APR stuff could get interesting in 2012-13

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,586
Reaction score
4,654
Points
113

What did the Gophers BB APR for 2010-2011 end up at. I hope Joseph's departure doesn't put them right on the edge for the two year 2009-2011 span. With 2009-2010 so low they could be close, they needed around 970 it sounds like.
 

jovs said:
What did the Gophers BB APR for 2010-2011 end up at. I hope Joseph's departure doesn't put them right on the edge for the two year 2009-2011 span. With 2009-2010 so low they could be close, they needed around 970 it sounds like.
Click to expand...

Gophers APR for 2009-2010 was 898 (I believe - I have also seen 934 but that looks to be corrected to 898).
They would need a 2 year total of 1860 (930 avg X 2) per new NCAA 2 Year Avg APR rule.
1860 - 898 (APR for 2009-2010) = 962 (Would be the necessary APR for 2010-2011 roster).

Gopher roster for 2010-2011

Scholarship player 2010 2011 roster
PTS EARNED / TOTAL PTS (Estimated)
1 Hoffarber, Blake 4/ 4
2 Nolen, Al 4 /4
3 Iverson, Colton 3/ 4
4 Joseph, Devoe 1/ 2
5 Mbakwe, Trevor 4/ 4
6 Sampson III, Ralph 4/ 4
7 Ahanmisi, Maverick 4/ 4
8 Armelin, Chip 4 /4
9 Eliason, Elliott 4 /4
10 Hollins, Austin 4 /4
11 Osenieks, Oto 4/ 4
12 Walker, Maurice 4/ 4
13 Williams, Rodney 4/ 4

48 points out of a possible 50

48 points out of 50 possible would be a 960 APR (48/50 X 1000)

960 + 898 = 1858.

By my estimated calculation we would be 2 APR points shy for the 2013 NCAA tournament. NCAA Might make adjustments though. Gopher 4 year calculation is quite good - 964 I believe.

Here is a link to a May 2010 article showing the basketball team with a vastly improving APR.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ing-in-Academic-Progress-Rate-report-63738077

2009-2010 was a very bad year for MN APR with Cobbs, White, Nolen (one semester) ineligibility and perhaps a senior or two who did not perform well academically in their final semester.

2010-2011 APR report will not be released until Spring 2012.

Subject to further interpretation!
 


rrjackIII said:
2009-2010 was a very bad year for MN APR with Cobbs, White, Nolen (one semester) ineligibility and perhaps a senior or two who did not perform well academically in their final semester.

Subject to further interpretation!
Click to expand...

2009-10: I think Cobbs was at 100% (although 3/3 vs. 4/4) so not a big deal there. You're on the right track the rest of what you said.

2010-11: How are you getting to Devoe and Colton being less than 100%? They may be fine (i.e., 1/1 and 3/3). Al (because I simply don't know), Oto (unique case - again, I don't know) and one other I'm not sure on, but they may be fine as well.

The rules are being phased-in over a few years and I foresee waivers being issued in a couple of circumstances if 'needed' for certain programs.
 


Gopher Warrior said:
2009-10: I think Cobbs was at 100% (although 3/3 vs. 4/4) so not a big deal there. You're on the right track the rest of what you said.

2010-11: How are you getting to Devoe and Colton being less than 100%? They may be fine (i.e., 1/1 and 3/3). Al (because I simply don't know), Oto (unique case - again, I don't know) and one other I'm not sure on, but they may be fine as well.

The rules are being phased-in over a few years and I foresee waivers being issued in a couple of circumstances if 'needed' for certain programs.
Click to expand...

This is the way I understand the APR stuff. First off the NCAA makes it purposely obscure in order to protect confidentiality of student athletes.

However, this is the way I think it works. Each Scholarship Athlete can accumulate 2 APR points for each semester. The student athlete gets one point for staying eliigible and he gets another point for staying in school. Therefore I don't believe it is possible to get a 3/3 like you mentioned for Cobbs in 2009. My guess on Cobbs is that he was 2/2 for the first semester. He stayed eligible and he returned to school in the 2nd semester. 2/2. After (or possibly during) the 2nd semester he left school. If he maintained his eligibility for the 2nd semester he gets one point. He did not return to school so he does not get the 2nd point, therefore he is 1/2 in the 2nd semester (assuming he finished the 2nd semester in good academic standing).

