Boy, did jacobs nail it today!

[HuskyBballFan]

No more bogus than the courses that some took before the APR. Remember the "Coaching basketball" course that Harrick's kid taught that had questions like how many points is a 3-pont field goal worth?Or BC sending its stars to the evening division? Or Providence giving Ernie D a Certificate of Attenance at graduation since he never came close to earning enough credits to graduate? All of those things pre-date APR, yet they all demonstrate that players directing players into "easy" courses or meaningless ones is nothing new. And for the kids who come just to play basketball for a season, what difference does it make anyway? They aren't there to get an education. They are there to polish their games and keep in the limelight until they become draftable. That is what I want to end. Bilas is wrong on this as he is on many other things. He is a mouthpiece for the major conferences who would be perfectly happy to not have anyone reviewing their practices (so they can go back to sending stars to night school and have them take bogus classes on "coaching" and award them certificates of attendance instead of diplomas.). I really think cohenzone totally gets it. for some reason, upstater, you are hung up on the APR. It isn't the APR that is the problem. It is a system that encourages players who have no more interest in being in college than the fire hydrant in front of my office does to show up on campus and pretend to be students for a few weeks every year. It is a rule that UCONN screwed up on but 300plus schools didn't.

You're the only person on the planet who thinks Jay Bilas doesn't know what he's talking about. Are you really that much smarter than everybody else?

 

[upstater]

No more bogus than the courses that some took before the APR. Remember the "Coaching basketball" course that Harrick's kid taught that had questions like how many points is a 3-pont field goal worth?Or BC sending its stars to the evening division? Or Providence giving Ernie D a Certificate of Attenance at graduation since he never came close to earning enough credits to graduate? All of those things pre-date APR, yet they all demonstrate that players directing players into "easy" courses or meaningless ones is nothing new. And for the kids who come just to play basketball for a season, what difference does it make anyway? They aren't there to get an education. They are there to polish their games and keep in the limelight until they become draftable. That is what I want to end. Bilas is wrong on this as he is on many other things. He is a mouthpiece for the major conferences who would be perfectly happy to not have anyone reviewing their practices (so they can go back to sending stars to night school and have them take bogus classes on "coaching" and award them certificates of attendance instead of diplomas.). I really think cohenzone totally gets it. for some reason, upstater, you are hung up on the APR. It isn't the APR that is the problem. It is a system that encourages players who have no more interest in being in college than the fire hydrant in front of my office does to show up on campus and pretend to be students for a few weeks every year. It is a rule that UCONN screwed up on but 300plus schools didn't.

You still don't get it no matter that it's been explained to you a thousand times. Schools are now beholden to producing these bogus courses and tracking all athletes (presumably in at -risk sports) into them precisely because graduating with a degree is now equivalent to finishing your spring semester in freshman year. There is enormous incentive now into doing this, and this is why UConn mandated 3 summer and intersession courses for students. The APR IS the problem in this case. You refuse to see the obvious.

 

[freescooter]

On Bilas, I don't agree with him. His argument isn't based on facts, it is based on his view that th emajors shoudl have freedom to act as they wish. I'm not smarter than him, but I'm also not paid to shill for the big programs. He also wants to pay players, he want the NCAA to eliminate automatic bids for conference champs and just give all 68 to the highest RPIs, thereby eliminating about 20 bids that go to smaller conferences, and he hates the APR and proposes that individual schools make their own rules, which led to the situation that caused the creation of the APR to begin with, and he wants to do away with the NCAA minimum standards for incoming freshmen, again leaving elibility decisions to individual schools. I happen to disagree with his logic on each of those points, all of which would work to the advantage of the major conferences, and the big time programs in particular. Please explain to me why you are so hung up on players who have no interst in staying beyond 1 year taking courses "that lead to a degree"...how are intersession and summer courses any more bogus than harrick's basketball course or BC sending athletes to the night school? You take English 101 in September or you take English 101 in a 6 week summer course, presuably it is still English 101. You admit a player with an 865 SAT because he can hit a mid-range jumper when everyone else has 1200 that kid's will likely struggle in the classrom anyway. Maybe he actually does better in the less pressured intersession or night school course. If you went back to a system where most or all athletes were actually students, were there for 4 years, there would be far less need for all the nonsense, but with programs like mens basketball where players neither intend nor even want to really even be there, most driveby players would likely have gone to the NBA right out of high school had they been allowed to do so, I'm not sure how the APR can pervert the system any more than it already is perverted.

