MVCfans.com

I don't think they do. But for programs like APR to work, you must penalize teams for guys leaving the program and not getting a degree. Otherwise why go to class at all?

RacerJoeD wrote:I don't think they do. But for programs like APR to work, you must penalize teams for guys leaving the program and not getting a degree. Otherwise why go to class at all?

How can you force someone to get degrees? If the program is keeping them on track to graduate in 4 years - which is a big part of the APR score - you can't force them to stay and get the degree if they don't want too and then penalize the school for not forcing them to stay.

Again, the system is broken but schools are doing what they are allowed to do.

APR isn't hard to understand.

1. Keep kids eligible
2. Keep kids on pace to graduate in 4 years

That's it. That's really all a school can try to do to a kid anyway. Can't force him to graduate with a degree. Can't force him to stay on campus. Because of that, as long as the school did it's part to keep a kid going to class, and work towards a degree while they were "in their care", you can't punish the school.

Why go to class at all? Well, eligibility is a big thing. Not going to class at all fall semester means you are ineligible for the spring semester due to grades. That's a pretty big issue for basketball - not so much football as I don't think bowl games are affected by eligibility since they aren't NCAA sanctioned. Schools can decide to hold players out, but the NCAA can't.

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.

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".

According to the NCAA, they use Graduation Success Rate as part of the APR process, even for students who transfer in to their schools (but not for students who transfer out in good standing).1 This should apply, in some way, to graduate students as well. This is especially true if the only reason they get a free transfer is to get a graduate degree. The NCAA itself say that this is a benefit for "academically high-achieving students in pursuing a degree of interest that may not be offered at their undergraduate college"2 If the desire is to slow the growth of the use of the graduate transfer from the MVC to the Big 10 (for example), then by applying the GSR to grad programs will make teams pause before taking a kid only for basketball. Otherwise they threaten their APR.

IMO, it should be more complicated. Otherwise the big $$ conferences will use smaller programs as a minor league, as we are seeing now. As for your example of the business department, there is an overarching group that will hold that department accountable if they find they aren't doing what needs to be done for their students- those who do the accreditation. (I will allow that they are slow and vague and would be slow to implement any changes but I think the point still stands.)







Sources-
1. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/res ... tion-rates
2. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/res ... division-i

Guess he didn't get drafted like he planned.

Anyone know where he ended up?

Oregon Ducks about a week ago