the biggest problem with the APR is demonstrated by kentucky's "non-traditional" model. If the NCAA cares about education, and believes that the APR contributes to education then the NCAA should NOT grant waivers for players who leave early for the NBA. They didn't in the original draft of the APR system, but whimped out when the basketball coaches complained. Well, go back to the system as orignally designed. If a player leaves early, his team gets docked a point for retention just as if he transferred in bad standing. I'd go further, too and say if a player transfers you get docked too unless he transfers to a lower division. If he has to sit out a year, you lose a point. the current system is beyond bogus and Kentucky just blew the whistle on it. The only time I don't think you should get docked on retention is when a school does the right thing like bouncing a player for violating university policy or state, local or federal law. the last thing you want is a policy that encourages schools to keep people on campus who have are a danger to themselves or the university community. thus, Nate Miles situation, no APR penalty. Andre Drummond, APR penalty for retention. I don't necessarily favor the APR, but it isn't going anywhere so if the argument is that retention is important, then penalize teams that don't RETAIN their players for gosh sake. Other wise, just skip the whole thing...My personal view is that the APR should be replaced by 3 things: More rigorous eligibility requirements from the outset followed by certain milestones to be met along the way (e.g. after 3 years the player has to have completed 72 of 120 credits need to graduate 60% of the required credit to graduate in 5 years.); 4 year scholarship commitment by the school with loss of ability to "re-use" that scholarship until after 4 years regardless of whether the player leaves early or not unless the student leaves for a limited number of reasons not including to declare for the draft. (eg UCONN would be out Drummond's scholarship for the next 3 years. KY would be out what, 5, for the next few years); Requirements to graduate players in 5 years with the right to provide an extra year of scholarship aid to players who have used up their eligibilty but require an additonal semester or year to complete graduation requirements. Reconizing the relatively small class size in baksetball, I would establis some kind of annual sliding scale perhaps, or possibly a multi-year average, but programs that failed to graduate at least 75% of their players in 5 years would be banned from th epost season. I would not allow players to transfer as is now the case, either. Players have to take their share of responsibility for making legitimate progress toward their degrees, and peer pressure can be a wonderful thing. These changes would return the student-athlete to the college game, put coaches on notice that if they recruit a bunch of 1 and dones, they had best be prepared to pay a heavy price, and put athletes on notice that they have a responsibility to make progress too. By allowing a 5th year of scholarship aid, the schools would recognize the extra demand D-1 athletics makes on students and would ensure that the players have the financial ability to complete their education once their playing career at the institution is over.