 

[cohenzone]

I'm not busting your balls, but I really don't understand what this means. By adopting these rules, they've forced schools into putting students in classes that will not track them toward a degree. This means they become less students than they used to be.

I'm not meaning to bust on you either but do you really think that the APR system or any other NCAA mechanism forces colleges to put students in courses that will not track toward a degree? The sports factory schools for decades have been putting athletes into specialty majors that are guaranteed to keep them in school. I would think that if anything, whatever its flaws, the APR system forces schools to make students keep themselves in good standing (with the help of the school, coaches, whatever). And I totally understand that the APR method makes no distinction for schools that really want to game the system by having gut majors, using favored profs, cooking the books,whatever. UConn still somehow ran afoul of the system. I am not defending the NCAA's arbitrary administration practices or their adding new consequences to old violations, but I can't believe that UConn had the kind of hard time complying that it did because the system was hard to understand or flawed. Few schools had the kind of compliance problems UConn had.

To me, the greater issue within a corrupted supposedly academic setting, is whether a school should be held responsible for the academic shortcomings of individual student-athletes. If a school has support systems in place and uses them, I have a problem with them suffering consequences for the individual failure. But it takes several failures, a pattern if you will, if I understand the APR, before a school loses scholarships or post-season eligibility. An occasional failure doesn't cost the school. So the only way to explain UConn is either we take more kids than normal who have trouble sticking with it, we don't have the right systems in place, or we have the systems but don't use them well, or a combo of the above.

 

[freescooter]

upstater,

Your argument seems to rely on the belief that UCONN didn't game the system but every one else did. You might believe that but I'm not sure I do. I suspect that a relative few schools do, but you can't craft a system that a few schools won't game. That has been a part of college athletics almost since the beginning of college athletics. Read about George Gipp at Notre Dame in the 1920s...Great Athlete who was essentially a screw off but Notre Dame kept him in school and eligible. Or Vinve Lombardi who used to play for a semi-pro team in new Jersey under an assumed name while at Fordham...and was told to do it by the President of Fordham...For the 100th time, I don't really think the APR is a good system, but UCONN's failure to comply wasn't because they didn't try and game the system. It was because nobody thought it was important enough to be bothered with.

 

[upstater]

I'm not meaning to bust on you either but do you really think that the APR system or any other NCAA mechanism forces colleges to put students in courses that will not track toward a degree?

Yes, I do. As I understand it, they are making intersession and summer courses mandatory. Many such courses fulfill electives but if you're going to mandate 5 of them (as UConn is currently doing) you're going to run out of electives before the end of your freshman year. This means that sophomores will be spinning their wheels and elongating the time to degree because many of their classes will not count. Those classes will simply be keeping them eligible to play basketball. When UConn played in NYC over Christmas Break, they were traipsing around art galleries in NYC in fulfillment of a week course. More power to them, it's nice to spend a week playing basketball and looking at art, but you see the problem here. It doesn't get you closer to a degree. UConn just instituted this for the first time to address APR problems. It reminds me of what happened to Robert Smith at Ohio State when his coaches prevented him from taking Biology labs.

The main problem is that the aPR gives you as much credit for the one week classes as it does for graduating with a degree. Look up the scoring. Graduation is totally deemphasized, and therefore proceeding toward a degree is deemphasized.

