Printable View
The APR's a stupid system. What do all these 4 scenarios have in common?
a) a one year player who leaves for a $30 mil contract
b) a player who transfers and then finishes his degree elsewhere
c) a player who changes his major and supercedes the number of credits needed for graduation, but fails to meet degree requirements
d) a player who graduates in 6 years and a day
....they all have the same impact on a school's APR as failing out.
APR is a bad system. Too black and white.
According to studies by the NCAA, APR scores general drop after a head coaching change, likely due to the fact that some players don't want to start over with a new coach. Bringing back a coach doesn't guarantee anything - very few guarantees in life anymore - but it does minimize the likelihood of players leaving.
Like I said in the spring, this is a bad situation complicated by a bad system in place.
igeaux.mobiQuote:
Originally Posted by Boomer
and that bad system is made worse by the rediculous "APR exemptions" and the formula used to determine who is exempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrott
I understand APR is a rolling average sort of thing and at the end of this basketball season (or sometime this year), we'll be in a much better situation. Does that mean that even if a couple of players leave as a result of Lee being let go, we are not going to return immediately into a borderline APR struggle?
Is every athlete equally contributing to the APR number? It seems like football would have the largest impact due to the number of athletes. Did the two thiefs that got let go from the football team last year hit our APR number? Was the hit equal to two basketball players leaving?
On a different subject, I'm a little worried about UL's new entrance requirements. Isn't this going to dramatically impact our recruiting? I can see where it will likely forever keep us out of APR trouble, but isn't it going to make it extremely difficult to recruit numerous athletes?
Something must be brewing in Dr. Savoie's mind about how this finally plays out... raise selective admissions criteria, forced reductions in graduate programs/research money - regional mission, athletic budget shrinking (assuming from the drop in students), and everyone else we compete with not facing the same challenges (save ULM)... so far. Add to that fact that we are in the middle of the conference pack in major men's sports and we are only eligible in most sports for postseason play via conference championships or perhaps second place finishes in some cases.
Doesn't it seem like we are getting pressed from every angle with very little relief in sight? Last year there was talk of a reconstitution of the Southland with the non LSU, non historical black public institutions... is something in the works to practically force this upon us? Just asking...
The SLC talk is foolish and there is nothing to it. The APR issue goes away after this season as it involves four year averages. We have done well the last three years and I presume we did OK in the fall semester as all the kids on the team are still playing. The APR won't be a factor as to who our coach is in 2010-2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More
Actually, I'm almost 100% positive that if a player leaves early and gets drafted, it does not count towards APR. See Tirus Wade in 2005. I also think that it only applies to the NBA...if he gets drafted in Greece, no dice.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSUConnMan
As for RL, I imagine that if his contract were up last year, he would not have been retained. Not retaining is different than firing and might have been handled differently by the players. That was not the case, so we'll never know. As far as I remember, all they have to do is complete this academic year without anyone leaving, and the program would be in the clear. Players could leave right now, prior to the Spring starting, so you can't fire him before then. Or, you could fire him in January, a few games into the SBC schedule, or even after the final game, and they could get ____ed and quit school at either of those times. If they left now, then I don't see other teams wanting a player who quit on their team mid-season just because they didn't get their way. If they left after the season, without finishing the semester, I would imagine that would hurt their transcripts and reduce the opportunities out there. And not to mention, most of these guys are Juniors, and with the exception of maybe only Bureau and Gradnigo, do not have the extra year available to sit out. So transferring may not be an option.
As I see it, if RL isn't retained, or if he is fired early, it shouldn't really matter either way.
Look our athletes do not have to meet the same admission standards that regular students must meet. There are very few universities in the country that require their student athletes to meet their actual enrollment standards. If they meet the NCAA minimum requirement on the sliding scale they will be allotted a scholarship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More
As far as us going back to the Southland you are out of your mind. If that were to happen UL would lose all of its support athletically as well as its academic support. We will never be or have never been a 1AA program. To think we would go that route is foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongTimeCajun
Well, you may not have the long term best interests of this school and its athletic program at heart if you feel that way. I am all for Lee going as much as anyone but if it hurts this program even more and to a larger degree, I am for keeping him here until the end.
