More On Apr

OldTimer · May 7, 2009

It doesn't make sense to me that the NT football team last year had a APR ranking of 968 but still got hit with the loss of 6 ships.

eulessismore · May 7, 2009

It doesn't make sense to me that the NT football team last year had a APR ranking of 968 but still got hit with the loss of 6 ships.

Does anyone have a history of these scores over the period of time where RV mentioned the worst one being dropped next year?

H-towngreen · May 7, 2009

It doesn't make sense to me that the NT football team last year had a APR ranking of 968 but still got hit with the loss of 6 ships.

It seems fair to me that they should be punished now for the team from 4 yrs ago not doing good in class.

GrandGreen · May 7, 2009

Remember that this so called academic measure is actually more of a penalty for teams with a large turnover of players before graduation. Although, players that leave that are not in good academic standing count twice as much against a program's APR as those with satisfactory performance; the formula is based on the number of players that exit the program prematurely for whatever reason. For example, if you look at recruits from TD's first class that actually started school by my count 8 are gone of which only two are likely academic casualties. Programs going through a lot of change and difficulties such as NT are likely to have much greater turnover than the norm and are punished for this by this APR computation irregardless of the academic issues.

By virtue of the APR computation, schools are actually encouraged to place athletes in questionable academic programs and gimme courses. If the NCAA actually wanted to do something, they could greatly limit the number of special admits given to athletes and closely monitor degree programs to ensure they truly consist of college level curriculum.

Does anyone know why there is such an inconsistency between the NCAA reports and the NT official site on the results of the football APR? For NT to lose another ship would mean that that last years score would have to be worse than the year dropped from the average which seems unlikely.

stebo · May 7, 2009

Remember that this so called academic measure is actually more of a penalty for teams with a large turnover of players before graduation. Although, players that leave that are not in good academic standing count twice as much against a program's APR as those with satisfactory performance; the formula is based on the number of players that exit the program prematurely for whatever reason. For example, if you look at recruits from TD's first class that actually started school by my count 8 are gone of which only two are likely academic casualties. Programs going through a lot of change and difficulties such as NT are likely to have much greater turnover than the norm and are punished for this by this APR computation irregardless of the academic issues.
By virtue of the APR computation, schools are actually encouraged to place athletes in questionable academic programs and gimme courses. If the NCAA actually wanted to do something, they could greatly limit the number of special admits given to athletes and closely monitor degree programs to ensure they truly consist of college level curriculum.
Does anyone know why there is such an inconsistency between the NCAA reports and the NT official site on the results of the football APR? For NT to lose another ship would mean that that last years score would have to be worse than the year dropped from the average which seems unlikely.

That is not what the NCAA site says. Students that leave in good standing do not affect the report score from what I understand. They kind of do, becuse it is one less passing student to be put on the whole. In other words, the percentage of 10 (failing players) out of 100 (total players) is 10%... When a player leaves in good standing, his number is not put into either column, so instead of have 10 out of 100, we have 10 failing players out of 99... so the 10% number goes up a little to .101 or 10.1% ... so there is an effect, but it is minimal. Not nearly the hit of a failing student.

The report is about their academic progress. I think that you are confusing this report with NCAA grraduation rates. That system is screwy too but not the same critera. All that a deaprting student does is take away from the total in the formula. They slightly hurt it but the amount is negligle. Basically 11 kids leaving in good academic standing hurts about the same as 1 leaving in bad standing. So if you lose 5 all the way to 14 it hurts the same.

Chrisattsu · May 7, 2009

That is not what the NCAA site says. Students that leave in good standing do not affect the report score from what I understand. They kind of do, becuse it is one less passing student to be put on the whole. In other words, the percentage of 10 (failing players) out of 100 (total players) is 10%... When a player leaves in good standing, his number is not put into either column, so instead of have 10 out of 100, we have 10 failing players out of 99... so the 10% number goes up a little to .101 or 10.1% ... so there is an effect, but it is minimal. Not nearly the hit of a failing student.
The report is about their academic progress. I think that you are confusing this report with NCAA grraduation rates. That system is screwy too but not the same critera. All that a deaprting student does is take away from the total in the formula. They slightly hurt it but the amount is negligle. Basically 11 kids leaving in good academic standing hurts about the same as 1 leaving in bad standing. So if you lose 5 all the way to 14 it hurts the same.

I could have sworn that Student Retention is a key part of this. If a player leaves, like we have seen at NT, then it penalizes the team and APR.

Texas State is in trouble for our Men's Basketball team. I thought it was more so for losing players, than players failing.

SUMG · May 7, 2009

Remember that this so called academic measure is actually more of a penalty for teams with a large turnover of players before graduation. Although, players that leave that are not in good academic standing count twice as much against a program's APR as those with satisfactory performance; the formula is based on the number of players that exit the program prematurely for whatever reason. For example, if you look at recruits from TD's first class that actually started school by my count 8 are gone of which only two are likely academic casualties. Programs going through a lot of change and difficulties such as NT are likely to have much greater turnover than the norm and are punished for this by this APR computation irregardless of the academic issues.
By virtue of the APR computation, schools are actually encouraged to place athletes in questionable academic programs and gimme courses. If the NCAA actually wanted to do something, they could greatly limit the number of special admits given to athletes and closely monitor degree programs to ensure they truly consist of college level curriculum.
Does anyone know why there is such an inconsistency between the NCAA reports and the NT official site on the results of the football APR? For NT to lose another ship would mean that that last years score would have to be worse than the year dropped from the average which seems unlikely.

Brett does a good job explaining the difference...in this blog:

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/

GrandGreen · May 7, 2009

That is not what the NCAA site says. Students that leave in good standing do not affect the report score from what I understand. They kind of do, becuse it is one less passing student to be put on the whole. In other words, the percentage of 10 (failing players) out of 100 (total players) is 10%... When a player leaves in good standing, his number is not put into either column, so instead of have 10 out of 100, we have 10 failing players out of 99... so the 10% number goes up a little to .101 or 10.1% ... so there is an effect, but it is minimal. Not nearly the hit of a failing student.
The report is about their academic progress. I think that you are confusing this report with NCAA grraduation rates. That system is screwy too but not the same critera. All that a deaprting student does is take away from the total in the formula. They slightly hurt it but the amount is negligle. Basically 11 kids leaving in good academic standing hurts about the same as 1 leaving in bad standing. So if you lose 5 all the way to 14 it hurts the same.

You are right. They have changed the computation to eliminate the effect of students leaving early who are in good standing. While I did not find a clear example, I did find this quote on a NCAA site:

Some of the retention increase can be attributed to an adjustment in the APR calculation that allows student-athletes earning a 2.6 grade point average and meeting other academic requirements to transfer without losing the retention point. Historical data reveal that student-athletes fitting this academic profile go on to graduate at rates similar to student-athletes who do not transfer.

Thanks for the input, because I was not aware of the change. I don't think Dodge has lost many players due to academics, so improvement should be in line with RV's predictions.

buff64 · May 7, 2009

Seems to me that the NCAA is going about this all wrong or at least their timing is terrible. Why do they wait until the recruiting season for the next fall is finished before they announce scholarship reductions ? Shouldn't the reductions occur during the next recruiting season ?

shaft · May 8, 2009

So this all comes down to Dodge thinks he's better than he really is. Dodge gambled and put off last year's penalties and didn't cut this year.

The Dodge Era is the worst era in UNT history.

LoveMG · May 8, 2009

So this all comes down to Dodge thinks he's better than he really is. Dodge gambled and put off last year's penalties and didn't cut this year.
The Dodge Era is the worst era in UNT history.

4 year average with the worst years under dickey not dodge. dodge did take early pennalties last year.