 

[upstater]

upstater,

Your argument seems to rely on the belief that UCONN didn't game the system but every one else did. You might believe that but I'm not sure I do. I suspect that a relative few schools do, but you can't craft a system that a few schools won't game. That has been a part of college athletics almost since the beginning of college athletics. Read about George Gipp at Notre Dame in the 1920s...Great Athlete who was essentially a screw off but Notre Dame kept him in school and eligible. Or Vinve Lombardi who used to play for a semi-pro team in new Jersey under an assumed name while at Fordham...and was told to do it by the President of Fordham...For the 100th time, I don't really think the APR is a good system, but UCONN's failure to comply wasn't because they didn't try and game the system. It was because nobody thought it was important enough to be bothered with.

You continually misrepresent the facts and no matter how many times you're corrected, you continue to do so. There were 13 BCS schools that fell afoul of APR thresholds this season. They would have been banned if the NCAA instituted the rules this year. Why didn't the NCAA institute the rules for this year?

 

[UCFBfan]

for one thing, one-and-done doesn't really hurt you. You get a waiver for players who leave to enter the NBA draft. I think it is automatic, but if not, it is at least close to automatic. Thus, you don't lose points for the retention part of the APR. So when guys leave for the NBA, it is as if they graduated. As long as they leave in "good standing" it is fine.

Thanks for the clarification on the waiver for one and dones. I didn't realize they had and it makes sense that they do. No kid leaving for the NBA is going to finish the year. However, the "good standing" part is what I find absurd. I can't believe that a kid who knows he's one and done is spending any time in the classroom in the fall making sure they are in good standing. I guess they need to show something or else you get a scenario like Syracuse and Fab Melo but honestly, one and dones are not going to class. I still just can't wrap my head around how schools like UK can not be in any danger of the APR ban. Heck, how close is Syracuse going to be to a post-season ban after this season? You can't tell me that Melo is leaving in "good standing" now that he's declared for the NBA.

I really wanna know how these other schools pull off this crap. At the same time, why didn't UConn do the same thing they're doing, whatever it may be. It's like we're a mid-major who doesn't get it. We're a prime time school who is in the spotlight. Why are they not making sure their s%^t is clean?

 

[upstater]

I really wanna know how these other schools pull off this crap. At the same time, why didn't UConn do the same thing they're doing, whatever it may be. It's like we're a mid-major who doesn't get it. We're a prime time school who is in the spotlight. Why are they not making sure their s%^t is clean?

First, Syracuse failed in the same way UConn did. It's just that the timeframe under scrutiny is different. Second, what do you mean by clean? You call for schools to do what Kentucky is doing, but what does that have to do with clean?

 

[Mr.Phat]

You obviously have no idea what this "APR business" is all about do you?

Enlighten me wizard. APR is a metric which measures progress in moving players towards graduation. I assume you agree that getting a diploma should be one of the high priorities of all UConn players and coaches. Calhoun can't force players to perform academically to meet this metric but why is it that most other Div I schools are meeting the threshold yet UConn finds it so difficult to do so? Are the players especially dumb?

UConn knew that the APR existed and that the NCAA took it seriously. Why is it that all other sports at UConn didn't seem to have difficultly meeting the threshold, yet basketball did? I am guessing but it seems to me that coaching staff carelessness or indifference had something to do with it. Increased vigilance and leadership by coaches on the subject of the APR might have motivated the players more and prevented this from happening. Calhoun said as much, that he took full responsibility for the situation. If that comment was just meant to be eyewash for the public, political spin, then he probably shouldn't have said it.

By the way, for all Ollie lovers, Butler as of last year had a perfect 1000 APR.

Stevens.

 

[upstater]

Enlighten me wizard. APR is a metric which measures progress in moving players towards graduation.

It does not. how do you figure it does that. We've shown here over and over again that it doesn't do this at all. It only measures whether you are eligible for the next semester. But given the fact that you get points for finishing each semester and no extra points for graduation, it doesn't measure progress toward a degree at all.

As we've said, you're much better off with a one and done player than you are with a Gavin Edwards type who has advanced toward his degree for 3 1/2 years and then leaves midway through the spring semester.

 

[uconnfan68]

My niece, while in the honors program the last four years, has tutored football and basketball players, and she reports to a supervisor who reports to a coach.

