Nerlens Noel cleared by NCAA...

[upstater]

Nice discussion. I agree with you on the quoted section, but the APR metric is based on student athlete retention and academic eligibility, not simply whether a student is classified as full-time or part-time (not academic performance related). While I see how you can link them (and why you want to link them), they are still distinct, since academic performance (becoming ineligible due to poor academic performance) was not at the heart of the Cal Tech case. Also, I agree with your stance on the APR being a poor measure of student-athlete academic performance. My main point however, was a simple one, that is undeniable. Strictly speaking, neither Cal Tech, nor Harvard were previously disciplined by the NCAA due to poor APR performance. Cal Tech is not subject to the APR, since they are division 3, they do not even report an APR. Harvard has not received any penalties from the NCAA due to poor APR performance, although that may change in the future (their scores for 2011-2012 pending, those were the scores I was alluding to).

For reference you state: "The reason Cal Tech and Harvard don't meet the APR is because meeting the standards damages education."
Strictly speaking, Cal Tech doesn't need to meet the APR. It is not even subject to the APR. The APR has no influence on Cal Tech. Other ridiculous NCAA rules; however, did impact Cal Tech, but it clearly wasn't the APR.
At no previous point has Harvard's men's basketball team been penalized for not meeting the APR. To this point (2011-2012 data pending), they have always met the APR.

I never said Harvard was penalized for not meeting the APR. I said Harvard didn't meet the APR. In fact, lots of schools didn't meet the APR, including many big BCS schools. Only UConn so far has been penalized. The point is, why are schools failing to meet the APR? The NCAA's actual penalties are arbitrary, as we've long established in this discussion.

The Cal-Tech thing for me is linked. When you say retention, you simply must emphasize that returning to school is half the weight of the APR. And, what's more, it's not simply a measure of maintaining eligibility through the year, but you get an equal amount of points for returning in the Fall and returning in the Spring. The APR eligibility requirements are meant to lard the weight of the APR score, so the NCAA requires every school to follow these rules on eligibility whether they are subject to the APR or not. The NCAA simply can't allow one school, apparently, to let its students choose classes well into the semester. Most schools have moved away from long drop/add periods, but not to create academic rigor. They did it to increase class sizes (i.e. classes that don't make get cancelled now). I bet you anything that Cal-Tech has been doing this for a long time. They fell afoul of the NCAA rule precisely because the NCAA now mandates full-time status within the first week of semester.

 

[freescooter]

I appreciate the diagnosis. However, I have to say I disagree with the premise that any "reasonable explanation" has been offered. What is it that Calhoun always says? You're known by the company that you keep?


Arkansas-Pine Bluff
California-Riverside
Cal State Bakersfield
Jacksonville State
Mississippi Valley State
North Carolina-Wilmington
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
Toledo
Towson

These are the other schools that also find themselves banned from the NCAA tournament.

To your point about some schools having higher standards for athletes, is it really your position that UConn's "higher standards" are the reason it is the only BCS school in the country that finds itself in this position? If so, do you have anything resembling evidence for this?

Are we to assume that the 9 august schools on the list above have similarly high standards? Or that they, too, have taken a principled stand based on their deep and abiding convictions regarding the proper method of educating college students, and that's why they've run afoul of the APR?

I mean, c'mon. Show your work here.

LOL, very good way to put it...

 

[freescooter]

The reality is that some schools have a higher set of standards for their school athletes than others. Sadly more and more schools are caving in to the pressures to lower their standards for student athletes in order to be competitive.

No amount of oversight will reverse this trend imo. It has to start with a significant majority of people with invested interests in sports to insist on a change. It won't come from networks. They make too much money to care. And now the colleges have been corrupted by the money. So it has to come from the fans. I don't see that happening anytime soon.


FWIW:

freescooter's agenda is very clear. He wants UConn to be considered a football school because he loves football and is, at best, a disinterested basketball fan. So he comes to these forums with the agenda of polluting peoples opinions about the basketball program with the hope of convincing bb fans that the program wasn't as good as we believe it is. When he discusses standards during JC's tenure he really wants to corrupt the legacy. Many of us see through this. But there are those who are more susceptible to this type of mindbending. Whatever logical discussions you are having with him are wasted because he isn't interested in learning the truth.

Can't speak for the others, but you got me partly right. I am more of a football fan than basketball, though I'd hardly classify myself as disinterested. I give Jim Calhoun no end of credit for the program he built. And I'm the one who argues UConn is at a level where it could have attracted any number of high profile coaches rather than give the job to a complete unknown...I see most of the posters here acting as if we'd be lucky to land the Hartford High coach...they are the ones who don't understand what Calhoun has built, I think.

