Okie State Football Fail to meet minimum APR

[vtmikeb]

Do they get a bowl ban? Of course not! That would be too harsh. I need a drink. http://m.newsok.com/article/4815744

Edit: This probably should have gone on the football board as OT. Or the Nuke the NCAA board. My apologies. Feel free to move or delete.

 

[Afroabe224]

2009-10 – 916.
2010-11 – 915.
2011-12 – 953.
2012-13 – 934.

No matter how many times I hear it I cannot get over the logic. So players perform poorly and the guys on the team half a decade later get punished??

They should have just made up classes for the players and given them all A's. Could have avoided punishment.

 

[upstater]

Oklahoma showed improvement so they weren't banned.

Durgh??!??!

Was UConn singled out or what?

 

[Dooley]

I am BEYOND p1ssed off at this for two reasons:

1) okielite is a and if he's lurking... buddy;
2) the NCAA is the single most corrupt and flighty organization that ever existed.

That UCONN gets a postseason ban that had a very strong impact on our CR situation and OSU doesn't, makes me so ' mad.

Seriously. F Mark Emmert. basturd and make it hurt.

 

[ZooCougar]

Awwww shucks.

 

[freescooter]

Abe,
What is not to get? the NCAA punishes PROGRAMS. The fact that the participants change year to year is irrelevant. That is a silly argument. There are lots of reasons that what the NCAA did was wrong. That is NOT one of them. The Okie State thing is just another example of the NCAA changing the rules. But I would also argue that OKState isn't a big enough fish. Its like Central Connecticut getting banned. People at Central care, but the nation doesn't. If it was Oklahoma, it would have an impact. And that's what the NCAA cares about.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Abe,
What is not to get? the NCAA punishes PROGRAMS. The fact that the participants change year to year is irrelevant. That is a silly argument. There are lots of reasons that what the NCAA did was wrong. That is NOT one of them. The Okie State thing is just another example of the NCAA changing the rules. But I would also argue that OKState isn't a big enough fish. Its like Central Connecticut getting banned. People at Central care, but the nation doesn't. If it was Oklahoma, it would have an impact. And that's what the NCAA cares about.

Did you just say OSU is a smaller fish than UConn.?
I believe you should rethink that position.
The UConn punishment was personal . It had more to do with JC getting around the scholarship reduction by having a top. 10 recruit walk- on.

 

[Afroabe224]

Abe,
What is not to get? the NCAA punishes PROGRAMS. The fact that the participants change year to year is irrelevant. That is a silly argument. There are lots of reasons that what the NCAA did was wrong. That is NOT one of them. The Okie State thing is just another example of the NCAA changing the rules. But I would also argue that OKState isn't a big enough fish. Its like Central Connecticut getting banned. People at Central care, but the nation doesn't. If it was Oklahoma, it would have an impact. And that's what the NCAA cares about.

My biggest issue with the NCAA is their inconsistency and how there seems to be no precedent or appropriate guideline for punishing schools.

My issue with the APR is that it is 2014 and the technology is available to move more swiftly. UConn's 2012-13 APR score is available right now via the NCAA so you know they had it from the school many moons ago. I think greater incentive would be offered to both programs and students if punishment was applied the year of or the year following score reporting. That way the students responsible are likely to see the consequences or will at least see that they will impact their current teammates.

At OkSU it is clear the first problem year was 2009-2010. I'm sure this was known in late 2010 and then reported in 2011. Why not make the punishment effective the following year in 2010-11 (or even 2011-12)? This would be taking a real stance on academics in addition to holding the students more accountable. It seems stupid that the players who were part of the program 2009-2011 incur punishment for players 2011-13 who have scored above the 930 cutoff each year.

I just don't see the justice in punishing a current junior class in 2014-15 who has met all academic criteria for an issue that stems from before they were even recruited by a school.

As for UConn's APR ban I have no problem admitting they probably should have been banned for a season but it should have been somewhere between 2008-2010 NOT in 2013. I don't think Shabazz had his license yet back when the Dove was skipping classes at UConn.

 

[CL82]

Oklahoma showed improvement so they weren't banned.

Durgh??!??!

Was UConn singled out or what?

Well UConn score was only perfect during the ban year. As has been noted on this board, it needed to be better than perfect. We would have needed the math department to invent new numbers and then the players would have had to reach those numbers by getting doctorates. That didn't happen. I blame Warde.

 

[upstater]

As for UConn's APR ban I have no problem admitting they probably should have been banned for a season but it should have been somewhere between 2008-2010 NOT in 2013. I don't think Shabazz had his license yet back when the Dove was skipping classes at UConn.

