Not open for further replies.
minidarren

minidarren

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,669
Reaction Score
6,554
Can someone please explain to me in a black/white simplistic way how UConn got into the situation that they found themselves in this year. I've read the articles but they all for the most part seem like they are written by haters. I need to explain to a dookie that they aren't banned due to the current players being illiterate.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
We were punished for very poor APR scores from 2008-2010. The team that won the national title in 2011 had a 979 APR - way, way above the minimum. Our scores since have been excellent, but not high enough to counter-balance the scores in the 800s that we had the two years prior.

There are some excuses for our poor years, but we also had some dum-dums.

We had already been docked two scholarships for our poor APR, and the NCAA then put in harsher retroactive punishments (including tourney bans), effective immediately, and refused to use new data when we appealed.
 
Its my understanding that no current players were to blame for the sub par scores. Is this correct?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
minidarren said:
Its my understanding that no current players were to blame for the sub par scores. Is this correct?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...
That is the understanding!
 
.-.
minidarren said:
Its my understanding that no current players were to blame for the sub par scores. Is this correct?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...

Yes - everyone responsible for our bad scores was gone when we won our national title in 2011. This year's team has zero seniors who would have been here in 2010 when we last had a bad score (Evans obviously wasn't here then).

Actually there is a caveat: Okwandu had issues in his first year in 2009, but sorted them and graduated - so he may have been part of our bad score in 2009 and our good score in 2011.
 
Gurleyman said:
Yes - everyone responsible for our bad scores was gone when we won our national title in 2011. This year's team has zero seniors who would have been here in 2010 when we last had a bad score (Evans obviously wasn't here then).

Actually there is a caveat: Okwandu had issues in his first year in 2009, but sorted them and graduated - so he may have been part of our bad score in 2009 and our good score in 2011.
Expand ...

Okwandu wasn't a part of any bad score since the APR has little to do with grades. He came in as a partial qualifier. Beyond that, however, the players don't need to maintain a 2.6 GPA.
 
GlastonTim said:
this may help, check out the Husky logo in the upper left corner.
http://www.theuconnblog.com/2012/4/24/2971329/what-uconns-apr-score-actually-measures
Expand ...

I would definitely not trust this article. He's making all sorts of suppositions about Majok and Miles which are untrue. A school can't be docked for situations such as Miles' since it would give perverse incentive for schools to refuse to expel players, for fear of poor APRs. So expelled players don't count. Of course, this may also create a perverse incentive to expel players who are doing badly in school by finding convenient non-academic rules violations.
 
The article explains the situation better than anything CBS, CNN, or any other news outlet has published. Its crazy that they just throw out scores, but don't research what got them there.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
minidarren said:
Can someone please explain to me in a black/white simplistic way how UConn got into the situation that they found themselves in this year. I've read the articles but they all for the most part seem like they are written by haters. I need to explain to a dookie that they aren't banned due to the current players being illiterate.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...

Every player gets 1 point for being eligible for the fall semester, 1 for being eligible for the spring semester.
Every player gets 1 point for returning for fall semester, 1 for returning for spring semester.

Essentially, this is almost like getting 400 points on the SAT for signing your name. If you're eligible and you return, you get double the credit.

All points earned are then divided by possible points earned (and multiplied by 1000 so that the final result looks like an official score -- SATs again -- rather than a % of people who successfully managed to fulfill the criteria).

Players who leave campus for the pros are exempted from all of this. Players who transfer need to maintain a 2.6 GPA. So the above article is incorrect on this, because it draws a distinction between those who leave for the pros and have minimal academic requirements versus transfers who must have at least a 2.6 GPA to receive a waiver from being counted. Jay Bilas hit on this as one of the absolute absurdities of the rule.

The biggest absurdity is that the APR has nothing to do with graduation, nothing to do with proceeding toward your degree.
 
What's Emmerts hangup with UConn. I know he was employed by the state, but was there a falling out?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
.-.
minidarren said:
The article explains the situation better than anything CBS, CNN, or any other news outlet has published. Its crazy that they just throw out scores, but don't research what got them there.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Expand ...

The article gets a lot wrong actually, but I did agree with the general gist. It totally missed though on the requirements for players who leave for the pros. They are not held to the GPA standards that transfers are. And, players expelled from school don't count either.
 
upstater said:
The article gets a lot wrong actually, but I did agree with the general gist. It totally missed though on the requirements for players who leave for the pros. They are not held to the GPA standards that transfers are. And, players expelled from school don't count either.
Expand ...

I am pretty sure that we were in fact severely penalized APR wise as a result of Miles' dismissal. We lost two APR points (what they call an 0 for 2) for each semester of that academic year. That was one of the most insane facts about this whole APR fiasco.
 
upstater said:
Okwandu wasn't a part of any bad score since the APR has little to do with grades. He came in as a partial qualifier. Beyond that, however, the players don't need to maintain a 2.6 GPA.
Expand ...

He wasn't eligible in the second semester, I'm pretty sure. Unless it was only temporary. He wasn't getting any playing time anyway, so he may have restored his eligibility and they just didn't play hom.
 
PRHusky said:
I am pretty sure that we were in fact severely penalized APR wise as a result of Miles' dismissal. We lost two APR points (what they call an 0 for 2) for each semester of that academic year. That was one of the most insane facts about this whole APR fiasco.
Expand ...

