Decision on Tourney Eligibility within 10 days

[HuskyBballFan]

If it is so impossible, then how come UCONN is the only major program in this situation? It is not impossible. The record indicates that it is quite the opposite. Trying to blame the NCAA or the APR is just letting UCONN off the hook, and the evidence suggests that they don't deserve to be let off the hook. Now the argument that they ought to allow the current year's data, is I think legitimate, but the rest of it is nothing more than trying to find someone else to blame for a problem that UCONN created for itself. Just like someone has to keep track of the cap room for an NFL team, someone has to keep track of APR for a college basketball team. 300 plus schools did it including some programs tha twould accept parking meters if they could hit a jumpshot. One major program did such a bad job that it is almost impossible to dig itself out even if it gets perfect scores. How you can act as if it is the NCAA's fault is simply beyond my ability to comprehend.

Again, Uconn is not the only school affected. We won't know who else is affected for 2013 until the 2011 scores are released in May. We do know that at least 13 other schools would have been affected in 2012 had the new rules been in place.

 

[freescooter]

So upstater, its your contention that UCONN is the only scool in the whole friggin' NCAA that doesn't make a farce out of academics? Please. The SAT scores of the teams that got us into this mess totally belies that point. When the University average was over 1100 and climbing, UCONN accepted basketball players in the 850 range according to its own filing with the NCAA. So I'm thinking that I wouldn't exactly try and make that argument, upstater.

 

[upstater]

https://twitter.com/#!/JayBilas/statuses/175243907209240577

Want coaches to kick problem players off the team? You take a hit on the NCAA mandated APR score! NCAA creates disincentive to discipline.

Bilas kicks the APR all the time, and yet apparently this isn't supposed to be discussed.

I do not agree with the way the NCAA deals with these issues. I am in favor of high academic standards, but I think the schools are fully capable of dealing with that issue on their own. The APR is, quite simply, a joke. There are unintended consequences to these measures, including students being encouraged to take the easy path and academic clustering. Different schools have different missions, and a one size fits all system will not work. The APR bans hurt the wrong people, and I believe any system that punishes retroactively is wrong. But, if the NCAA wants to make the APR the holy grail, fine. Whatever the bar is, people will clear it for the money. Education, however, will not be served. There is a big difference between education and graduation or APR numbers. Thanks for the question.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Don't have to ask nicely. Repeated phone calls, calls to the parents, etc.

I'd imagine that any player in that situation would discuss the decision with his parents and they would likely be on the same page. I'm sure those phone calls took place and I'm also pretty confident that they didn't make a difference.

 

[upstater]

So upstater, its your contention that UCONN is the only scool in the whole friggin' NCAA that doesn't make a farce out of academics? Please. The SAT scores of the teams that got us into this mess totally belies that point. When the University average was over 1100 and climbing, UCONN accepted basketball players in the 850 range according to its own filing with the NCAA. So I'm thinking that I wouldn't exactly try and make that argument, upstater.

You still don't get it. It's crazy. UConn only failed at this because they hadn't yet perverted the whole point of education. Did you read my earlier post? Did you read the waiver UConn sent to the NCAA? That's what I was referencing? So how does UConn get its scores up so quickly? Does it have anything to do with going to art galleries in NYC after Xmas? Does it have anything to do with MANDATORY intersession courses? That was part of UConn's pitch to the NCAA for the waiver. It's crazy that you don't understand this.

 

[caw]

But so what? I mean, the guy went to college for 3 1.2 years, and then flubbed it. At that point, it's on him. But still, that makes him more of a student than Brandon Knight. That's my point.

People in charge of making sure students finish classes? Wha? How can you force a grown man to sit in class?

The way to make sure they finish classes is to make up bogus 1 week classes and force players to take those long before the NCAA tournament. An intersession course right before the Spring semester may qualify you for the spring. But that's a total perversion of education.

I don't disagree with this. The APR sucks.