2010-2011. Similarly, Devoe left school before the 2nd semester began actually in order to possibly make him eligible for the 2nd term at Oregon this year. He maintained his eligibility in the 1st semester but he did not return to school for the 2nd semester therefore making his point total 1/2. 2nd semester no points for eligibility and no points for returning in the fall semester since he has already left school. 1/2 for the year. Colton maintained his eligibility in the 1st semester and returned to school 2nd semester --- therefore 2/2 for the 1st semester. 2nd semester assuming his 2nd semester was good academically he gets one point but he did not return to school in the fall semester. Eligibilty and retention are the way you accumulate points. Therefore Colton by my guess is 3/4 for the year. Al was ineligible academically 2nd semester of the 2009-2010 year. He stayed in school 2nd semester and returned in fall semester 2010 (retention point). 3/4. Oto I am assuming 4/4 since his situation had something to do with him not qualifying upon entering school - but as far as I know has nothing to do with his academic performance while he was in school.

I think the NCAA has built in some leeway especially for a school that is IMPROVING its APR. But this new rule as described in Selection Sunday's link may signal a change in their direction toward a tougher stance.
 

Can someone explain to me how APR works? Like, I don't get why a transfer or guy leaving hurts the program?
 


zambam said:
Can someone explain to me how APR works? Like, I don't get why a transfer or guy leaving hurts the program?
Click to expand...

Here is my unofficial condensed condensed history of APR and NCAA.

In the early 2000's the NCAA signed a multi-year television deal with CBS and its affiliates worth approximately 14 gazillion dollars. After signing this agreement many in the media as well as in the 99% began to question the NCAA's commitment to the Student Athlete. Some even suggested that the NCAA was just about the money.

In order to counteract this negative publicity the NCAA commissioned an expensive, lengthy and comprehensive study to determine how to redirect some of their efforts to the Student Athlete.

The results of this study determined that the best way for them to help the Student Athlete was to encourage (by way of penalty) member institutions to get Student Athletes on the way toward graduation. They determined that 2 primary factors helped a student progress toward a degree.

1 was passing classes and staying eligible and
2 was staying in school.

They set up their APR calculation that awarded a student one APR point for passing classes and staying eligible and an additional APR point for staying in school. These points were awarded for each semester (and quarter system too - I believe) for each student athlete. The NCAA Study commission determined that the overall student population (not just athletes) graduated at a certain level and pace. If I recall correctly their calculation goals for the Student Athlete attempted to mirror the overall student population graduation rate. Their APR calculation number was determined to be 900 (I believe) for an overall 4 year APR score. They also put in place a more immediate penalty situation where an institution with an APR of less than 925 and also had a Student Athlete who become ineligible and also dropped out of school would constitute an 0 for 2 calculation for that Student Athlete in that final and ineligible semester and would lose an immediate Scholarship for the next year.

I believe they set in place some flexibility for themselves especially when an institution showed signs improving its APR over recent years. They still wanted to have some influence over some sort of more immediate penalty situation for example the 0 for 2 Student Athlete mentioned above. This may be what is going on with their new 2 year APR Calculation rule to address member institutions failures. Connecticut scoring an APR of around 800 is noteworthy. When I tried to figure this stuff out a few years ago when Monson's teams were scoring around 875 I thought getting an 800 would be pretty hard to do. I guess Connecticut shows that it is not all that hard.

With regard to transferring to another school I believe the NCAA determined that staying in the SAME school was one way of helping a student athlete stay on the path toward graduation. It also may have had a concern about coaches potentially running players off their teams in order to free up another scholarship. I believe there was an attempt to adjust this for a TRANSFERRING Student Athlete who was in good academic standing and not penalize the institution for that transferring student athlete. I could be wrong but I do not believe they made that change and that a student who transfers in good academic standing still incurs a one point hit on the original school's APR. The NCAA did make an adjustment for a Student Athlete who opts for the PROS like the NBA. If a player opts for and goes to the NBA and he was in good academic standing in his final semester with the school then the school does not get hit with a loss of an APR point for the Student opting not to return to school.

The NCAA also put in some other incentives where a school can get an additional Bonus APR point if a former Student Athlete returns to the school at a later date and gets a degree. One point is added then to the Schools APR total and could be considered a 1 for 0 addition to the APR. If I remember correctly Aaron Robinson returned to school after finishing his eligibility and got his degree thus earning a bonus APR point for the U.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom