OSU A.P.R. even lower!

[101stAABuckeye]

Spielman's show got heavily involved in this today and basically the bottom line ended up that it may come down to OSU telling Seniors and those who declare early who play their last game in the bowl game not to enroll in Winter Quarter because of what happened with 14 players getting drafted during this data period that was used. They said that a number of players started Winter Quarter and then started going to workouts/combine and dropped class (well within their rights and at OSU you can withdraw as late as 7th week if memory serves) when they realized that they might be drafted and with their withdrawls, there goes the APR headed way down as a direct result because that is not taken into account.


We will be fine, I am not worried at this time.

 

[ShakerBuck]

its weird that we are 5th from last in APR but i remember reading articles about how tOSU had the most academic all big ten selections than any other big ten school....and our football team has like 27 guys with a 3.0 or higher? which was also apparantly very imprssive for a college football team this side of the ivy league.

the APR doesn't seem to give us credit for the supurb performers but just penalizes us for the knuckleheads....

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

He would count against them for the Spring semester that he leaves to go workout.

What if he were to declare immediately after a bowl game and before the spring semester started?

 

[methomps]

What if he were to declare immediately after a bowl game and before the spring semester started?

He would get 1 point for staying eligible in the Fall, but he wouldn't get the point for returning for the next semester since he leaves early, so he'd be a 1/2

 

[LloydSev]

What if he were to declare immediately after a bowl game and before the spring semester started?

Most don't though, as 101stAABuckeye mentioned..

ShakerBuck is also correct in saying that this only works against a team, and has no possible way of working for a team.. it's a 100% negative rule with no positive to it.

 

[Oh8ch]

I would love to try to spin this, but the fact is that all the factors we cite as problems for OSU are also problems for every other school.

Certainly for a single year's data the results can be skewed. However, football provides a rather large sample.

The way I interpret the intention of this approach is that it is directed at 1) how the school values academics and academic progress (schools that don't take academics seriously will score poorly), 2) how the school treats the kids within its program (schools who try to chase underperformers out of the program will be penalized, as will schools who oversell opportunities), and 3) who the school targets as its recruits.

The flaw in this system is that it does not normalize the academic experience. A kid who flunks out of Duke is counted the same as a kid who flunks out of Oklahoma. That encourages schools to become even more lenient on kids who are struggling acdamecially. Penalties for improper tutoring and make believe majors needs to hand in hand with these ratings.

It also punishes schools who deal strongly with problem children (Irizarry and Guillford).

The plus for the system is that it ultimately says to the schools "Recruit kids who are seriously interested in getting a degree." That ain't a bad thing.

We are in the bottom 10% in football and Michigan is in the top 30%. If it were reversed we would all be lauding how meaningful and accurate this approach is. Certainly there is a problem if schools like Michigan State (bottom 30%) and Minnesota (bottom 50&) - both of whom scarf up kids who have problems getting into OSU - remaing consistently above OSU.

This program will also become far more meaningful over a 4-5 year period. It is easy to keep a kid eligible for a year or two. But when you start looking at whether they are in position to graduate things have a tendency to catch up with you.

There is no reason to panic, but there certainly is reason to be concerned. For the most part JT has targeted the right kids, but we must now look even harder at the 'at risk' kids (Hiley?). Thank goodness John Cooper isn't still our coach. But to be frank, if you had asked me two years ago how a Jim Tressel, with the repuration he carries and the character issues he emphasizes, would perform under such a plan I would have guaranteed a top 10 finish nationally.

It will also be interesting to see how a school like USC who is too loaded in talent at every position to keep everyone happy will manage to control their transfer and early departure rates.

 

[IrontonBuck]

But to be frank, if you had asked me two years ago how a Jim Tressel, with the repuration he carries and the character issues he emphasizes, would perform under such a plan I would have guaranteed a top 10 finish nationally.

I think we'll get there in time to avoid penalties, mostly because I believe Tressel and OSU are taking the right approach to academics. You don't lead the Big 10 in academic all Big 10 unless you are doing the right things.

Once they figure out how to avoid penalties for players leaving early for the draft, and once they put even more rigorous standards in place to avoid recruiting potential problem children, they will be fine. Academically, they are obviously sound, based on the team GPA.