There is a difference between the coaches in each sport. I know for a fact, that RE contacted her about progress of certain players (once by e-mail during Easter weekend). When players were suspended from Spring practice or season games because of academics, all she said was "RE was tough on academics".

I know for a fact this past Fall one of the basketball players failed to show for at least three sessions.......and this was also reported to a supervisor who reports to the coach. I can't recall the last time JC suspended a student for academic reasons.

While she couldn't name the students she was tutoring for confidentiality reasons, in the case of both sports she said some of the players were active participants and others were bench warmers.

I think the APR responsibility falls squarely on JC's shoulders, because it seems UConn was providing teams and players with academic support.

RE had to be tougher on academics. He needed those kids for 4-5 years. The best ones left after 3. In basketball, that's almost like graduating.

 

[uconndoit]

They should offer a general sports studies major - involving the medical, training, psychological, strategic, administrative aspects of an athlete's chosen sport. A real major but one closely related to what athletes are interested in. Athletes who chose this major would also get credit for time spent on their sport - training, practices, team meetings, etc.

 

[upstater]

They should offer a general sports studies major - involving the medical, training, psychological, strategic, administrative aspects of an athlete's chosen sport. A real major but one closely related to what athletes are interested in. Athletes who chose this major would also get credit for time spent on their sport - training, practices, team meetings, etc.

They couldn't do that stuff about training, etc. For obvious reasons. It would set a precedent throughout the university. But secondly, they already do offer degrees in sports management, etc. The problem for students who have no interest in academics is that universities are not actually vocational training grounds. We can pretend they are, but when you come right down to it, the number of courses taken in a major (presumably some of these can be interpreted to be vocational training) are still less than the number of courses you take throughout the university.

The last problem is that degrees are only awarded by departments with vested and credentialed full-time faculty. I'm struggling to think how a school would find such people, where did they receive their training?

It's not a bad idea overall, but you couldn't give credit for playing/practice, the degree wouldn't be about a specific sport but rather the sports profession in general, and students would still have to take a huge number of electives and requirements elsewhere.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Why is it that all other sports at UConn didn't seem to have difficultly meeting the threshold, yet basketball did?

Uconn didn't lose APR points because the players are dumb. They lost APR points because players left school for basketball reasons - either to pursue a professional career or to get more playing time at another school.

You ask why the other Uconn programs never have APR problems. How many field hockey players leave school early to turn professional? How many golfers and swimmers transfer because they're unhappy with playing time? The rules are stacked against men's basketball. The best players are always a threat to leave for the pros and the guys at the end of the bench are always a threat to leave for greener pastures.

We had terrible scores in 2009-2010 for a variety of reasons. It was a perfect storm from a roster standpoint - we had underclassmen leave early for the pros, we had seniors who were borderline NBA prospects who chose to focus on the pre-draft camps, and we had numerous guys transfer because they weren't good enough to play at Uconn. Those are the reasons why our APR was bad - and you'll notice that they don't have much to do with academics.

 

[freescooter]

You continually misrepresent the facts and no matter how many times you're corrected, you continue to do so. There were 13 BCS schools that fell afoul of APR thresholds this season. They would have been banned if the NCAA instituted the rules this year. Why didn't the NCAA institute the rules for this year?

Because this year had already started when they made the rule, that's why. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Provide one example. 13 Schools fell afoul of the APR rules this year. They were fortunate in the sense that they recovered in time to avoid the most serious sanctions. You keep trying to present this as some plot to get UCONN and to undermine the academic integrity of college athletics. But my point is that witht he system now in place in high level college basketball, there is no integrity to undermine. And you refuse to acknowlege that UCONN and the men's basketball program have any culpability in this. they knew the rules, they knew they would be sanctioned if they failed ot comply. Yet they made no effort to comply. It isn't a great system, but it is the one we have. Over 300 schools managed to comply.

 

[Marty Jackson]

how is calipari going to get around the APR impact....

If each scholarship is worth 2 points, but a player leaving for the pro's is a 1-2, then isn't he eventually going to run into issue.