Why should they have been banned back then? These bannings make no sense. As long as you have an AD willing to send in cocked up numbers, you're golden.

 

[CL82]

As for UConn's APR ban I have no problem admitting they probably should have been banned for a season but it should have been somewhere between 2008-2010 NOT in 2013.

Except that banning was not the punishment back then, it was loss of scholarship. UConn lost two, yes two, scholarships in the 2011 year because of it. Of course that just pissed Jim off so he and Kemba just won the whole thing.

It becomes more and more clear that UConn was singled out and grounds for relief were ignored. Really this needs a reasoned, non biased expose. I wish any of the members of the (former) horde would take it on.

 

[freescooter]

Did you just say OSU is a smaller fish than UConn.?
I believe you should rethink that position.
The UConn punishment was personal . It had more to do with JC getting around the scholarship reduction by having a top. 10 recruit walk- on.

In basketball UConn was the defending national Champ when the decision was made. Ok State is just another 2nd tier team in the B-12 football conference. If they missed the post season nobody would even miss them except maybe the Weedeater Bowl and the #4 team in CUSA. Now if the Crimson Tide screwed up the APR, the NCAA would lick its chops!

 

[FAIRTIDES]

In basketball UConn was the defending national Champ when the decision was made. Ok State is just another 2nd tier team in the B-12 football conference. If they missed the post season nobody would even miss them except maybe the Weedeater Bowl and the #4 team in CUSA. Now if the Crimson Tide screwed up the APR, the NCAA would lick its chops!

Free, do you really believe that? Based on punishments recently given to Miami and UNC, a case could be made that the NCAA prefers to shovel "big-time" program violations under the biggest rug available. How does a school that has a car, boat, girl providing booster/ponzi-schemer deck a compliance officer in full view of school admin and faculty heavy weights not get nailed for the dreaded "Lack of Institutional Control?" Same question related to UNC. How do grades from demonstrably non-existent courses provide any support for any APR result? Even if you buy the NCAA's flawed "the courses were available to regular students" argument, the actual grades still have to be B.S. How many courses have to be failed before a school's APR turns to mush.

The NCAA wants no part of disciplining P5 schools. Bad for job security. It's an old story, but still true. If you grab a tiger by the tail, you better have a plan for dealing with its mouth. Emmert ain't grabbing any tiger tails.

 

[Afroabe224]

Why should they have been banned back then? These bannings make no sense. As long as you have an AD willing to send in cocked up numbers, you're golden.

All I am asking for is some sort of consistency. If we're going with poor APR = Postseason ban then let's do in a way that makes sense and is fair to every program. If UConn didn't meet the appropriate APR ban them immediately 2009? 2010? not 2013. Same with OkSU, if they want to demand a 930 from each team in the NCAA then their football team should have been banned from the 2010 Alamo Bowl for 2009 academic performance not this 2014 practice restriction nonsense.

As CL pointed out UConn underwent double jeopardy basically being punished twice for the same offense which is another infuriating topic but for APR I'm fine if they want to take action just do it within a realistic window not a 4-5 year lag time.

 

[specialisthusky]

All I am asking for is some sort of consistency. If we're going with poor APR = Postseason ban then let's do in a way that makes sense and is fair to every program. If UConn didn't meet the appropriate APR ban them immediately 2009? 2010? not 2013. Same with OkSU, if they want to demand a 930 from each team in the NCAA then their football team should have been banned from the 2010 Alamo Bowl for 2009 academic performance not this 2014 practice restriction nonsense.

As CL pointed out UConn underwent double jeopardy basically being punished twice for the same offense which is another infuriating topic but for APR I'm fine if they want to take action just do it within a realistic window not a 4-5 year lag time.

The standard changed. To miss the postseason you have to score below a 930 4 year average AND a 940 two year average. Ok state met the two year average.

 

[specialisthusky]

The standard changed. To miss the postseason you have to score below a 930 4 year average AND a 940 two year average. Ok state met the two year average

And that should not take away from your overall point at all which I agree with.

 

[Fishy]

The biggest problem anyone can have with our APR ban was that we were eligible one day, then the NCAA had a meeting and then the next day we were banned. It was less a ban and more a hit - the NCAA's stance was, "well, everyone knew they had to improve their APRs..."

We had, but they were applying the rule in such a way that the newest numbers didn't make a difference.

You have to think that if UNC was over the line, the line would never have been moved. I mean, hell, they have a terrible APR right now even with the fake grades figured in and they're still just peachy as per the NCAA.