 

[sandgk]

I think we'll get there in time to avoid penalties, mostly because I believe Tressel and OSU are taking the right approach to academics. You don't lead the Big 10 in academic all Big 10 unless you are doing the right things.

Once they figure out how to avoid penalties for players leaving early for the draft, and once they put even more rigorous standards in place to avoid recruiting potential problem children, they will be fine. Academically, they are obviously sound, based on the team GPA.

Ironton -- while like you I believe that OSU will get their APR up >925 in time, the thing that remains unclear is whether they do so before some type of penalty arises.

I say this not in dispute of what you state, rather I say it because what has been reported by the NCAA and by the OSU via the Dispatch appears contradictory.

Bruno has other reasons to be optimistic. The current data is based on the 2003-2004 school year, which means the Buckeyes still have the 2004-2005 school year to reach the 925 cutoff. He added that data from 2004 autumn quarter was promising.

Yet later in the Dispatch article there is this:

Also, the fall 2005 APR ratings will be somewhat skewed because the NCAA is considering only data from the previous two-year period. Beginning in fall 2007, the APR will be based on four years of data (2003-07). "So it’s not really until four years from now that the magic number will be 925," Bruno said.

So which benchmark is it after 2004-2005 data are collected, if not 925? Taint exactly clear from the above. Moreover, the NCAA begs to differ with Bruno (at least according to their standard pieces on APR, and when it goes into effect).

• When will contemporaneous penalties begin?

The first contemporaneous penalties will be based on APR scores from 2003-04 and 2004-05, and student-athlete departures in 2004-05. Institutions received 2003-04 APR reports in mid-February that included current APR scores by team and the overall rate for the college or university. The reports also indicated what contemporaneous penalties would have been applied had the sanctions been in effect this year. These reports are not made public because of the federal student privacy laws. Contemporaneous penalties take effect in 2005-06 and scholarship restrictions will apply in 2005-06 or 2006-07, depending on scholarship commitments previously made by institutions.

• How many years of data will be used in calculating a team's APR score?

The APR eventually will be comprised of four years of APR data. The APR score initially used to implement contemporaneous penalties in fall 2005 will be based on two years of APR data (i.e., 2003-04 and 2004-05). Beginning in fall 2007, the APR will be based on four years of data (i.e., 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07). Every year thereafter, the most current year's data will be added and the oldest year of data will be removed, creating a four-year rolling rate.

What I hope Bruno is NOT doing is leaning on the supposition that 925 is not real until the 4-year average is fully developed. Regardless, the differences in the various statements by Bruno, and the clear intent of the NCAA give me cause for concern. In my opinion Bruno must be seeing some truly glowing numbers if he feels that the Buckeyes football squad is rolling toward a combined APR of 925 for the 2-year average NCAA uses after fall '05 data is collected. To get that APR up to 925 the '04-'05 APR would need to be 986, 122 points higher than the '03-'04 APR of 864. To put this in perspective, that would mean out of a squad of 85 scholar athletes no more than 4 either leave for the pros early, or run into eligibility issues, or transfers, or run into severe disciplinary action; having an early departure or transferee with simultaneous eligibility issues incurs the dreaded 0-2 score. That leaves mighty little wiggle room.

If the Buckeyes come through '04---'05 APR thicket unscathed then the entire coaching, tutoring, and athletic department staff should get a healthy bonus.

 

[methomps]

So when will the 2004-2005 data come out? Spring 2005 is just ending, and I would assume it takes a couple months. The NCAA thing says penalties start to apply in 2005-2006, which is this upcoming year (Fall 2005, Spring 2006).

To get that APR up to 925 the '04-'05 APR would need to be 986, 122 points higher than the '03-'04 APR of 864. To put this in perspective, that would mean out of a squad of 85 scholar athletes no more than 4 either leave for the pros early, or run into eligibility issues, or transfers, or run into severe disciplinary action; having an early departure or transferee with simultaneous eligibility issues incurs the dreaded 0-2 score. That leaves mighty little wiggle room.

