How screwed is Maryland re their APR?

[Rumrunner]

Maryland announced that Stoglin and Parker were both suspended.

Stoglin entered the draft. Parker is reported to be transferring.

Both are only sophomores.

Is this analysis correct? Under the APR formula, this semester MD will take a 4 point hit on academic standing and retention, and next year Maryland will take an APR hit of 2 points on retention.

Under the formula, assuming MD's 12 other scholarship players get perfect scores, the best MD's APR for the 2011-2012 academic year would be:

First Semester
1000

Second Semester
857 [(24/28)*1000]

2011-2012 one year APR of 929

2012-2013
929 [(26/28)*1000]

2013-2014
929

Is this correct? A school continues to be penalized 1 point each year for retention? Or is the retention point only counted in the academic year of the student's departure?

Next, Maryland's

2008-2009 APR is 913
2009-2010 APR is 945
2010-2011 APR is not calculated yet
2011-2012 Max APR is 929


2013-2014 NCAA tournament they are in based on four year average above 900.
2014-2015 NCAA tournament two year average requirement goes up to 940. Four year average now becomes 930. The two year score would be based on 2011-2012 (929 max) and 2012-2013 data.

How long does a player's departure hurt retention? Only for the first semester they were expected back, or through the academic year? If the hit is only for one semester, that hit is "halved" by the next semester. Also, if a school is on the quarter or trimester system, how is the APR calculated.

 

[superjohn]

I'm sure Maryland will be just fine, NCAA will probably just take it out on UConn.

 

[orangehomer]

in your analysis, are you considering whether or not the players leave the school "in good academic standing"? or just assuming that every transfer is up

 

[Rumrunner]

Since the players are suspended from the institution itself, and not just the bb team, and are no longer permitted to remain enrolled in school,including spring semester classes, I assume that would count as not being in good academic standing. Then again, maybe that view is naive.

in your analysis, are you considering whether or not the players leave the school "in good academic standing"? or just assuming that every transfer is up

 

[upstater]

Since the players are suspended from the institution itself, and not just the bb team, and are no longer permitted to remain enrolled in school,including spring semester classes, I assume that would count as not being in good academic standing. Then again, maybe that view is naive.

I think the NCAA gives you a waiver for player misconduct. Otherwise there'd be overt pressure to keep guys who commit misconduct for fear of impacting the APR score. Someone here last year showed that Nate Miles did not count against UConn's APR by citing such a rule.

Of course, the flipside is that the APR is helped when a kid who is failing, like Fab Melo, goes out and commits an act of misconduct and is thrown out. Had he not committed that act, the school's APR would have been hurt by at least 1 point.

HOW BIZZAH!

 

[Rumrunner]

Upstater, I'm not so sure about that. According to an analysis of UConn's APR, when Miles was booted out that cost UConn standing and retention points.

http://mobile.theuconnblog.com/2012/4/24/2971329/what-uconns-apr-score-actually-measures

Another way to look at it, if a player doesn't hurt the team's apr if he's removed from school for nonacademic reasons, boot him out under a general "morals" clause, instead of academic ineligibility. How easy would that be?

As an aside, and to see how much lies, deceit, fraud, whatever you wsnt to call it, are wrapped up in the canard of the apr, take a look at ASU. They basically have had 13 players transfer over the past 3 years. It would be impossible for them not to take massive hits on retention, unless you believe that all the transfers had above 2.6 gpa's. But watch when ASU's apr comes out for this (2010-2011) year. Since the apr is self-reported, teams would never cheat, would they?

 

[upstater]

Upstater, I'm not so sure about that. According to an analysis of UConn's APR, when Miles was booted out that cost UConn standing and retention points.

http://mobile.theuconnblog.com/2012/4/24/2971329/what-uconns-apr-score-actually-measures

Another way to look at it, if a player doesn't hurt the team's apr if he's removed from school for nonacademic reasons, boot him out under a general "morals" clause, instead of academic ineligibility. How easy would that be?

As an aside, and to see how much lies, deceit, fraud, whatever you wsnt to call it, are wrapped up in the canard of the apr, take a look at ASU. They basically have had 13 players transfer over the past 3 years. It would be impossible for them not to take massive hits on retention, unless you believe that all the transfers had above 2.6 gpa's. But watch when ASU's apr comes out for this (2010-2011) year. Since the apr is self-reported, teams would never cheat, would they?

"We can feel pretty confident of where 4 of the 7 deducted points came from."