I think Mike already answered this one. This is the fourth of four Academic Years of being in the Historic Penalty phase (or whatever they call it). This link might help out with some APR questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/NC...emic%20Reform/
The link above should also answer this question. Basically, each team equals 100%. But, since there are far fewer players on basketball teams than baseball teams than football teams, then a player leaving a football team would have less of an impact than a player leaving a basketball team because he only counts for just above 1% of the team, whereas a single basketball player counts for over 8% of the team. I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More
Think about Texas as an example. They're trying to limit their admissions by reducing automatic qualification from Top 10% of graduating High School class to Top 8%. I doubt that most of those athletes fit into that grouping. I read yesterday that every school in the Big Ten ranks in the USNWR's Top 75 schools. I don't know about all of those athletes either...though I could be wrong. Point is, exceptions could be made, and are often made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More
The problem that UL might have is similar to that percentage thing I talked about above. Schools like Texas and Ohio State are very good schools, and they are also very big, with enrollments approaching, or more than, 50k. So, if they give waivers to student-athletes who may not be able to get in if not for their physical abilities, there are enough above average students that poor academic performances by several/many athletes may not really be seen when the final metrics are tallied. On the other hand, for a school the size of UL, offering many of these waivers may influence the overall metrics because each student athlete counts as a larger percentage of the student body than it would at one of the previously mentioned schools. I don't know if this is an actual factor, but I think that it could be.
This link is from a post I made last week sometime. Check out the link and Savoie's comments at the end, in reference to a question about Wharton's viewing every school not named LSU being a regional school. I assume that when Wharton speaks about Regional Schools, he thinks he is talking about UL as well, but he isn't. Then again, maybe he knows that UL isn't considered a regional school, but is trying to push the perception that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1More
When the Tucker Commission first met, and Wharton was so vocal about protecting LSU, and the Panel approved all of his suggestions, I was a little worried, especially because all he talked about were cutting programs, which is something that has been talked about and has occurred for years. I figured that the panel was nothing but a front that hid the main agenda, which was to further the "Flagship Agenda". But, after I read Savoie's comments last week, I had a bit more confidence in how this TC ordeal was going to work out. I especially had more confidence yesterday when it read that there was a proposal to increase tuition that Wharton opposed because, “LSU could get more money with a higher tuition, but they would have a different population,” Wharton warned. “I don’t look at SREB averages as an important goal. I know how poor the kids in Louisiana are.” The recommendation passed with Wharton being the only one to vote against it. It may all still be a ruse, and there is the chance that none of these recommendations will pass, but at least it seems like it's moving in the right direction.Quote:
"Savoie reiterated Friday that Louisiana and Louisiana Tech, for example, are designated as statewide universities and not as regional colleges."
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/785...l?index=14&c=y
In terms of funding, I think that will improve as well. There was a recommendation passed this week that would change how performance based funding is given, and I think that may eventually help. Additionally, there are certain things that Savoie is doing on campus that are part of a plan that will increase our funding. He definitely has some things brewing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhineaux
If Lee is relieved of his duties midyear and an asst. coach, LaBato or Dean, takes over as interim coach for the rest of the year, the players aren't going anywhere so the APR is not affected.
In my mind, appointing one of the asst. men's coaches as interim coach and relieving Rogers as women's coach and replacing him now with Coach Hall are the things to do to try and restore some sense of correctness to these programs. Both have now sunk to low levels of ineptitude and created indifference among the fans. We need to do something now.
Except for the coach initially running off players -and getting the school in trouble in the first place- the APR has NOTHING to do with who the coach is or isn't.
Scholarships are year to year and whoever is the coach, he has to have the ability to re-recruit a player from year to year.
If a coaching change had been made when it should have been made the onus would have been on the person or persons doing the hiring to make sure they hired a coach who could recruit. With a good hire there is no advantage for any player to leave and a good recruiter could have easily sold that fact.
There may have been other compelling reasons to retain Lee but APR maintenance was not one of them.
jmo
Not true. The academic year extends through the summer. Every scholarship athlete can earn one point for academic eligibility and retention each semester. A player can lose a point for becoming ineligible over the summer. The number of points earned are divided by possible points and multiplied by 1,000 for the APR score.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonCajun
Anything below 925 is a subpar score.
igeaux.mobi