New APR Rates for Women's Basketball

[FollowerCT]

FYI ... http://www.swishappeal.com/2013/10/25/5028548/new-apr-rates-for-womens-bb-released-by-ncaa

 

[Icebear]

Only a 976? Wonder why?

 

[Wbbfan1]

I suspect UConn has a 976 due to a player transferring. I believe a transfer counts against the original school. Could be wrong as there have been some changes to the rules recently.

I did notice that the Lady Vols have an APR of 956, lower then UConn. Their fans brag out their 100% graduation rate. I know us UConn fans do as well, but not as much.

 

[arty155]

Only a 976? Wonder why?

- They may not be eating enough Prime Rib - or they just can't keep it down, when they do.
- I pride myself on reading all that fine print flashing by during TV commercials. They seem to be warning as a public service something about 'When the Prime Rib goes up or down, your APR may change, depending on whether your issuer updates your rates monthly or quarterly.'

//////
- Actually, the dates seem very interesting (very old) :

- I noted the Swish Appeal article linked above refers to these years: “The newest set of figures for the NCAA Academic Progress Rates (APR) for women's basketball were recently released. This set of rates covers students who entered their universities between 2003 and 2006.”

- Now, that seems pretty old, when compared to this 11 June 2013 article LINK at uconnhuskies.com, which instead refers to: “The multi-year rates include the four academic years from 2008-11 and the single-year scores are for 2011-12.” And goes on to say… “ A multi-year score of 984 for the women's basketball team during a time period in which UConn won two national championships and played in the Final Four all four seasons.”

 

[UCONNfan1]

Only a 976? Wonder why?

Maybe transfers? That's all I could think of - Johnson, Engeln and Walker might be part of that number...

 

[Fightin Choke]

Maybe transfers? That's all I could think of - Johnson, Engeln and Walker might be part of that number...

No, it cannot be those transfers for a couple reasons. First, the data are for students entering colleges from 2003-2006, and Walker, Johnson, and Engeln matriculated in 2010 Second, schools are no longer penalized for transfers, as long as the students are academically eligible when they transfer (LINK):

The NCAA developed the Division I Graduation Success Rate in response to college and university presidents who wanted graduation data that more accurately reflect the mobility among all college students today. The rate measures graduation rates at Division I institutions and includes student-athletes transferring into the institutions. In that regard, it differs from the methodology of the rate mandated by the federal government, which does not count incoming transfer student-athletes at all and counts student-athletes who transfer out as not having graduated, regardless of whether they actually did. The Graduation Success Rate also allows institutions to exclude from the computation student-athletes who leave their institutions before graduation, so long as they would have been academically eligible to compete had they remained.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Part of the problem here is that the person who wrote the linked article is a clueless idiot. He has no idea that the APR (Academic Progress Rate) and the GSR (Graduation Success Rate) are totally different metrics that measure totally different things. The graduation rate model is the one that looks at results for students who entered from 2003 to 2006. He talks about this - but then lists APR scores, which are based on academic progress from year to year, with the most recent ones only being a year old.

As for UConn, transfers who have OK grades when they leave do not cause a school to lose any APR points.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Part of the problem here is that the person who wrote the linked article is a clueless idiot. He has no idea that the APR (Academic Progress Rate) and the GSR (Graduation Success Rate) are totally different metrics that measure totally different things. The graduation rate model is the one that looks at results for students who entered from 2003 to 2006. He talks about this - but then lists APR scores, which are based on academic progress from year to year, with the most recent ones only being a year old.

As for UConn, transfers who have OK grades (i.e. above 2.5 GPA) when they leave do not cause a school to lose any APR points.

 

[stamfordhusky]

No, it cannot be those transfers for a couple reasons. First, the data are for students entering colleges from 2003-2006, and Walker, Johnson, and Engeln matriculated in 2010 Second, schools are no longer penalized for transfers, as long as the students are academically eligible when they transfer (LINK):

You're mostly right about most transfers not hurting the rate, but your dates are wrong. Despite the cluelessness of the author of the article, the APR that he references actually covers the academic years of 2008-09 through 2011-12. Also you've linked to a summary of the GSR - which is entirely different and has different rules on transfers.

UConn has clearly lost a few points over those four years, and I suspect a couple of them may belong to Jess McCormack. She clearly lost one point for not returning for her next year and may have lost a second point for academics. Also it's possible Samarie Walker did not have a good enough GPA when she transferred.

 

[01Neaggrad02]

What about Delledonne?

 

[stamfordhusky]

What about Delledonne?

No. She was never enrolled for a regular semester.