This was in the link. I don't think we can feel confident about anything regarding the aPR.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It does look like Maryland is in trouble with the APR. UConn will lose another scholarship if true.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Isn't Maryland one of the 'under - funded' schools that may get a year pass?

 

[ZenConn]

Isn't Maryland one of the 'under - funded' schools that may get a year pass?

They burned their athletic budget on Gary Williams' anti perspirant for 20+ years.

 

[derbyguy]

Is this analysis correct?

Not quite. Assuming the suspensions are for academic reasons and both players do indeed leave, MD would be docked four points for the second semester. However, they would not be punished for the 2 points the next year.

Your math is also a little off. The most scholarship players a men's basketball team can have is 13. So that means each semester would be out of 26. So Maryland's 2011-2012 APR would be 48/52 or 923 based upon your assumptions.

Next, Maryland's

2008-2009 APR is 913
2009-2010 APR is 945
2010-2011 APR is not calculated yet
2011-2012 Max APR is 929

Where did you get the 913 and the 945? Because if you got them from the NCAA APR database, those are the four year rolling averages. So it makes it a little tricky to project the effects that a 923 would have on Maryland going forward since you do not know the individual year scores.

Also, if a school is on the quarter or trimester system, how is the APR calculated.

This is a great question and one I haven't seen addressed anywhere.

If you want more information about the APR and UConn specifically, there is a lot of information at the link posted above. (http://www.theuconnblog.com/2012/4/24/2971329/what-uconns-apr-score-actually-measures) And yes, I am the derbyguy who collaborated on that post. And yes I am whoring out my work.

 

[derbyguy]

"We can feel pretty confident of where 4 of the 7 deducted points came from."

This was in the link. I don't think we can feel confident about anything regarding the aPR.

This may be a joke (I'm new here), but in that case we can be 100% sure about where those 4 of 7 points came from. 2 from Niles and one from each of Okawandu and the Dove.

 

[Dann]

his board is to funny. who gives a f about MD. f them just like doug g and umass. f them all. just becuase we are hurt now and are going to have 1 rough year doesn't mean as a fanbase we stoop down to the lower levels of college basketball with crapy programs and crapy writers. between threads like these and the every day 1 of hey how many ships do we have now? and how about now? and now? this board has gone down the tubes. i noticed some of the people i like to read aren't posting much of late or they are just staying off this board for some reason. i think everyone needs to just relax, understand the situation and stop giving people and programs the light of day. tamap bill whats up with syracuse these days hugh?

 

[johnhuskies95]

his board is to funny. who gives a f about MD. f them just like doug g and umass. f them all. just becuase we are hurt now and are going to have 1 rough year doesn't mean as a fanbase we stoop down to the lower levels of college basketball with crapy programs and crapy writers. between threads like these and the every day 1 of hey how many ships do we have now? and how about now? and now? this board has gone down the tubes. i noticed some of the people i like to read aren't posting much of late or they are just staying off this board for some reason. i think everyone needs to just relax, understand the situation and stop giving ****ty people and ****ty programs the light of day. tamap bill whats up with syracuse these days hugh?

WTF did I just read?

 

[upstater]

This may be a joke (I'm new here), but in that case we can be 100% sure about where those 4 of 7 points came from. 2 from Niles and one from each of Okawandu and the Dove.

I wouldn't be confident about any of that.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I'm sure Maryland will be just fine, NCAA will probably just take it out on UConn.

Ain't that the truth. So many cesspool programs out there in the NCAA (Ohio State football, Alabama a few years back, Kentucky hoops a few years back, Southern Cal in football, North Carolina football,and on and on. Yet, other than SMU in the '80s, UConn is getting hammered. Vendetta much.

 

[Gregory Koch]

Ain't that the truth. So many cesspool programs out there in the NCAA (Ohio State football, Alabama a few years back, Kentucky hoops a few years back, Southern Cal in football, North Carolina football,and on and on. Yet, other than SMU in the '80s, UConn is getting hammered. Vendetta much.

Well... Let's wait a few years and see if the NCAA continues to enforce these tougher penalties against other schools. If they do, then UConn just happened to be the first - it was just the timing that made it that way. If they don't, you've got a case for a vendetta. Keep in mind this is the first year of these punishments, and that Toledo got the same punishment as us for committing the same violation. I don't see Toledo fans declaring that the NCAA has a vendetta against them. I didn't see Southern fans (that's Southern University, not Southern Connecticut) declaring a vendetta last year when they got a postseason ban for being below the standards which were lower than this year's. There are a lot of things wrong with the standards, but at this point, I don't think we can claim a vendetta. If Congress declares it a crime to wear shoes without socks, that's outrageously stupid. But just because you're the first person they arrest doesn't mean that they have a vendetta with you. Someone has to be first, right?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Well... Let's wait a few years and see if the NCAA continues to enforce these tougher penalties against other schools. If they do, then UConn just happened to be the first - it was just the timing that made it that way. If they don't, you've got a case for a vendetta. Keep in mind this is the first year of these punishments, and that Toledo got the same punishment as us for committing the same violation. I don't see Toledo fans declaring that the NCAA has a vendetta against them. I didn't see Southern fans (that's Southern University, not Southern Connecticut) declaring a vendetta last year when they got a postseason ban for being below the standards which were lower than this year's. There are a lot of things wrong with the standards, but at this point, I don't think we can claim a vendetta. If Congress declares it a crime to wear shoes without socks, that's outrageously stupid. But just because you're the first person they arrest doesn't mean that they have a vendetta with you. Someone has to be first, right?

Yes, someone has to be first. But if any other schools don't hit the APR number going forward, they only have themselves to blame because they knew that poor APR scores would mean a postseason ban. In our case, there was no postseason ban rule at the time our bad scores were earned.

 

[Gregory Koch]

Yes, someone has to be first. But if any other schools don't hit the APR number going forward, they only have themselves to blame because they knew that poor APR scores would mean a postseason ban. In our case, there was no postseason ban rule at the time our bad scores were earned.

As I said, there are a number of problems with the rules. But it's not a vendetta. If they said two-year score of 901 or four-year score of 889, both of which happen to be 0.5 points above what we have, that would be a vendetta. I question sometimes if UConn fans know what "vendetta" means.

 

[specialisthusky]

I don't see Toledo fans. I didn't see Southern fans.

you should have just ended these sentances there

 

[HuskyBballFan]

As I said, there are a number of problems with the rules. But it's not a vendetta. If they said two-year score of 901 or four-year score of 889, both of which happen to be 0.5 points above what we have, that would be a vendetta. I question sometimes if UConn fans know what "vendetta" means.

Vendetta's not the right word. But the NCAA is looking for a big scalp and the single biggest reason why they're not going to let us off the hook is the PR hit that they would take if they did so.

They accepted another school's appeal, but denied ours. They're giving low resource schools another year to comply, but not us. They have no appetite to even consider using the more recent data, which would help us. They want to show how "serious they are about academics" and shaping the rules so a big name program gets penalized is the best way to do that.

 

[upstater]

Well... Let's wait a few years and see if the NCAA continues to enforce these tougher penalties against other schools. If they do, then UConn just happened to be the first - it was just the timing that made it that way. If they don't, you've got a case for a vendetta. Keep in mind this is the first year of these punishments, and that Toledo got the same punishment as us for committing the same violation. I don't see Toledo fans declaring that the NCAA has a vendetta against them. I didn't see Southern fans (that's Southern University, not Southern Connecticut) declaring a vendetta last year when they got a postseason ban for being below the standards which were lower than this year's. There are a lot of things wrong with the standards, but at this point, I don't think we can claim a vendetta. If Congress declares it a crime to wear shoes without socks, that's outrageously stupid. But just because you're the first person they arrest doesn't mean that they have a vendetta with you. Someone has to be first, right?

UConn is already being punished as much for the APR as North Carolina was for plagiary and academic fraud, as well as getting paid, What does that say? Here's an idea. Just write all the player's papers for them and take their exams. If you get caught, don't worry. The punishment is as bad as the APR punishment.

People also forget here that U. Louisiana Monroe was granted a waiver for next season. Clearly UConn is being treated differently.

 

[upstater]

As I said, there are a number of problems with the rules. But it's not a vendetta. If they said two-year score of 901 or four-year score of 889, both of which happen to be 0.5 points above what we have, that would be a vendetta. I question sometimes if UConn fans know what "vendetta" means.

How far under the 930 score is UConn?

 

[willie99]

NCAA will fix their flawed system after they stick it to us

 

[willie99]

As I said, there are a number of problems with the rules. But it's not a vendetta. If they said two-year score of 901 or four-year score of 889, both of which happen to be 0.5 points above what we have, that would be a vendetta. I question sometimes if UConn fans know what "vendetta" means.

why do you think you get to define vendetta? can it have something to do with entrapment? or maybe double jeopardy? or maybe allowing exceptions for other schools? or not having a transition period? or not using the most recent scores? seriously?