PiPress: Gophers basketball team falls 118 points in latest APR

Donate To GopherHole

This is troubling, they may be down to one (lets hope not both) scholerships for next year without some improvement.
 

Don't take all of it as fact - the author does not appear to understand the APR.
 

I believe Tubby said at one point Devoe leaving mid season would hurt their APR.
 



And I misinterpreted earlier, thinking this included Devoe's transfer so that could be an issue next year. I forgot about Al Nolen's ineligibility his junior year tho, that probably killed as much as anything.

I don't completely understand the system though, so if a player is in good academic standing, but then transfers after the semester, that's a knock on the APR even though they are in good academic standing? If Colt and Dawson left after the semester and they were doing alright, do they really hurt the APR? Just trying to get this lol.

EDIT: Lincoln gopher answered my question.
 

Not 100% sure, GW can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think walk-ons are relevant to the APR. The APR is for scholarship players, I think.

If they count walk-ons, what's to prevent a coach from adding 4-5 brainiac walk-ons every year just to boost the team APR/GPA/graduation ratio? In most cases, walk-ons are going to be smart kids, kids who don't need their hands held every minute of the day by the academic staff to make it through school.
 

Yeah, it's only scholarship athletes, so Dawson won't matter.

The APR is determined by using the eligibility and retention for athletes on scholarship during an academic year.
Click to expand...
 

Lincoln gopher said:
Any transfers hurt the APR regardless of when it happens.
Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue. You could have 2 kids transfer and 2 go early to the NBA every year and still have a perfect APR score.

Monty519 said:
EDIT: Lincoln gopher answered my question.
Click to expand...

However, he answered it incorrectly. In mathematical terms, however, transfers can dilute your APR even when transfers are awarded all their available points (i.e., a 1 for 1 term)... if there are others who had issues.
 



Okay, that's more what I was thinking initially. Good to know.
 

"The NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance has approved an automatic adjustment to the calculation of the NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) to discount the lost retention point in those instances when a student-athlete transfers. Requests for transfer student-athletes who meet all criteria for the automatic adjustment of the retention point should be submitted at the same time as an institution’s APR data through the NCAA Division I Academic Performance Program (APP) data collection system and not the Legislative Services Database for the Internet (LSDBi) waiver portal.

Review of such an adjustment request is dependent on a student-athlete meeting the following criteria:

1. The student-athlete transferred immediately to another four-year institution (i.e., the next
available regular academic term), which must be supported by documentation of the
student-athlete’s full-time enrollment and matriculation at the second institution in the
next regular academic term;

2. The student-athlete attended the original institution for a minimum of one academic year prior to the transfer;

3. The student-athlete earned the eligibility point in the last term of enrollment prior to the
transfer; and

4. The student-athlete presented a cumulative grade-point average of 2.6 or higher at the
time of transfer from the original institution."

from http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/Misc_Commit...r Adjustment Question and Answer Document.pdf
 

What is the timing for calculating this, Nolen and White in 2009-2010 would have hurt the score if that is used to calculate the score for this year, if not I am not sure what would have impacted it this negatively for 2010-2011.

925 is the key though, four year average below that and you lose scholerships.
 

jovs said:
What is the timing for calculating this, Nolen and White in 2009-2010 would have hurt the score if that is used to calculate the score for this year, if not I am not sure what would have impacted it this negatively for 2010-2011.

925 is the key though, four year average below that and you lose scholerships.
Click to expand...

The APR used is a four year score. The 863 (and related 118 'drop' from the prior year) is a one year score. The single year measurement is being reported as 863 for 2009-10, bringing down the APR (four years ended 2009-10) to 955. Obviously, this poor year will continue to affect the team's APR for the next few years.

Nolen and White are issues, but there are also others, including at least one that was not mentioned in the article.

Your comment on the loss of scholerships (sic) is incorrect. Having a four year avearge below 925 does not mean you lose scholarships.

PS - Now looking at the data myself from a source other than the article, it appears the article has bad numbers as well as incorrect explanations. The numbers were likely obtained from Gophersports.com, but do not agree to the NCAA-published figures. I'm seeing a four-year of 964 (and a 2009-10 of 898). Probably a late edit from 44/51 to 44/49.
 