I have been troubled by what has been happening with the program over the later years of Calhoun's tenure, though. that is absolutely accurate. To me there is no question that the standards have in fact declined, beginning I would say after the 2004 title. I am absolutely convinced that after that win, Calhoun wanted a 3rd title so badly that he "lost his way" to a degree in terms of the players he was willing to take. Players he wouldn't have taken, and players he would have tossed off the team in 2002 where suddenly showing up all over the place and on top of that he would go to extreme lengths to land them. beginning with the 2006 George mason debacle where for the first time in the Calhoun era we had a team that didn't much care, thorugh laptopgate this all culminated in the Nate Miles fiasco,NCAA violations and ultimately the APR fiasco. Upstater is right that APR is a foolish system, though he is being misleading with the Cal Tech stuff since APR simply doesn't apply in D3. But the reason UConn flunked the APR had nothing to do with their higher academic standards. Zero, Nada, Ziltch, Squato....it happened because Calhoun didn't give a crap. Made no effort to see that his players went to class, completed assignments and so forth. From what I've heard, that wasn't the case in 1995. it was by 2005. The funny thing was that the team that really wasn't supposed to be that good, and was made up of more likeable guys for that matter, no problem children, was the one that actually got Calhoun his 3rd title. UConn which in 2004 was both respected and popular nationally, led by a player of the year who also was a high achieving student who graduated in 3 years...has managed to become the poster child for all that is wrong with college basketball, from recruiting violations, to academic failures to rent a players...and now we have offered the coaching job to a guy whose sole qualification is that he is Calhoun's buddy...I thas little to do with hoping UConn becomes a football school, though I hope the program ultimately does reach significant heights. It is much more about seeing a program and a university that prided itself on winning the right way become one that is willingto win at any cost.

 

[PomonaHusky]

I never said Harvard was penalized for not meeting the APR. I said Harvard didn't meet the APR. In fact, lots of schools didn't meet the APR, including many big BCS schools. Only UConn so far has been penalized. The point is, why are schools failing to meet the APR? The NCAA's actual penalties are arbitrary, as we've long established in this discussion.

The Cal-Tech thing for me is linked. When you say retention, you simply must emphasize that returning to school is half the weight of the APR. And, what's more, it's not simply a measure of maintaining eligibility through the year, but you get an equal amount of points for returning in the Fall and returning in the Spring. The APR eligibility requirements are meant to lard the weight of the APR score, so the NCAA requires every school to follow these rules on eligibility whether they are subject to the APR or not. The NCAA simply can't allow one school, apparently, to let its students choose classes well into the semester. Most schools have moved away from long drop/add periods, but not to create academic rigor. They did it to increase class sizes (i.e. classes that don't make get cancelled now). I bet you anything that Cal-Tech has been doing this for a long time. They fell afoul of the NCAA rule precisely because the NCAA now mandates full-time status within the first week of semester.

Upstater, perhaps you never said Harvard was penalized, but when have they not met the APR up to this point? In fact, to this point (including only official data) they have always met the APR. Up to 2011 (according to the link), their lowest score was a 974. Even if they score a 915 and do not meet the APR for 2011-2012 (as you suggest they might), it is unlikely that they would incur any penalties at all, so they essentially meet the requirement (I can play that game too, i.e., stretching the facts).

I agree with Freescooter's statement that you are "being misleading with the Cal Tech stuff since APR simply doesn't apply in D3." The only reason you want to include these two schools is because it makes it seem that high profile, elite academic institutions are not meeting the APR criteria, when in fact that just isn't the case.

 

[upstater]

Upstater, perhaps you never said Harvard was penalized, but when have they not met the APR up to this point? In fact, to this point (including only official data) they have always met the APR. Up to 2011 (according to the link), their lowest score was a 974. Even if they score a 915 and do not meet the APR for 2011-2012 (as you suggest they might), it is unlikely that they would incur any penalties at all, so they essentially meet the requirement (I can play that game too, i.e., stretching the facts).

I agree with Freescooter's statement that you are "being misleading with the Cal Tech stuff since APR simply doesn't apply in D3." The only reason you want to include these two schools is because it makes it seem that high profile, elite academic institutions are not meeting the APR criteria, when in fact that just isn't the case.

Your own post contradicts itself. You wrote: "Even if Harvard scores a 915 and does not meet the APR for 2011-2012." Then you wrote: "The only reason you want to include these two schools is because it makes it seem that high profile, elite academic institutions are not meeting the APR criteria, when in fact that just isn't the case."

How do you expect me to respond when your own post is contradictory?

As for freescooter's supposed brilliance, see my response below.