The problem is UConn knew it sucked and knew how it worked. UConn knew there would be sanctions for non-compliance with the APR. They didn't know this insanely new rule would come about, but they knew there would be sanctions. UConn still did not do a good enough job of making sure these kids were set when they left. UConn should have been calling anyone they needed to call to get these kids to finish their work. If it ends up a perversion of education, so be it. UConn should have been able to make sure kids who were seniors would be leaving within compliance with NCAA rules. Freshman/Sophomores/Juniors I understand not getting it right, but Seniors should have been on pace to graduate (within NCAA rules).

 

[caw]

I'd imagine that any player in that situation would discuss the decision with his parents and they would likely be on the same page. I'm sure those phone calls took place and I'm also pretty confident that they didn't make a difference.

Right, because the whole AO saga obviously showed that the kids and parents were on the same page. Even the parents weren't on the same page.

 

[freescooter]

Someone already pointed out that there were three other schools that didn't make the grade but you continue to ignore it. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the fact that the whole measurement is totally bogus and anti-educational. You're essentially criticizing UConn for not perverting learning quick enough. That's farcical.

I'm not ignoring anything...there were over 300 that did make the grade. And you keep arguing that everyone else "perverts the educational process'" which you know is totally bogus as well. A few schools do I'm sure, but over 300? Serioulsy? If that's the case than we really need to close this entire college basketball enterpise down as quickly as possible. Look, I'm not saying the APR is a good measure or a bad measure. I've heard arguments on both sides. I've spoken to Walter Harris about it and heard him speak about it at a couple of functions, and he defends it as a reasonable measure, so clearly, upstater, not everyone agrees with you that it is either bogus or anti-educational. But that is beside the point in a way. It is that it is the measure the NCAA agreed to use. As such it is incumbent on UCONN to make a major effort to comply. I do not believe that the athletic department did that for the men's basketball team. And blaming the measuring device or the NCAA does not change that simple fact.

 

[Gurleyman]

If it is so impossible, then how come UCONN is the only major program in this situation? It is not impossible. The record indicates that it is quite the opposite. Trying to blame the NCAA or the APR is just letting UCONN off the hook, and the evidence suggests that they don't deserve to be let off the hook. Now the argument that they ought to allow the current year's data, is I think legitimate, but the rest of it is nothing more than trying to find someone else to blame for a problem that UCONN created for itself. Just like someone has to keep track of the cap room for an NFL team, someone has to keep track of APR for a college basketball team. 300 plus schools did it including some programs tha twould accept parking meters if they could hit a jumpshot. One major program did such a bad job that it is almost impossible to dig itself out even if it gets perfect scores. How you can act as if it is the NCAA's fault is simply beyond my ability to comprehend.

It was a very small window of players. Our APR was fine from 2005-09. Then it was god-awful for two years. Now it's excellent. The bad years involved a few guys that the staff should have responsibility for - Darius Smith, who probably shouldn't have been recruited. Jonathan Mandeldove, who was on scholarship but not playing during those years (what more can a school do?). Gavin Edwards should have graduated, but philosophically I can live with the guys who leave a few credits unfinished to take their best shot at the pros. But then there's some unusual circumstances: Nate Miles - who was an 0-2 but based on something entirely different than academics. Stanley Robinson, who was only in school for seven semesters because of a personal leave of absence. A.J. Price, who missed a year and fell behind academically when he almost died. Don't know if Thabeet withdrew from classes after declaring, but that would be another hit. As would Ater Majok. All these things happen in a small window of time and your APR plummets. But if you bounce back from it as quickly as we did, it shows that a brief low APR isn't a true representation of the program - it's just an outlier.

Our other mistake in not gaming the system all along, has been in having the revolving door at the end of the bench. We keep taking flyers on the Haralsons, Eaves, Smiths, Trices, etc. who we let go (even going back to Chad Wise, Robert Swain, and others). If you use your last two scholarships on good students from Connecticut who would be happy to wave a towel for four years for good ol' state U and get a degree, you end up giving yourself from cushion. That's what the North Carolinas of the world do (you saw one of them - Stilman White - who actually had to play).