NCAA Academic Progress Penalties.

Division I teams that do not earn an Academic Progress Rate above specific benchmarks face penalties ranging from scholarship reductions to more severe sanctions.

Teams that score below 925 and have at least one student-athlete who both failed academically and left school can lose scholarships (up to 10 percent of their scholarships each year) under the immediate-penalty structure.

Teams with Academic Progress Rates below 900 face additional sanctions, increasing in severity for each consecutive year the team fails to meet the standard.

Year 1: A public warning letter for poor performance
Year 2: Restrictions on scholarships and practice time
Year 3: Loss of postseason competition for the team (such as a bowl game or the men’s basketball tournament)
Year 4: Restricted membership status for an institution. The school’s entire athletics program is penalized and will not be considered a part of Division I.
Last Updated: Apr 15, 2010
 

But their APR is 955, so they haven't dipped under 925 yet. Now next year, another 870 type score could put that in danger, but even then, it says the school "CAN" lose scholarships, it doesn't read as a definitive thing.
 

Monty519 said:
But their APR is 955, so they haven't dipped under 925 yet. Now next year, another 870 type score could put that in danger, but even then, it says the school "CAN" lose scholarships, it doesn't read as a definitive thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if the get above 900 for next year then there isn't any problem, if they happened to drop below 900 again the consequences might not be so nice.
 

jovs said:
Exactly, if the get above 900 for next year then there isn't any problem, if they happened to drop below 900 again the consequences might not be so nice.
Click to expand...

Not exactly that straight forward.

Nonetheless, it appears the real figures are 964/898 (4 yr APR ending 2009-10 / 1 yr APR 2009-10) and that the figures per the Pioneer Press and Gophersports.com are not the numbers the NCAA has.

Unless our talented trio of guaranteed NBA players leave the U right after this next season ends, things can be improved.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Absolutely untrue. You could have 2 kids transfer and 2 go early to the NBA every year and still have a perfect APR score.



However, he answered it incorrectly. In mathematical terms, however, transfers can dilute your APR even when transfers are awarded all their available points (i.e., a 1 for 1 term)... if there are others who had issues.
Click to expand...

In Monty's post, he states APR measures athletes' retention during an academic year, so does it only hurt the APR if the transfer happens during the school year? Also you stated transfers can dilute the APR, how does that differ from lowering the APR? Just trying to understand the APR and how it changes.
 

Lincoln gopher said:
In Monty's post, he states APR measures athletes' retention during an academic year, so does it only hurt the APR if the transfer happens during the school year? Also you stated transfers can dilute the APR, how does that differ from lowering the APR? Just trying to understand the APR and how it changes.
Click to expand...

There are nuances, but generally speaking...

Transfer timing - no, this would only matter if it's the student-athlete's first year at an institution.

Tying this into your other question, think of it this way:
Each player can potentially earn 2 points per semester (or semester equivalent) - one 'retention' point and one 'eligibility' point. In other words, 4 points per player, per school year. Because the APR is generally looked at on a four-year rolling basis, many schools will have roughly 200 potential points as their denominator (13 players x 4 points x 4 years).

If a transfer leaves your school in good academic standing, it's possible that your school receives 3/3 points (1/1 in the second semester - that being the eligibility point... but if the kid leaves after the school year to go pro, or transfer to another 4 year school and leaves in good academic standing, the 1 possible retention point is disregarded... that is, it's not a 1/2 for the semester.. it's just a 1/1).

So, if you have 13 kids on your team...
8 kids stay academically eligible and come back the following year... you get 32/32 points for that school year (8 * 4 for both the numerator and denominator).
3 kids stay academically eligible and graduate. You get 12/12 points (3 kids * 4).
1 kid transfers after the school year. He leaves in good academic standing. You get 3/3 points.
1 kid leaves early to be a professional. He stays until the end of the semester and finishes up his course work. You get 3/3 points.

So, in this situation, you're looking at 50/50 points. The APR is usually stated as a whole number, but it's simply a percentage. 50/50 = 1,000, a perfect APR.