 

[upstater]

Upstater is right that APR is a foolish system, though he is being misleading with the Cal Tech stuff since APR simply doesn't apply in D3. But the reason UConn flunked the APR had nothing to do with their higher academic standards. Zero, Nada, Ziltch, Squato

CalTech has had a long enrollment period for decades. Only when the NCAA established new rules related to the APR which insist that players have full-time status at the beginning of each semester (rules that were put in place for the APR, because half the APR's weight is simply returning to school for each semester) did CalTech fall afoul of the NCAA--for a policy that's been in place at CalTech for many years.

So, do you think fleud is a liar when he states he knew how Ted Taigen ran the program?

Given that UConn lost points to the APR for students leaving early, for Gavin Edwards' performance, it seems your point is totally wrong. I'll say this again: the APR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACADEMIC RIGOR. IT MEASURES ELIGIBILITY IN RETENTION. UCONN FELL AFOUL OF IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T RETAINING PLAYERS WHO MAINTAINED ELIGIBILITY.

Caps are necessary to counter the claims that APR is somehow related to classroom performance. In fact, UConn was docked for Gavin Edwards, a kid who actually went to school for 3 1/2 years and managed to at least take courses in his major, something the one-and-doners never manage to accomplish--but the APR gives full credit for that, and docks the kid who is advanced in his degree but doesn't finish. Nonsense.

 

[PomonaHusky]

Your own post contradicts itself. You wrote: "Even if Harvard scores a 915 and does not meet the APR for 2011-2012." Then you wrote: "The only reason you want to include these two schools is because it makes it seem that high profile, elite academic institutions are not meeting the APR criteria, when in fact that just isn't the case."

How do you expect me to respond when your own post is contradictory?

As for freescooter's supposed brilliance, see my response below.

Hahaha. You are a complete disingenuous joke. Do you understand what the word "if" means?
Show me where Harvard has not met the APR up to the most current measures?
You can't! Because up to now they have always met the standard.
You are wrong again...face it, live with it , deal with it.

 

[upstater]

Hahaha. You are a complete disingenuous joke. Do you understand what the word "if" means?
Show me where Harvard has not met the APR up to the most current measures?
You can't! Because up to now they have always met the standard.
You are wrong again...face it, live with it , deal with it.

It's simple math.

Harvard's four year rolling average was 991 in 2010. It was 974 in 2011.

Just do the math: (991 + 991 + 991 + X)/4 = 974

If you have trouble, I can show you how to do such an equation. I'm assuming you won't have difficulty with this, but I understand that people sometimes have trouble with this stuff.

 

[PomonaHusky]

It's simple math.

Harvard's four year rolling average was 991 in 2010. It was 974 in 2011.

Just do the math: (991 + 991 + 991 + X)/4 = 974

If you have trouble, I can show you how to do such an equation. I'm assuming you won't have difficulty with this, but I understand that people sometimes have trouble with this stuff.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....OK, except each of the 991 values is a 4 year running average itself. Not an individual value.
I admit I was looking at the values in the online APR report as if they were individual yearly values....darn it.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....I retract my "joke" statement. So, I admit being wrong about Harvard.
Will you admit being wrong about Cal Tech and the APR?

 

[upstater]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....OK, except each of the 991 values is a 4 year running average itself. Not an individual value.
I admit I was looking at the values in the online APR report as if they were individual yearly values....darn it.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....I retract my "joke" statement. So, I admit being wrong about Harvard.
Will you admit being wrong about Cal Tech and the APR?

I already did. up above. Did you skip that part?

Relax, dude. Chill.

 

[ctchamps]

freescooter
upstater and I are not defending JC or UConn men's bb regarding the apr. We are pointing out a bigger picture. The academic and maturation qualifications of players you criticize JC with accepting in his program are widespread in many other programs. upstater and caw have pointed out the discrepancy between GPR and the federal standards. The NCAA has created a system that makes it look like it's doing something in the minds of the general public when in fact it isn't. Most of us who take the time and effort to examine the system more closely, or have people like upstater explain the smoke and mirrors of the system, ultimately become educated about the falsehood of the APR. The general public won't invest the time necessary to reach this conclusion, so the NCAA can relegate the fanatical fan base as just that, fanatical as opposed to informed. They can give the appearance they are doing something when they are not because the general public won't, or doesn't know how, to refute them. And the press has lost it's moral compass to change things.


Jeff Hathaway had a bitter relationship with JC from the beginning of his tenure at UConn. It is my assertion that JC (and RE for that matter) asked for help to level the playing field between their programs and the programs they were competing with. upstater has pointed out the difficulty all men's bb players have with completing their courses in the spring. UConn had been in several post season tournaments during the period when their scores were examined and that did not help matters. The real problem is what took place between JH, JC and RE. We probably will never know so we have to read between the lines.

The UNC football scandal is significant. UNC is a top notch university that failed with it's oversight. The question is was the failure deliberate or not. I don't believe the UNC AD had been ignorant about what took place in that program. The extent and the degree of cheating were very significant and easily observed with just a modicum of oversight. The same case can be made about Miami's program. And we all learned about the Penn State fiasco that extended well into the hierarchy of its AD and probably president. It is only by sheer accident, or because the stories became too big to cover up, that we learned about the extensive abuses in these programs. What is obvious is that the the NCAA is not proactive in checking things.

JC may have been involved in reducing the program's standards for the type of athlete he accepted. But that is the case with most athletic programs if you take into consideration the federal numbers and not the NCAA numbers. Where JC contributed to his own demise was his inability to placate the people in power who could ultimately hurt him. He irritated Hathaway, the press, and Mark Emmert. He set himself up to be the perfect fall guy when the system was in play for that to happen.

I don't excuse JC and the men's bb program for having a low apr. It was wrong if we choose to insist that players be in program for an education. The problem with this, as upstater has pointed out, is who chooses the standards. That's a whole can of worms.

Condemning JC and not taking the time to examine the entire system, is its own bias, the bias upstater and I are in disagreement with you and BigErn.

In addition to setting up a supposed academic standard the NCAA needed a high profile program to punish. It could have been any program. The reason it turned out to be UConn and JC was that Emmert had a personal vendetta. There is a reason why they went backwards several years after the standard was put in place and not made it contingent on future performance once it was enacted. Emmert correctly understood there were new sheriffs in town when Herbst entered the scene. She was determined to play by the rules of all the other programs. It wasn't the only reason for bouncing Hathaway but it was definitely one of the reasons. So Emmert convinced his colleagues to pull the strings and punish JC in a retroactive manner.
It was a win win situation for Emmert and the NCAA.

 

[PomonaHusky]

First, my sincere apologies to upstater and the board for being a dick. I will chill.

For the most part, I agree with upstater, fleudslipcon...
But (and I may be naive in this thinking) I have a difficult time believing:
1) that the APR is bad for education. I don't think the APR does exactly what it is supposed to do, but it isn't going to impact education as a whole (i.e., filter over to decreased standards for all students). The UNC situation (I think) & others like it predate the APR. Did the UNC Athletic Department and the A&AAS program conspire to keep athletes academically eligible? Likely, but I don't see it as a response to the APR directly. It would have happened with or without the APR.
I don't think most university academic program administrators (usually faculty) even care about the APR or even know what it is; therefore, they will not respond to it in any way.
2) that there was a conspiracy to take down UConn. UConn just happened to have a bunch of kids in a short period of time that wanted to jump to the pros (overseas or NBA) and were more concerned with preparing for the pre-draft camps and workouts than finishing their Spring semester courses with passing grades. I would advise my son to do the same if he were in that situation. Did we recruit some kids that didn't belong in college? probably yes on that too.
Where does UConn go from here and how do they prevent this from happening again in the future? Especially with the perception that the APR is doing its job?
Hopefully, a high character guy like KO will attract kids who want to graduate and value academics.

I wonder, if the APR were in place throughout the 90s and early 2000s, which teams/school wouldn't have passed? But then kids could jump straight to the pros, that option needs to return. (although Brandon Jennings showed it could be done even with the current NBA rules).

 

[upstater]

First, my sincere apologies to upstater and the board for being a dick. I will chill.

For the most part, I agree with upstater, fleudslipcon...
But (and I may be naive in this thinking) I have a difficult time believing:
1) that the APR is bad for education. I don't think the APR does exactly what it is supposed to do, but it isn't going to impact education as a whole (i.e., filter over to decreased standards for all students). The UNC situation (I think) & others like it predate the APR. Did the UNC Athletic Department and the A&AAS program conspire to keep athletes academically eligible? Likely, but I don't see it as a response to the APR directly. It would have happened with or without the APR.

UNC predates APR, so you're correct. On the other hand, we've been saying the APR will create perverse incentives for the education of student athletes, not for the student body as a whole. Jay Bilas has been talking about this publicly: bogus courses, tracking into certain majors, lowered standards through 1 week and intersession courses, etc. In other words, the incentive is now there for universities to emphasize retention and eligibility rather than proceeding toward a degree (i.e. fulfilling requirements). This was a problem before, BUT now you are doubly penalized for a player in the advanced stages of his degree leaving. How are you penalized? The advanced player will have much less possibility of finishing an advanced course in the spring, while the frosh or soph taking intersession and/or bogus courses breezes. Why risk having a player take advanced courses? You'll be punished if he doesn't finish them.