I think you can start to have an idea of what this will be. Did anyone leave last Fall or so far this Spring?

 

[sandgk]

So when will the 2004-2005 data come out? Spring 2005 is just ending, and I would assume it takes a couple months. The NCAA thing says penalties start to apply in 2005-2006, which is this upcoming year (Fall 2005, Spring 2006).


I think you can start to have an idea of what this will be. Did anyone leave last Fall or so far this Spring?

Skeete would be the likeliest recent candidate for departure.

 

[CleveBucks]

from the Seattle paper:

The UW men's basketball team could be at risk of losing one scholarship, and maybe two, in future years according to a revision of the NCAA's new academic standards formula released this week.

The formula, called the Academic Progress Rate, is part of the NCAA's attempt to place a greater emphasis on academic performance by athletes.

The UW men's basketball team has an APR of 871 — 925 is considered a passing score and 1,000 is perfect. Teams that fall below 925 could be at risk of losing one or two scholarships. Schools can lose no more than two scholarships but it is expected harsher penalties such as postseason bans could be put in place by 2008.

The NCAA will release an official APR in December that will result in penalties for schools that don't comply.

An APR based on the 2003-04 academic year, released in February, was a test run to let schools know how it will work and where they stand. The NCAA released revised marks this week after schools had time to point out errors in the initial report.

UW athletic director Todd Turner said Washington and four other Pac-10 schools that are on the quarter system are contending that the formula hurts quarter schools more than semester schools and are attempting to have it changed.

Regardless, he said the low APR is "absolutely" a concern.

"I don't think that our program is a habitual offender and the original intent of those who designed the system was to target the habitual offenders," said Turner, who was the chairman of the NCAA group that came up with the concept for the APR.

"But if we go below the line, we've got to fix it. Period. End of story. We've got to adjust to it, and I think the coaching staff is going to take the appropriate steps to do that. They are going to have to."

Turner, however, warned that next year's APR for the basketball team could be worse than the one just released because of "guys leaving early and guys not performing up to the level we need them to."

 

[sandgk]

from the Seattle paper:UW athletic director Todd Turner said Washington and four other Pac-10 schools that are on the quarter system are contending that the formula hurts quarter schools more than semester schools and are attempting to have it changed.

Im calling BS on the above assertion. There was a disadvantage, for semester reporting institutions, and the NCAA fixed it. If UW doesn't like the result, then too freaking bad.
The NCAA correctly viewed quarter based schools as having an advantage in early simple APR accounting. Because of four chances to report, 3 good quarters makes up for one bad one, most drop-outs occur near the end of an academic year - thus a semester instituion has no leeway for a "bad" half year. Hence NCAA provided simple statistical adjustment so that the semester reporting institutions -- like The Ohio State University -- were not put at a disadvantage.

 

[BB73]

Hence NCAA provided simple statistical adjustment so that the semester reporting institutions -- like The Ohio State University -- were not put at a disadvantage.

Semester reporting for us?

 

[sandgk]

Semester reporting for us?

When I make mistakes I don't do it by halves. :!

 

[jwinslow]

I think you can start to have an idea of what this will be. Did anyone leave last Fall or so far this Spring?

We had EJ Underwood get dangerously close to not making it back academically but rumors are that he should be able to redeem his academics thanks to hard work this spring... Brandon Maupin and Albert Dukes were question marks but seem to be back...

Skeete does seem as though he would be a problem.

Here's a question, if Skeete's scholarship is taken away, does that count as a dropout? Or if he finishes his degree at OSU would he still be able to help our APR rating?

While most of us would like a playoff, we are in dire need of a few modifications to these rules. Students that are in good academic standing on their way to getting a degree but choose a much more successful career path of being drafted should not penalize the school. Perhaps they could count as dropouts if they go undrafted, but Matt Leinart going pro his junior year and being guaranteed tens of millions sounds like a much smarter career move than getting injured and having to work a desk job his entire life. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems as though they are blatantly disregarding the distinction between a kid who will not do his homework and one who is a great student (Krenzel) but chooses to go to the NFL before finishing his degree.

I still am unsure as to what is conjecture by journalists and what is reporting about this APR thing.