Now, if of those 8 kids that stay in school... 1 of them screwed up their academics and had to sit out the second semester.. but then was eligible the following year... you would be looking at a 3/4. Or, in total, a 49/50 = 980 APR. If the transfer and the professional had instead stayed at your school, you would have gotten another 2/2.. and the total APR would have been 51/52 = 981 APR. So, the fact that those two left is mathematically dilutive to your APR if you do not have a score of 1000... in this example and in most real life cases, the impact is going to be minimal, especially when you consider the four year average is the key figure (so one transfer is roughly taking away 1/1 from x/~200).

By the way, in the case of a Paul Carter, he graduated and therefore I believe would have added the full 4/4 possible to the team's APR score, despite 'transferring'. Cobbs, I believe a 3/3.

I think I have the particulars of Minnesota's calculation nailed down for 2009-10... i.e., 44/49, with three guys (I won't ruin the fun by saying who and why right now) not obtaining an equal numerator and denominator, and Cobbs receiving a 3/3 due to transfer... but the fact that the school published one figure yesterday and then the NCAA published another one today (backing off an 0/2) is interesting. I have my guesses on what may have happened there, but...
 

UConvict shows their true colors once again. What a corrupt program. Shame on CB for UConvict being the national champion. Calhoun is just as bad as Calipari.

Wonder if Kemba Walker has read his 2nd book of his life yet. Odds are he's read one more than most UConvict players.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
There are nuances, but generally speaking...

Transfer timing - no, this would only matter if it's the student-athlete's first year at an institution.

Tying this into your other question, think of it this way:
Each player can potentially earn 2 points per semester (or semester equivalent) - one 'retention' point and one 'eligibility' point. In other words, 4 points per player, per school year. Because the APR is generally looked at on a four-year rolling basis, many schools will have roughly 200 potential points as their denominator (13 players x 4 points x 4 years).

If a transfer leaves your school in good academic standing, it's possible that your school receives 3/3 points (1/1 in the second semester - that being the eligibility point... but if the kid leaves after the school year to go pro, or transfer to another 4 year school and leaves in good academic standing, the 1 possible retention point is disregarded... that is, it's not a 1/2 for the semester.. it's just a 1/1).

So, if you have 13 kids on your team...
8 kids stay academically eligible and come back the following year... you get 32/32 points for that school year (8 * 4 for both the numerator and denominator).
3 kids stay academically eligible and graduate. You get 12/12 points (3 kids * 4).
1 kid transfers after the school year. He leaves in good academic standing. You get 3/3 points.
1 kid leaves early to be a professional. He stays until the end of the semester and finishes up his course work. You get 3/3 points.

So, in this situation, you're looking at 50/50 points. The APR is usually stated as a whole number, but it's simply a percentage. 50/50 = 1,000, a perfect APR.

Now, if of those 8 kids that stay in school... 1 of them screwed up their academics and had to sit out the second semester.. but then was eligible the following year... you would be looking at a 3/4. Or, in total, a 49/50 = 980 APR. If the transfer and the professional had instead stayed at your school, you would have gotten another 2/2.. and the total APR would have been 51/52 = 981 APR. So, the fact that those two left is mathematically dilutive to your APR if you do not have a score of 1000... in this example and in most real life cases, the impact is going to be minimal, especially when you consider the four year average is the key figure (so one transfer is roughly taking away 1/1 from x/~200).

By the way, in the case of a Paul Carter, he graduated and therefore I believe would have added the full 4/4 possible to the team's APR score, despite 'transferring'. Cobbs, I believe a 3/3.

I think I have the particulars of Minnesota's calculation nailed down for 2009-10... i.e., 44/49, with three guys (I won't ruin the fun by saying who and why right now) not obtaining an equal numerator and denominator, and Cobbs receiving a 3/3 due to transfer... but the fact that the school published one figure yesterday and then the NCAA published another one today (backing off an 0/2) is interesting. I have my guesses on what may have happened there, but...
Click to expand...

Appreciate the explanation, I was understanding that the best a transfer could be was 3/4. Thanks again.
 


Guys - you're welcome.

BTW, I did talk with a valued source, and indeed the data in the Pioneer Press article and at Gophersports.com that was released on Monday was outdated. For several reasons, data can and does change - no great conspiracy in the change.

The data (960/898) I referred to yesterday is the current and appropriate data.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom