The point is, or at least should be, that neither one of those outcomes is acceptable. I agree with upstater that the APR is a flawed tool. If you wanted real reform, the answer would be that you would do 2 things. first you'd increase the accademic standards for incoming players. Of course when the NCAA did that, John Thompson accused them of racism so they have been ever more gunshy about doing that again. the second thing you'd do is work out a way of ending the one-and-done situation which is really doing awful things to college basketball. here again, there would be all kinds of outcries, but the bottom line is that right now, forf a whole bunch of kids, college basketball is little more than a placeholder until they become eligible for the NBA draft. I have two proposal, either of which would severely reduce this matter. First would be to make basketball scholarships 4 year commitments on both sides. If a player leaves, the coach doesn't get to use that scholarship again the next season, or the next or the next. I'd make exceptions for only 2 or 3 things. 1. the student graduates. In the case of Emeka, for example, that scholarship is available. 2. the player transfers and is accepted to another undergraduate institution. 3. the student leaves school to enter a branch of the United States military. I suggest that if a head coach had to decide on losing a scholarship for 3 years, he would be pretty careful about taking players who might be gone after one season. Would it keep some guys from playing college basketball? Probably. But there are other options today, so making a mockery of college basketball isn't the necessity it was 15 years ago.
The intent of the APR was to try and keep players focusing on the student side of student athletics even after their season's are over. And it was a compromise that came about after the basketball powers complained that the original version, which did give more weight for graduation, upstater, undully penalized those programs that sent lots of players to the pros.