If you have 12 scholarships and three leave for the pro's, that's 875 on the APR:
9 went 2-2 or 18 pts
3 go 1-2 which is 3 pts
21 out of 24 is only 875.

conversely, if you have one player go 0-2, the highest score you can achieve is 916. unless i'm missing something, it's a slow death trap that Uconn won't exit too easily. For every scholarhip we're down, every player to leave or become ineligible only magnified. With 10 scholarships, if we have one 0-2 or two 1-2, the highest we can score is 900.

I still don't see how calipari isn't caught in this trap with so many leaving early, even if they are going to the pro's.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

how is calipari going to get around the APR impact....

If each scholarship is worth 2 points, but a player leaving for the pro's is a 1-2, then isn't he eventually going to run into issue.

If you have 12 scholarships and three leave for the pro's, that's 875 on the APR:
9 went 2-2 or 18 pts
3 go 1-2 which is 3 pts
21 out of 24 is only 875.

conversely, if you have one player go 0-2, the highest score you can achieve is 916. unless i'm missing something, it's a slow death trap that Uconn won't exit too easily. For every scholarhip we're down, every player to leave or become ineligible only magnified. With 10 scholarships, if we have one 0-2 or two 1-2, the highest we can score is 900.

I still don't see how calipari isn't caught in this trap with so many leaving early, even if they are going to the pro's.

A player leaving for the pros in good standing is a 1-1, not a 1-2. Also, the scores are based on a full year so both semesters count. In your scenario with 10 scholarships, the denominator would be 40.

 

[upstater]

Because this year had already started when they made the rule, that's why.

The basketball season hadn't started, and even if it had, why is that relevant at all? The postseason ban is looking at past years, the past years are over.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Provide one example. 13 Schools fell afoul of the APR rules this year.

You kept saying UConn is the only school that has had trouble. First time you acknowledged this is not the case is the sentence above.

They were fortunate in the sense that they recovered in time to avoid the most serious sanctions.

Recovery has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the NCAA arbitrarily choosing the period with which to begin applying the punishments. They didn't have to choose this year either.

You keep trying to present this as some plot to get UCONN and to undermine the academic integrity of college athletics.

On the former, I have? How so? On the latter, quite right. They are trying to undermine academic integrity to produce a facade of academic integrity.

But my point is that witht he system now in place in high level college basketball, there is no integrity to undermine.

Of course there is. It's crazy for you to think actual classes toward a degree are not important. That graduation should be deemphasized. That Gavin Edwards accomplished less in his academic career than Kentucky's one-and-doners. These are all outcomes produced by the aPR rule.

And you refuse to acknowlege that UCONN and the men's basketball program have any culpability in this. they knew the rules, they knew they would be sanctioned if they failed ot comply.

No they did not know the outcomes. This is another one of your misrepresentations.

Yet they made no effort to comply. It isn't a great system, but it is the one we have. Over 300 schools managed to comply.

It's totally brainless to say that a system that perverts academics is the only one we have. It would be better to do nothing. You sound like the people that would rather put any system in place even if it's a system that makes things worse. The whole aPR thing was a cynical ploy from the start produced by people who were receiving too much media heat from the likes of Derrick Z. Jackson and others.

 

[upstater]

A player leaving for the pros in good standing is a 1-1, not a 1-2. Also, the scores are based on a full year so both semesters count. In your scenario with 10 scholarships, the denominator would be 40.

Actually, in your scenario, the player is a 3-3. While the aPR score is computed after the season, you receive a point for eligibility and retention after each semester.

 

[Marty Jackson]

I thought there was an appeal process for players that go pro and how they impact the APR.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I thought there was an appeal process for players that go pro and how they impact the APR.

There is. If a player leaves in good academic standing, the school submits an "appeal" to the NCAA in order for the retention point for that player to not count against the school.

 

[Zorro]

After reading much material let me offer my unbias summary on Calhoun versus Calipari:

Calhoun - fierce Irish competitor
Calipari - total Scumbag

and for the hard of hearing

Calhoun - fierce Irish competitor
Calipari - total Scumbag

How's that again?