RacerJoeD wrote:You're not forcing anyone to do anything, but you can stipulate that if you (as a school) want to put a player on the floor, that you at least do so with the agreement that the athlete is a student. If not, you suffer with reduced scholarships and possible lack of postseason.
This is the crux of APR for undergrads.
When you have been in school for five or six years, academic progress is a degree. And the reason why student athletes get a free transfer (not sitting out) is to, ostensibly, get a graduate degree in a fe Of notnoffered at the current school. That is an NCAA regulation as they determine who is eligible to play.
And NCAA bowl games are sanctioned by the NCAA.
APR is based around graduating in 4 years with an undergrad degree.
There are very, very, very, few MA programs that are one year programs. The extreme majority are 2 years and a handful are 3. I am in a 2 year program (it's a 3 year program morphed into 2). My wife's MA program was 3. I went through the MA programs at UNI. The average is over 2 years for completion.
As long as the kid is going to classes while he's with the program. As long as he's passing the classes while he's with the program. As long as he's doing everything he needs to do to attain the degree there's nothing that can be done to the program.
This is where it gets tricky with MA programs. The kid gets 1 year tuition. The kid gets 1 year of sports competition. Once that one year is up, the program has no say over the kid. There's nothing they can do to keep a kid going to the program. You can't hold a program retroactively responsible because a kid, who is no longer allowed to be a part of the program, stopped going to classes.
I think you get how the APR works, but I don't know that you understand the nuance of it. The program can only be held accountable for the kid while he's on campus. If everything is taken care of while he is a member of the program there's nothing that can/should be done to the program.
That's like holding the Business department accountable because X number of students were offered jobs before they actually graduated and they left school because the degree wasn't needed and they were going to make X amount of money. Sure retention rates play a part of funding, but what you're trying to propose is punishing a program for doing everything correctly while the kid is "under their control".