 

[upstater]

I don't disagree with this. The APR sucks.

The problem is UConn knew it sucked and knew how it worked. UConn knew there would be sanctions for non-compliance with the APR. They didn't know this insanely new rule would come about, but they knew there would be sanctions. UConn still did not do a good enough job of making sure these kids were set when they left. UConn should have been calling anyone they needed to call to get these kids to finish their work. If it ends up a perversion of education, so be it. UConn should have been able to make sure kids who were seniors would be leaving within compliance with NCAA rules. Freshman/Sophomores/Juniors I understand not getting it right, but Seniors should have been on pace to graduate (within NCAA rules).

I can't get upset because a school didn't pervert its educational mission quickly enough.

 

[upstater]

I'm not ignoring anything...there were over 300 that did make the grade. And you keep arguing that everyone else "perverts the educational process'" which you know is totally bogus as well. A few schools do I'm sure, but over 300? Serioulsy? If that's the case than we really need to close this entire college basketball enterpise down as quickly as possible. Look, I'm not saying the APR is a good measure or a bad measure. I've heard arguments on both sides. I've spoken to Walter Harris about it and heard him speak about it at a couple of functions, and he defends it as a reasonable measure, so clearly, upstater, not everyone agrees with you that it is either bogus or anti-educational. But that is beside the point in a way. It is that it is the measure the NCAA agreed to use. As such it is incumbent on UCONN to make a major effort to comply. I do not believe that the athletic department did that for the men's basketball team. And blaming the measuring device or the NCAA does not change that simple fact.

Haha! Walter Harrison, first of all, not Walter Harris. And he's a freakin' NCAA bigwig! What do you expect him to say? Herbst thinks its bogus. Bilas does. It's bogus plain and simple but you refuse to admit it.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Right, because the whole AO saga obviously showed that the kids and parents were on the same page. Even the parents weren't on the same page.

Come on. So the Oriakhi's are the typical family all of a sudden?

I'm not arguing that Calhoun and others should have reached out to the parents. I'm arguing that they probably did reach out, and it probably didn't have any impact.

 

[freescooter]

Bilas is full of it. He doesn't want any NCAA admission standards either. And he argues that there is nothing that can be done about 1-and-done. And that players should be paid. And that only major programs should get NCAA bids. He is nothing but a shill for the big programs. The fact that he has a law degree does nothing to make him less of a shill. Look, I would favor much higher academic standards for admission, and I favor ending 1-and-done by making scholarships unavailable until the recipeint's class graduates, and I favor requiring admission of athletes to reasonably track with the overall student body such that someone with an SAT score of 800 wouldn't get into Gampel without buying a ticket. And for that matter, reorganizing the NCAA tournament such that an eastern team never plays in Phoenix on a Thursday night and a team from California would't ever play in Boston unless one of those cities was hosting th efinal four. In a perfect world, universities wouldn't pervert the educational system by accepting students they know have zero intention of staying to actually graduate, and wouldn't line them up in phony courses and give them phony grades. But since we've seen universities do all these things it became necessary for the NCAA to step in. Now at least there is some standard. You have made very clear that you think it is a bad standard, but I'm not sure it is any worse than what went on before. Guys a tsome schools getting degrees without taking classes or having grades changed by adminsitrators to keep players eligilble, for example.

 

[freescooter]

Haha! Walter Harrison, first of all, not Walter Harris. And he's a freakin' NCAA bigwig! What do you expect him to say? Herbst thinks its bogus. Bilas does. It's bogus plain and simple but you refuse to admit it.

You caught me. Huzzah!

 

[champs99and04]

There is no good reason for why UConn did not get high enough APR scores, true. Nate Miles incident aside, the rest of the kids who hurt the score should have been kept track of better.

However, there are a number of schools besides UConn that would be in hot water if this rule was in effect this year (13 of 68 NCAAT teams). If 20% of the NCAA field would have been ineligible this year, how many of the teams that failed to make the tournament would have been ineligible if the rules were implemented this year on all teams with no waivers or pardons? I would bet at least 10% of the 300+ schools.

UConn isn't the only team with APR issues, it just happens to be the only school not granted immunity to the rule or a waiver for next year.

Further, APR is just a silly metric. It let's teams say a kid who has 24 credits after his freshman year is on par to a senior who has 96 credits (not to mention credits towards an actual major). Who is actually closer to graduating? Both players are 4 points.

Let's not even get into how many rising seniors could be transferring teams in the future to be eligible to the NCAAT and how that will change recruiting and potentially cause issues with recruiting kids already on scholarship (which does happen already with mid-majors and the 5th year/grad school rule).

I am going to have to disagree with that. In 2009 UConn recruited four kids, all of whom are now gone for reasons that are purely basketball related. When you consider that transfers are, inexplicably, held to a higher standard than other early departures, it makes it easy to lose points based on those four kids alone. As of now, it doesn't appear that AO will cost us any points, but I'm pretty sure Trice and Smith lost us at least one point, and unless they were not meeting the requirements that a normal student athlete would have to meet, that's pretty much bull . I forget what kind of standing Coombs was in, but he might have lost us a point as well.

The 08 class included two transfers as well in Scottie Haralson and Nate Miles, so in total that's five transfers over the past five years, all of whom transferred because they were unhappy with playing time. Assuming they were meeting the requirements, it appears absolutely absurd that the NCAA is using this as evidence that our basketball players do not take class seriously. On a football team, you can certainly overcome these transfers, but in basketball you are working with a much smaller sample size. While there is no doubt UConn could have done a better job with the APR, I'm pretty sure would be safe if it wasn't for these transfers.

Secondly, I agree with you that UConn knew the rules and should have complied, however, I don't think that is the heart of the issue. What I have a big problem with is NCAA having a rule with consequence X, then keeping that same rule and changing it to consequence Y without giving anybody a heads up. That's not UConn breaking the rules, that's the NCAA dropping a nuclear bomb to try to prove a point without thinking it through.

If the rules were cut and dry, and UConn broke them, then they made their own bed. However, that wasn't the case at all, and UConn was one of the few schools willing to take a poor APR score at the expense of two scholarships. If the NCAA wants to change the rules, fine, but you have to grandfather it in.

 

[caw]

I'm not ignoring anything...there were over 300 that did make the grade. And you keep arguing that everyone else "perverts the educational process'" which you know is totally bogus as well. A few schools do I'm sure, but over 300? Serioulsy? If that's the case than we really need to close this entire college basketball enterpise down as quickly as possible. Look, I'm not saying the APR is a good measure or a bad measure. I've heard arguments on both sides. I've spoken to Walter Harris about it and heard him speak about it at a couple of functions, and he defends it as a reasonable measure, so clearly, upstater, not everyone agrees with you that it is either bogus or anti-educational. But that is beside the point in a way. It is that it is the measure the NCAA agreed to use. As such it is incumbent on UCONN to make a major effort to comply. I do not believe that the athletic department did that for the men's basketball team. And blaming the measuring device or the NCAA does not change that simple fact.

I'll say it, the APR sucks donkey C@ck. However, it is the fairest measure out there.

Fun fact, if the new rule were fully in effect this year there would be 101 schools below the 930 4 year mark in basketball. There are about 360 D1 basketball programs; that means there would be 28% of all D1 basketball programs would be ineligible by the fully implemented rule (to be fully in place by 2015)

There are 33 schools below the 900 four year mark or about 10% of all D1 basketball schools.

 

[caw]

Come on. So the Oriakhi's are the typical family all of a sudden?

I'm not arguing that Calhoun and others should have reached out to the parents. I'm arguing that they probably did reach out, and it probably didn't have any impact.

Considering there wasn't a compliance department who knows. Perhaps you are right. I was responding to the nice polite phone call.

 

[upstater]

Bilas is full of it. He doesn't want any NCAA admission standards either. And he argues that there is nothing that can be done about 1-and-done. And that players should be paid. And that only major programs should get NCAA bids. He is nothing but a shill for the big programs. The fact that he has a law degree does nothing to make him less of a shill. Look, I would favor much higher academic standards for admission, and I favor ending 1-and-done by making scholarships unavailable until the recipeint's class graduates, and I favor requiring admission of athletes to reasonably track with the overall student body such that someone with an SAT score of 800 wouldn't get into Gampel without buying a ticket. And for that matter, reorganizing the NCAA tournament such that an eastern team never plays in Phoenix on a Thursday night and a team from California would't ever play in Boston unless one of those cities was hosting th efinal four. In a perfect world, universities wouldn't pervert the educational system by accepting students they know have zero intention of staying to actually graduate, and wouldn't line them up in phony courses and give them phony grades. But since we've seen universities do all these things it became necessary for the NCAA to step in. Now at least there is some standard. You have made very clear that you think it is a bad standard, but I'm not sure it is any worse than what went on before. Guys a tsome schools getting degrees without taking classes or having grades changed by adminsitrators to keep players eligilble, for example.

You remember Robert Smith at OSU? He was taking chemistry and physics courses. John Cooper puts his foot down and told him to drop down to an easy major that wouldn't interfere with football.

This is what the new NCAA rules are all about. To prevent some kids (like Gavin) from leaving before finishing (in good standing, whatever the hell that means) they'll screw things up for every kid.

 

[upstater]

I'll say it, the APR sucks donkey C@ck. However, it is the fairest measure out there.

Fun fact, if the new rule were fully in effect this year there would be 101 schools below the 930 4 year mark in basketball. There are about 360 D1 basketball programs; that means there would be 28% of all D1 basketball programs would be ineligible by the fully implemented rule (to be fully in place by 2015)

There are 33 schools below the 900 four year mark or about 10% of all D1 basketball schools.

It's not the fairest measure. I could do better in 30 seconds.

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't have to ask nicely. Repeated phone calls, calls to the parents, etc.

If the player is over 18, it would be a violation of federal law to contact the parents about his studies. I get it, you need someone to blame, but some of this is childish. Once a player is done playing, there is in fact nothing the school can do to make him keep studying. The school can try, and make sure the support is there if the player wants it, but if the players doesn't want to go to class you are powerless.

 

[johnhuskies95]

The only thing I blame Calhoun/the school on is that Calhoun has created a culture where transferring is not only accepted, it is encouraged.

The school and Calhoun should've recognized that lots of transfers would lead to APR problems down the road.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Freescooter doesn't look at specifics. He's no different than Pat Forde, Dana O'Neil, or Mike Decourcy. He just looks at the big headline and directs blame, assuming the whole system is fundamentally sound.

Anyone who reads about the APR for a second would recognize what a farce it is.

 

[businesslawyer]

The only thing I blame Calhoun/the school on is that Calhoun has created a culture where transferring is not only accepted, it is encouraged.

The school and Calhoun should've recognized that lots of transfers would lead to APR problems down the road.

This.

 

[caw]

I am going to have to disagree with that. In 2009 UConn recruited four kids, all of whom are now gone for reasons that are purely basketball related. When you consider that transfers are, inexplicably, held to a higher standard than other early departures, it makes it easy to lose points based on those four kids alone. As of now, it doesn't appear that AO will cost us any points, but I'm pretty sure Trice and Smith lost us at least one point, and unless they were not meeting the requirements that a normal student athlete would have to meet, that's pretty much bull . I forget what kind of standing Coombs was in, but he might have lost us a point as well.

The 08 class included two transfers as well in Scottie Haralson and Nate Miles, so in total that's five transfers over the past five years, all of whom transferred because they were unhappy with playing time. Assuming they were meeting the requirements, it appears absolutely absurd that the NCAA is using this as evidence that our basketball players do not take class seriously. On a football team, you can certainly overcome these transfers, but in basketball you are working with a much smaller sample size. While there is no doubt UConn could have done a better job with the APR, I'm pretty sure would be safe if it wasn't for these transfers.

Secondly, I agree with you that UConn knew the rules and should have complied, however, I don't think that is the heart of the issue. What I have a big problem with is NCAA having a rule with consequence X, then keeping that same rule and changing it to consequence Y without giving anybody a heads up. That's not UConn breaking the rules, that's the NCAA dropping a nuclear bomb to try to prove a point without thinking it through.

If the rules were cut and dry, and UConn broke them, then they made their own bed. However, that wasn't the case at all, and UConn was one of the few schools willing to take a poor APR score at the expense of two scholarships. If the NCAA wants to change the rules, fine, but you have to grandfather it in.

Players that left early for non-pro reasons:

2007-2008
Stanley left for the first semester of 2008-2009 so was probably a -1 or -2 for the second semester this year. (-2)
Kelley I think transferred in good standing?

2008-2009
Miles was a fluke that any normal school should have been able to withstand. (-2)
Harralson didn't drop any points because he transferred with good grades (I believe), to a D1 program (0)

2009-2010
Smith lost a point (or two?) for leaving with low grades. (-2)
Trice left for a non-D1 program in good standing (lost 1 point for going to a JC). (-1)

2010-2011
Jamal Coombs-McDaniel lost a point for low grades. (-1)

2011-2012
Alex should be fine.

So those 6 players left over 4 years (or 7 in 5). They account for at most 8 lost points. In the four years currently being used that is about 182 possible points. If those were the only points lost UConn would have an APR of 956.

I think I have those number correct. So to get to the 888 estimate you are talking about 12 other lost points. Transfers certainly didn't help but those who left to go pro or "graduated" hurt more over that time span.

Price/Thabeet/Adrien/Austrie/Majok/Edwards/Robinson/Beverly/Okuandu/Walker/Dyson are the players who left to go pro or left due to exhausted eligibility.

There is also the albatross known as Mandledove. He could have been a 2/4 every year for all 5 years for all I know. If he was counted as a scholarship player all four years and was never on pace to graduate any semester, he could have seriously been a -8 over the currently used four year period. I have no clue if Calhoun kept him on scholarship all four years or not. Seriously, UConn could have kept retaining Mandeldove and kept losing points while getting nothing from him on the court.

I'm going off of memory, so feel free to correct.

 

[caw]

It's not the fairest measure. I could do better in 30 seconds.

OK, you are on the clock

If the player is over 18, it would be a violation of federal law to contact the parents about his studies. I get it, you need someone to blame, but some of this is childish. Once a player is done playing, there is in fact nothing the school can do to make him keep studying. The school can try, and make sure the support is there if the player wants it, but if the players doesn't want to go to class you are powerless.

Right, you can't call and say certain things. There are ways to make it perfectly clear what you need without saying it.

There may not be a way to force kids after they leave, but you certainly can make things simpler while they are on campus. After freshman year I believe student-athletes only need to have 24 credits to be on pace to graduate, after sophomore year 48, 72, 96. That is 12 credits per semester. Push kids to take 2 summer courses a summer (6 credits).

 

[upstater]

OK, you are on the clock

What outcome are you looking for?

By the way, we do these assessments all the time. I've personally designed programs and gone through state level accreditation. The question is: what outcome are you looking for?

Herbst agrees with me that this is poor, poor work.

Let's get real here. These kids are put through the ringer during the Spring semester. The idea that they are regular students during that semester is preposterous. They are under the gun. What the NCAA should allow is longer scholarships to let students fulfill their academic requirements without insisting that they are like regular students. They are not like regular students. But you don't want to drop standards for them either and cheapen the degree or unfairly foist players who want an education into the pool with players who are only there to play basketball. The kids that don't care about academics at all--you're never going to solve that problem unless you raise admission standards, and even then there will be many that just don't care. In my experience, this is not the majority of players. Yet what's going on here is that the NCAA, realizing that players are a major disadvantage in the spring, has concocted a system which takes emphasis off of spring classes. That's well and good. But if you're going to do that, do not expect players to graduate within 4 years as though they were regular students (never mind the fact that the national average for graduation in 4 years for other students is now 30%). Instead, fully fund players so that they can get their degrees after their athletic eligibility expires. This new system is the worst of all worlds because it forces schools into contortions which aren't befitting of an academic institution.

Above freescooter asked me how I know that all schools are doing this. The answer is simple. I don't care who you are: if you're missing half the spring semester in every class, you're going to struggle. Every basketball school does this. It doesn't happen for football or many other sports, just bball. Having dealt with this situation personally, there's only one real solution, and that's to allow maximum flexibility for players in terms of support and scheduling. Instead we have the reverse, where students are mandated into faux courses that keep them eligible under a crazy "in good standing" criteria that means absolutely nothing.

If you wanted to insist on academic rigor, you'd do the exact opposite. You would force players to follow the degree requirements (which APR makes impossible) but at a slower pace. This requirements commitments to players and to education which the NCAA is unwilling to give. But they could fund the extension in scholarships simply by cutting coaches' pay.

 

[Gurleyman]

I believe Austrie, Dyson, Beverly and Okwandu graduated, and Kemba was obviously fine, even if he didn't officially graduate yet. Thabeet/Majok left early. Edwards (and maybe Adrien) didn't finish to take best shot at pros. Robinson (7) and Price (6) exhausted eligibility without being in school for eight semesters due to leaves of absence (partially in Price's case). That doesn't seem to be all that unusual a record for a basketball program (but now mix in the 0-for-2 for Miles, the 0-2 for Darius Smith, the 0-for-2 for Mandeldove, and a few transfers and you have a two-year train wreck).

The culture of transferring has been the most correctable problem. But when you think about it, our worst APR years really all started with the mass exodus of 2006. We had to replenish an entire roster and quickly - and we missed out on some of our top targets in the process. We basically didn't know what we had, and all 9 new players thought there was playing time available. They all came in, and some got weeded out (whoops - bad word choice). However, the transferring issue has been going on for some time - we've never just taken the happy bench guy with the 12th or 13th schollie (with a couple exceptions) - those have always been players who we figured we can take a chance on and then let go if they aren't good enough. Then you don't give yourself the margin of error for when you run into complications with your rotation guys.

 

[johnhuskies95]

For those better at calculating the APR than I am: is it true that if Mandeldove had just left the team/school before school started in 09/10 we would be fine for postseason eligibility next year?

 

[champs99and04]

Players that left early for non-pro reasons:

2007-2008
Stanley left for the first semester of 2008-2009 so was probably a -1 or -2 for the second semester this year. (-2)
Kelley I think transferred in good standing?

2008-2009
Miles was a fluke that any normal school should have been able to withstand. (-2)
Harralson didn't drop any points because he transferred with good grades (I believe), to a D1 program (0)

2009-2010
Smith lost a point (or two?) for leaving with low grades. (-2)
Trice left for a non-D1 program in good standing (lost 1 point for going to a JC). (-1)

2010-2011
Jamal Coombs-McDaniel lost a point for low grades. (-1)

2011-2012
Alex should be fine.

So those 6 players left over 4 years (or 7 in 5). They account for at most 8 lost points. In the four years currently being used that is about 182 possible points. If those were the only points lost UConn would have an APR of 956.

I think I have those number correct. So to get to the 888 estimate you are talking about 12 other lost points. Transfers certainly didn't help but those who left to go pro or "graduated" hurt more over that time span.

Price/Thabeet/Adrien/Austrie/Majok/Edwards/Robinson/Beverly/Okuandu/Walker/Dyson are the players who left to go pro or left due to exhausted eligibility.

There is also the albatross known as Mandledove. He could have been a 2/4 every year for all 5 years for all I know. If he was counted as a scholarship player all four years and was never on pace to graduate any semester, he could have seriously been a -8 over the currently used four year period. I have no clue if Calhoun kept him on scholarship all four years or not. Seriously, UConn could have kept retaining Mandeldove and kept losing points while getting nothing from him on the court.

I'm going off of memory, so feel free to correct.

Soo..I can't tell, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? It helps to see it laid out like that, but I think you have a better understanding of how the APR is calculated than I do. I'm under the impression that you receive a certain amount of points per year if you fulfill your requirements as a student athlete, but if you decide to transfer, you may lose points even if you are fulfilling your obligations. Do you have a list of the kids who stayed at UConn for four or more years but did not graduate? I'm just trying to better my understanding on what percentage of our poor APR score can be attributed to transfers/unusual circumstances and what percentage can be attributed to kids not giving a damn about academics. It would seem to me that the poor score is due more in part to the former, but I haven't broke down the numbers because I don't have all the information.

Would you agree despite the poor APR score that the NCAA is completely out of bounds in enforcing a consequence that nobody knew about until recently? That's the part that bothers me. I don't want to make it sound like complying with the APR is an option, but that's certainly the way certain teams treated it, including UConn. In their minds, the punishment for not complying did not outweigh the benefits of working around it.

 

[caw]

What outcome are you looking for?

By the way, we do these assessments all the time. I've personally designed programs and gone through state level accreditation. The question is: what outcome are you looking for?

Herbst agrees with me that this is poor, poor work.

Let's get real here. These kids are put through the ringer during the Spring semester. The idea that they are regular students during that semester is preposterous. They are under the gun. What the NCAA should allow is longer scholarships to let students fulfill their academic requirements without insisting that they are like regular students. They are not like regular students. But you don't want to drop standards for them either and cheapen the degree or unfairly foist players who want an education into the pool with players who are only there to play basketball. The kids that don't care about academics at all--you're never going to solve that problem unless you raise admission standards, and even then there will be many that just don't care. In my experience, this is not the majority of players. Yet what's going on here is that the NCAA, realizing that players are a major disadvantage in the spring, has concocted a system which takes emphasis off of spring classes. That's well and good. But if you're going to do that, do not expect players to graduate within 4 years as though they were regular students (never mind the fact that the national average for graduation in 4 years for other students is now 30%). Instead, fully fund players so that they can get their degrees after their athletic eligibility expires. This new system is the worst of all worlds because it forces schools into contortions which aren't befitting of an academic institution.

Above freescooter asked me how I know that all schools are doing this. The answer is simple. I don't care who you are: if you're missing half the spring semester in every class, you're going to struggle. Every basketball school does this. It doesn't happen for football or many other sports, just bball. Having dealt with this situation personally, there's only one real solution, and that's to allow maximum flexibility for players in terms of support and scheduling. Instead we have the reverse, where students are mandated into faux courses that keep them eligible under a crazy "in good standing" criteria that means absolutely nothing.

If you wanted to insist on academic rigor, you'd do the exact opposite. You would force players to follow the degree requirements (which APR makes impossible) but at a slower pace. This requirements commitments to players and to education which the NCAA is unwilling to give. But they could fund the extension in scholarships simply by cutting coaches' pay.

I fully agree the APR is a horrid system, or at least it's a horrid system to be used the way it is used. The insane idea that it somehow is a measure of graduation rates or academic success of student athletes is repugnant. I'm sure a better (more accurate design) could be instituted, I don't believe it could be done in 30 seconds (thus the smiley).

Ohh, I want a fully workable system that will fairly assess and punish all member institutions for the success and or failure of their student-athletes based on GPA and grad rates, but of course it must be accepted by said institutions so the big boys don't decide to leave and go start their own member institution. Good luck.