No, we looked into this last year. We weren't penalized. ZLS44 found the relevant regulation on this issue which states such a player shall not count against the APR.
 
.-.
Gurleyman said:
He wasn't eligible in the second semester, I'm pretty sure. Unless it was only temporary. He wasn't getting any playing time anyway, so he may have restored his eligibility and they just didn't play hom.
Expand ...

If you're below a 2.0 your first semester, you can't play at all your second. So, if he played at all, he was definitely eligible as far as the NCAA is concerned.
 
So are we completely confident that Roscoe, Alex and Bradley did not hurt APR and that Drummond/Lamb also had no effect?

If a player gets a point for being eligible to return plus a point for actually returning, that's (perhaps) 10 points above UConn didn't get. Are all 10 points recouped from new additions?

Sorry, my UConn degree is not sufficient to help me understand this arcane BS.
 
storrsroars said:
So are we completely confident that Roscoe, Alex and Bradley did not hurt APR and that Drummond/Lamb also had no effect?

If a player gets a point for being eligible to return plus a point for actually returning, that's (perhaps) 10 points above UConn didn't get. Are all 10 points recouped from new additions?

Sorry, my UConn degree is not sufficient to help me understand this arcane BS.
Expand ...

Last year's team did fine APR wise. The 2011 team's score was somewhere in the 975 range and it was reported that the 2012 team's score was in the same range.

All indications are that Lamb and Drummond left in good standing. Oriakhi's grades were very good. We might have lost a point for one of the other transfers.
 
storrsroars said:
So are we completely confident that Roscoe, Alex and Bradley did not hurt APR and that Drummond/Lamb also had no effect?

If a player gets a point for being eligible to return plus a point for actually returning, that's (perhaps) 10 points above UConn didn't get. Are all 10 points recouped from new additions?

Sorry, my UConn degree is not sufficient to help me understand this arcane BS.
Expand ...

You get waivers for transfers and players leaving early for the pros. So they simply do not count past the fall semester of last year. And someone reported that Roscoe had the GPA to transfer. Oriakhi had a high GPA. Drummond and Lamb )and every other player that leaves UConn for the pros in the future) did not negatively impact it because of the new (counter-educational) measures that UConn installed after the APR debacle. Such as mandatory intersession courses.

The NCAA only requires players to take 6 credits per session to be eligible. It doesn't say which session those credits must be taken in as long as the session coincides with a part of the bball season. Well, bball season is insanely long, so if you can get your players in intersession courses in late December/early January, they will have fulfilled their eligibility requirements. I'm certain this is what Kentucky does. I know UConn changed to this 2 years ago, but I'm not sure that the program is as radical as Kentucky's (i.e. do students not take Spring semester courses at UConn?) The session question is interesting because some schools are on trimester systems that end in February and start in late March. That's why the NCAA can't legislate which session counts. The NCAA also has trouble with this question when it slams schools like Cal. Tech that allow players 3 weeks to drop out of courses (and therefore they're not locked into the 6 credits while they begin play). The NCAA would seem to be encouraging Cal. Tech to place its athletes in intersession course instead (what a howl!).

I don't want to come down too hard on UConn for changing over to intersessions because now this is the rage all over America for regular students. As schools take big money hits, they are installing month-long intersession courses in January (no federal funding, no scholarship, must all be paid out of student pockets) which will be taught by part-timers earning $2500 per class. This is being advertised as "get out of school sooner." So, the lowered standards for athletes are also lower standards for students. More money for schools and less pay for staff.

My school did this. I start in late January next year, I believe the 28th. My spring break has been moved to the 3rd or 4th week (which means, if the BE had stayed together, I would have begun to miss the BET anyway, since every spring Break I got together with my brothers in NYC for the BET).
 
Here's a fact that minidarren should send that Duke fan's way.

Kentucky has a great APR.
Harvard scored below the APR threshold last year. HARVARD!!!!
 
.-.
storrsroars said:
So are we completely confident that Roscoe, Alex and Bradley did not hurt APR and that Drummond/Lamb also had no effect?

If a player gets a point for being eligible to return plus a point for actually returning, that's (perhaps) 10 points above UConn didn't get. Are all 10 points recouped from new additions?

Sorry, my UConn degree is not sufficient to help me understand this arcane BS.
Expand ...

Alex left in good academic standing (he was over a 3.0) and Michael Bradley was supposedly very smart - he came here planning to major in pharmacy, although I think he changed his mind and switched to finance before transferring. I never heard of any issues with Roscoe either. Drummond seemed to be taking care of business academically, and might not have even counted as a guy not getting a hoops scholarship.

Losing those points doesn't hurt you necessarily, other than a marginal percentage decrease. It means that instead of being, say, 38-40 (to make up a number) we'd be 28-30.
 
Gurleyman said:
Michael Bradley was supposedly very smart - he came here planning to major in pharmacy, although I think he changed his mind and switched to finance before transferring.
Expand ...

Michael Bradley transferred to Vincennes University which is a 2 year Junior College, so technically I think we lose a retention point regardless of how good a student he was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,378
Messages
4,569,208
Members
10,474
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom