Now to an update on the real reason they are there

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls0...ory?id=2248992

41 percent of bowl teams miss academic standards

Associated Press


ORLANDO, Fla. -- This year's bowl-bound college football teams are struggling to meet the NCAA's new academic standards, with 41 percent falling below minimum requirements and almost half lacking a 50 percent graduation rate, according to a survey released Monday.

The 56 Division 1-A football teams headed to bowl games have a lingering problem of too many student-athletes failing to complete their studies, said Richard Lapchick, the University of Central Florida professor who authored the annual report.

"The key is admitting students who are qualified to be in that school," said Lapchick, who heads the DeVos Sport Business Management Program at UCF.

This is the first year Lapchick has used the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, known as APR, to measure the bowl-bound schools' academic progress. In past years, the study has relied solely on graduation rates.

Developed last year, the NCAA's new academic standard awards APR points based on how many scholarship student-athletes meet academic eligibility standards. A cutoff score of 925 means an estimated 50 percent of those student-athletes are on track graduate.

Starting this year, NCAA schools that regularly fall below the 925 score can lose scholarships, face recruiting restrictions and miss postseason play.

In a dry run of the system last year, more than 90 percent of Division I teams across all sports had passing scores. According to Lapchick's report, only 33 of the 56 bowl-bound teams -- 59 percent -- got above the 925 cutoff.

"Obviously we would like to see those statistics higher," said NCAA spokesman Bob Williams. "But this is a process that the NCAA member institutions are going through to change behavior and essentially ensure the student athletes, coaches and everyone involved in collegiate athletics understands that academic achievement and academic performance is just as important as athletic performance."

While the APR figures give schools an up-to-date assessment of how they're doing, the graduation rates are still useful in showing the disparity in the graduation rates between black and white student-athletes, Lapchick said.

Two-thirds of the bowl-bound schools graduated less than half of their African-American football student-athletes. By comparison, 49 percent of the bowl-bound schools failed to have a 50 percent graduation rate overall for those players, according to Lapchick's report.

Lapchick praised Northwestern University and Boston College for doing the best job of graduating football players. Both teams graduated at least 78 percent of all football student-athletes and at least 74 percent of African-American football student-athletes.

Two conferences, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East, had every one of their bowl-bound schools receive an APR score higher than 925, and all the teams in both conferences were in the top 25 of APR rankings for bowl-bound schools.

The Pacific 10's five schools chosen for bowl games scored less than 925.

The NCAA should be aiming to have two-thirds of the schools make the 925 cut when the next round of APR figures are released early next year, Lapchick said.

"I'm really hopeful that the next time the APR scores come out, it will show the expected improvement because of the sanctions that can be imposed on the schools," Lapchick said. "The APRs have gotten the schools' notice and attention."

[Ragone]

Good to see Louisville has gotten serious about academics in the football program.. was a serious issue back in the ron cooper days(argh)

[Klinglerware]

Now, the question remains: how will the APR mandates really impact the world of 1-a football? Will this really force schools to recruit academically stronger players (and in the process making TCYs overemphasis on academics a more accurate representation of real life), or will this just compel schools to dumb down the curriculum and steer their athletes to the "easier" classes and majors?

[Ksyrup]

Let's ask the guy who's in charge of monitoring the NCAA's APR - Jim Harrick, Jr.!

[Klinglerware]

Here is the pdf, with the data attached...

http://www.bus.ucf.edu/sport/public/..._Grad_Rate.pdf

It is interesting that you could have a decent APR without actually graduating a majority of your players...

[sterlingice]

Without looking at the PDF, I'm sure Kansas doesn't pass at all.

SI

[Crapshoot]

I'm just amused that the same people who want a playoff (a majority of college fans) are probably those who don't think these kids should be paid, because its an amateur system.

[sterlingice]

To be fair, if you think it being an amateur system is the primary reason they aren't being paid, that's not quite it. With Title IX as the elephant in the room, paying "student athletes" opens a whole new can of worms. The courts crumbled in the face of gender equity in the past despite it obviously being a hugely flawed system in athletics. As soon as the NCAA starts paying revenue generating male sports, women's groups are going to sue to get a piece of the pie just as they did with Title IX despite being a mass of money pits minus a few women's hoops programs.

Never mind the legal dangers of non-revenue generating sports versus revenue generating. The universities would undoubtedly be taken to court to justify its amateur status and risk losing government money in the end. You thought affording college was tough now while they keep stripping away various financing programs and colleges keep boosting their prices, just wait until they have to ratchet up their costs even more because they receive no federal or state funding at all.

Or the other option is that we'll only have revenue generating men's sports, the handful of women's sports that Title IX will force people to have, and everything else relegated to club level. That would pretty much leave basketball, football, and a handful of colleges that pay their athletes, attract the best, and play each other (think: Iowa and five others are the only schools that have wrestling, the Ivy League pays their crew teams, etc) but each school is basically relegated to having on or two sports and football is only in the BCS conferences as noone else can afford it.

Is this the direction you want college sports to go?

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To be fair, if you think it being an amateur system is the primary reason they aren't being paid, that's not quite it. With Title IX as the elephant in the room, paying "student athletes" opens a whole new can of worms. The courts crumbled in the face of gender equity in the past despite it obviously being a hugely flawed system in athletics. As soon as the NCAA starts paying revenue generating male sports, women's groups are going to sue to get a piece of the pie just as they did with Title IX despite being a mass of money pits minus a few women's hoops programs.

Never mind the legal dangers of non-revenue generating sports versus revenue generating. The universities would undoubtedly be taken to court to justify its amateur status and risk losing government money in the end. You thought affording college was tough now while they keep stripping away various financing programs and colleges keep boosting their prices, just wait until they have to ratchet up their costs even more because they receive no federal or state funding at all.

Or the other option is that we'll only have revenue generating men's sports, the handful of women's sports that Title IX will force people to have, and everything else relegated to club level. That would pretty much leave basketball, football, and a handful of colleges that pay their athletes, attract the best, and play each other (think: Iowa and five others are the only schools that have wrestling, the Ivy League pays their crew teams, etc) but each school is basically relegated to having on or two sports and football is only in the BCS conferences as noone else can afford it.

Is this the direction you want college sports to go?

SI

Valid question. I guess to me the idea of college coaches being free to game the system and make big bucks means "amatuer" is a misnomer for "unpaid workers" - as the report shows , the education is mostly an excuse, not the reason (and I have no doubt this is a 2 way street). The NCAA has a $6 billion contract for March Madness - and yet atheletes are not entitled to stipends from what is basically their work product ? What is an amatuer - really ? If I discover something in college, I'm entitled to the benefits - sports are the only domain in college where the individual is not allowed to maximize the fruits of his labor.

Solutions are undoubtedly harder - At the minimum, I'd like to see a stipend linked to revenue generating nature of a sport - I realize they are legal implications, but anything that weakens the NCAA is almost certainly a good thing in my mind. Hell, don't make it mandatory, but lift the restrictions on students not being able to benefit from their work.

[Buccaneer]

I am still very much of the opinion that those playing for college D-1 athletics should be recruited and hired professionals within the proper age group and eligibility. I have many first-hand accounts of the sham and hypocricy posed upon "student-"athletes while at UNC and I would expect it has gotten worse. Let's reserve classrooms for real students while having the athletes make money and prestige for the universities. If you want to do both, that's fine, but most have not cared nor will ever care about higher education. They just want to play ball so give them the means to do so without taking up educational resources.

[Mr. Wednesday]

My understanding is that if they paid players (turned it non-educational), they might be able to get away from a lot of the title IX issues. However, they would also instantly incur a ton of additional tax costs, so they don't do it. This is entirely from prior title IX discussions, though, not from an actual expert.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Northwestern is clearly a cut above everyone else on the list in graduation rate.

I don't really understand the choice to cite BC, when there are two other comparable schools, and in the BCS no less. ND does only slightly worse overall at graduating football players at 77% and slightly better at graduating black FB players (with the rate for black and white exactly the same at 76%). Penn State is at 74% overall (72% black, 76% white).

Also, Virginia has a 75% overall rate but a disconcerting racial divide (93% white but only 63% black).

There's a significant gap between those four schools and the next tier.

[st.cronin]

They already *are* paid, at least the one's on scholarship. Free tuition isn't exactly chump change these days.

That thought out of the way, the problem is that it's not as simple as the 'pay the athletes' camp makes it out to be. Some players obviously are on campus just to play sports, and nobody (including the athlete) really cares if they get educated. On the other hand, there are lots and lots of D1 athletes who care about getting an education, and are active on campus in many ways. To just do away with this group and replace them with a 'professional class' would, in my opinion, be harmful in many ways, and also really detract from the interest in college sports that people have.

[Mr. Wednesday]

OK, now I see how that citation of two schools came about -- Lapchick mentioned a "graduation rate natonal championship". While I understand the point he was making, I still disagree with how he singled those two schools out.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

There's a significant gap between those four schools and the next tier.

What I also see with the top four schools (Northwestern, UVa, BC, & ND) is that there is a divide between the football graduation rate and the overall student-body graduation rate. These schools graduate their football players at a rate of at least 9% lower than the overall student population. At Notre Dame and Virginia, the disparity is almost 20%!

This tells me that the pool of players who are legitimate 1-A talents and who are also strong academically is quite limited, and even the most rigorous academic schools in 1-A have to lower their admission standards in order to remain competitive. I get the sense that the APR will fail to force schools to recruit more academic high performers, since there are just not enough of them to go around. The path of least resistance seems to dictate that schools will lower curricular standards further to make it easier for players to stay eligible and graduate. Even if schools don't want to go that route, someone else will lower standards--putting pressure on schools who want to remain competitive to do likewise...

[flounder]

One thing to keep in mind is that 1-A football players do graduate at a higher rate overall than male non-athletes. The study doesn't break that down into bowl vs. non-bowl teams though.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flounder

One thing to keep in mind is that 1-A football players do graduate at a higher rate overall than male non-athletes. The study doesn't break that down into bowl vs. non-bowl teams though.

That would be interesting, if true. What source are you citing?

[flounder]

It's from the pdf.

Overall at the 117 Division 1A schools, 63 percent of white football student-athletes graduated versus only 47 percent of African-American football student-athletes. However, it must be noted that both African-American and white football players graduate at a higher rate than their male non-athletic peers in the student body. The graduation rate for African-American male students as a whole is only 40 percent, in comparison to the 61 percent graduation rate for white male students – this gap remains scandalous at 21 percent.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flounder

It's from the pdf.

Okay--that is what I've seen before, the rates are relatively close overall (47-40 and 63-61). At less selective universities, the athletic graduation rates tend to mimic the graduation rates of their peers, since the non-athletic student quality is almost as poor. A theory regarding the higher graduation rate for athletes could be that being on the team (especially a winning one) is an impetus to stay eligible that the non-athlete student doesn't have (especially if that student is a poor one).

My earlier point about ND and UVA is that their football graduation rates lag far behind their respective schools' overall student-body rates as a whole--indicating that schools with strong academic reputations have to loosen their admissions standards for athletes if they wish to compete at the 1-A level.

[flounder]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your point. I just wanted to point out that comparing football graduation rates with overall student graduation rates is misleading since males have an overall lower graduation rate than females. Comparing male athlete to male non-athlete rates is a better comparison.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flounder

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your point. I just wanted to point out that comparing football graduation rates with overall student graduation rates is misleading since males have an overall lower graduation rate than females. Comparing male athlete to male non-athlete rates is a better comparison.

Okay, that's a very valid point.

Edit - Though I would add that there is less of a gender divide at selective universities, since admissions are competitive enough that most admitted students are prepared to do college-level work and thus are very likely to graduate...

[Klinglerware]

So the scholarship penalties for poor academic performance are now being reported:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2349787

Div 1 Men's Basketball
School # scholarships

Cal Poly 2
Centenary 2
East Carolina 2
Hampton 2
Jacksonville 2
Kent State 2
New Mexico St. 2
S. Carolina St. 2
Texas State 2
Mary.-Eastern Shore 2
DePaul 1
Florida A&M 1
Louisiana Tech 1
Prairie View 1
La.-Lafayette 1
La.-Monroe 1
Sacramento State 1

Div 1-A Football
School # scholarships

Temple 9
Toledo 6
Hawaii 5
Middle Tenn. St. 5
Western Michigan 5
Buffalo 3
New Mexico St. 2
Northern Illinois 2

So, it seems like the academic performance mandates are hurting the mid-major schools who take chances on academic non-qualifiers and partial-qualifiers...

[JeeberD]

Poor NMSU Aggies...

*snicker*

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Poor NMSU Aggies...

*snicker*

Yeah, reading up on the Hawaii board, it seems that NMSU extends scholarship offers to everyone and their mother...

[WSUCougar]

Div 1-A Football
School # scholarships

Temple 9

Well, there go the Owls chances at another bowl game...er, wait a minute...

[Huckleberry]

It appears Texas will lose 1.17 baseball scholarships (10% of the 11.7 total for the sport). Kind of frustrating as the vast majority of our baseball kids are very capable academically speaking. In fact, we wouldn't have lost a scholarship if 3 of our kids that went pro their junior year had taken enough hours their last semester. No failing kids, just not enough "progress toward their degree" according to the guidelines.

[Greyroofoo]

Not my Rockets

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

It appears Texas will lose 1.17 baseball scholarships (10% of the 11.7 total for the sport). Kind of frustrating as the vast majority of our baseball kids are very capable academically speaking. In fact, we wouldn't have lost a scholarship if 3 of our kids that went pro their junior year had taken enough hours their last semester. No failing kids, just not enough "progress toward their degree" according to the guidelines.

Yeah, that's definitely unfair and something that should be looked at. I know that some people have been complaining about the quality of play (Men's Basketball especially) being gutted by star athletes leaving college or not matriculating at all. So maybe it is some bizzare attempt by the NCAA to discourage programs from signing players viewed as "mercenary". If so, then it's another case of the NCAA trying to solve one issue by screwing up another...

[Klinglerware]

Dola --

It does look like the "academically eligible athletes leaving early" issue was resolved:

Originally Posted by NCAA Press Release

Other factors contributing to lower-than-projected APR totals include adjustments the Division I Board of Directors made in the spirit of fairness to the calculation last year. One allows teams to adjust their APR for student-athletes who leave for the professional ranks as long as they earn the eligibility point for the term in which they leave. Similar adjustments were made for student-athletes who leave school for reasons beyond the institution’s control.

But it looks like it could have been worse. The NCAA gave an additional 115 low-performing programs a free pass, since their scores (under my interpretation) while numerically under 925, still had much of the confidence interval above that mark. That statistical intervention is going away next year...

The two-year data do indicate some warning signs, however. While the overall percentage of teams below 925 and the number of teams penalized are relatively low, Lennon said teams hovering near the 925 mark should plan aggressively to improve. That’s because for the first three years of the APR compilation, a squad-size adjustment, or a statistical “confidence boundary” is being applied for all teams. The adjustment helps ensure that low-performing teams are accurately identified given the smaller than intended data set. For now, as long as the squad-size adjustment puts teams at or above 925, they are not subject to penalty.

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, the adjustment is there relative to their not graduating. The problem is that the kids knew they were going pro so they didn't take care of their business in the classroom as far as course load the final semester. I'm not arguing that the rule should be softened further at this point, it's just frustrating.

Hard to convince a kid that knows he's not coming back to load himself up with coursework.

[Grammaticus]

How does leaving early for the pro draft compute? If a guy leaves after his sophomore or Junior year and was not on schedule to gratuate early, he will count as a non-graduate drop out. What if he competes his degree on schedule even though he left early?

Seems like if a guy leaves for the pro draft and gets drafted early, he should not really count against the school, if he was on schedule to graduate. Or maybe the NCAA and pro football will make an agreement to go back to the pro's not touching underclassmen.

[Grammaticus]

dola, I see now that was being discussed a few posts above.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

dola, I see now that was being discussed a few posts above.

Yeah, the early draft entry issue was a problem the first year these scores came out--the powers that be made it more reasonable this year...

[sterlingice]

I notice none of the major schools are having problems, just smaller ones :P

SI

[wade moore]

Sweet...

The NCAA also released a list of schools that consistently outperformed the academic standards. Among those were Brown, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, the three U.S. military academies and William and Mary.

Chris - you and I should be proud...

Oh, this is from the CNNSI Article here - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ort/index.html

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

They already *are* paid, at least the one's on scholarship. Free tuition isn't exactly chump change these days.

Okay I am going to take exception to this statement. The money that the AD department makes off of these players pales in the comparison to the money paid for their tuition. I am going to use Penn State as an example because I know their situation the best. Each year every season ticket holder has to donate money in order to have the right to buy season tickets. With that money and that money alone the University funds every athletic scholarship for the school.

Let's look at the gate for the games. Beaver Stadium seats around 108,000 and last year they probably averaged about 104k. Put a price of $50 a seat and you have about 5.2 million dollars a game in ticket revenue alone. That is not even adding in concessions and revenue from the jerseys sold at the bookstore. So the university is easily making its money back on the players.

Next comes the fact that for most sports it is a year round event. I only played football at a D2 school but I can even attest to how hectic it is during the season. During the season you have practice, going to class, films, and lifting sessions. If you are lucky you have 1 day to relax and be yourself. For a lot of these teams they travel a lot and that takes a toll on the players. Under NCAA regulations the scholarship athletes cannot hold a job during the school year in fear of boosters paying the players without actually doing any of the work. So if you are a student whos parents dont have much money you are going to school for "free" but you have no way to get extra income, but in the meantime the university is making money hand over fist by selling your jersey in the bookstore.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bsak16

Okay I am going to take exception to this statement. The money that the AD department makes off of these players pales in the comparison to the money paid for their tuition. I am going to use Penn State as an example because I know their situation the best. Each year every season ticket holder has to donate money in order to have the right to buy season tickets. With that money and that money alone the University funds every athletic scholarship for the school.

Let's look at the gate for the games. Beaver Stadium seats around 108,000 and last year they probably averaged about 104k. Put a price of $50 a seat and you have about 5.2 million dollars a game in ticket revenue alone. That is not even adding in concessions and revenue from the jerseys sold at the bookstore. So the university is easily making its money back on the players.

Next comes the fact that for most sports it is a year round event. I only played football at a D2 school but I can even attest to how hectic it is during the season. During the season you have practice, going to class, films, and lifting sessions. If you are lucky you have 1 day to relax and be yourself. For a lot of these teams they travel a lot and that takes a toll on the players. Under NCAA regulations the scholarship athletes cannot hold a job during the school year in fear of boosters paying the players without actually doing any of the work. So if you are a student whos parents dont have much money you are going to school for "free" but you have no way to get extra income, but in the meantime the university is making money hand over fist by selling your jersey in the bookstore.

Well, didn't we get way off topic with a tired tangent? And we've never had this one before, either? [link] [link]

From those threads, here's my short answer and here's my long answer. Until those issues are addressed, saying "it's not fair" all you want is fine but it solves nothing and creates many more problems than it's worth.

I'm not saying the system can't be tweaked to include living expenses with *small* stipends but you have to do it across the board. It can't just be the revenue generating sports for legal reasons. You can't just say "oh, poor basketball and football players- they make the money, they should take some home".

Personally, I don't see them lugging around my five figures of student loans after getting their free education so I'm not exactly sympathetic to those who got paid, yes, paid $10K-30K in services per year for their services rendered so forgive me if I don't get out my world's smallest violin.

SI

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by ESPN article

For a team to lose a scholarship under the "contemporaneous penalty" portion of academic reform, a student-athlete must have failed academically and left the institution; and the team's APR must be below 925 (out of 1000).

The APR is calculated by measuring the academic eligibility and retention of student-athletes by team each term. Based on current data, an APR of 925 calculates to an approximate Graduation Success Rate of 60 percent.

Interesting. http://starbulletin.com/2006/03/01/news/story01.html

In a report dated Aug. 22, 2005, the UH football team's APR was 914, compared with an average of 926 for all Division I football teams.
...
The UH football program received an academic achievement award last year from the American Football Coaches Association for being one of 25 schools with a 70 percent or better graduation rate among 103 Division I schools that responded to a survey.

So an APR of 925 = 60% graduation rate. Hawaii football graduates 70% or better and they score a 914?

In the recent report for 2004-2005, the multiyear (based on 2003-2004 and 2004-2005) APR that Hawaii football was given 898.

I don't understand how Hawaii football can be awarded for academic acheivement last year, which should be indicated in either the 2003-2004 APR or the 2004-2005 APR score and yet neither APR score for Hawaii football gives them a score close to 70% or better graduation.

[TazFTW]

dola

APR notes





The NCAA News Online, February 14th, 2005
* Teams with an APR cut score below 925 are subject to contemporaneous penalties.

* An APR of 925 represents an expected graduation rate of 50 percent.

* 2003-04 APR data indicate that 7.4 percent of all Division I teams are below 925 (even with confidence boundary or eligibility zone applied).

Last year at this time an APR of 925 represented an graduation rate of 50%! How the heck did Hawaii score 914 with 70% graduation?

[Grammaticus]

So, is Vince Young graduating from Texas? I know he is coming out after his junior year and I now he didn't open up a can on the Wonderlic test, so it may seem like a stupid question. But still, does anyone know if will be recieving a degree from Texas?

[TazFTW]

I do not believe he's graduating.

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yeah, reading up on the Hawaii board, it seems that NMSU extends scholarship offers to everyone and their mother...

Which Hawaii board? The ESPN one, RSN, SportsHawaii?

And yes, NMSU has low academic requirements.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

dola

[size=2]Last year at this time an APR of 925 represented an graduation rate of 50%! How the heck did Hawaii score 914 with 70% graduation?

Not sure what's going on, but the APR also factors in continuous progress to graduation along with graduation as well. So, even if a player ends up graduating but takes the circuitous route (academic suspensions, withdrawl due to academics, etc), that will be reflected negatively in the APR. If a program has several of these cases, it will hurt the APR.

I've been reading RSN for a few years now. I never did join, mainly because I have a Rivals subscription and am not sure I want to spring for a Scout one...

[Subby]

Sweet...

Quote:


Chris - you and I should be proud... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...port/index.html

Thanks for linking this - very gratifying to see that the "studet-athlete" isn't a myth...W&M really fosters balance...

[Klinglerware]

Found this in the Star-Bulletin

http://starbulletin.com/2006/03/02/sports/story02.html

The key factors are keeping players eligible and keeping them in school. The main reason the UH football team scored a low APR is a mass exodus of players in 2004.

True freshmen Matthew Kirschner, Taylor Humphrey and Andrew Pearman left without ever playing in a game. Austin Jackson never showed up. Brothers Mike Bass and Ray Bass transferred. Bryce Runge left after one season as snapper, and Brandon Satcher left after playing quarterback in one game.

Jones said his normal policy is to help unhappy players find a different school to play at rather than encourage them to stay at UH in the hopes of things getting better. He said with the advent of the APR, that might have to change.

"In years past, when they didn't get to play and wanted to leave, we'd help them get scholarships at other schools," Jones said. "We'd say, 'Come see me, I'll help you find a place.' Those kids that went on, got scholarships at other schools, it hurts your numbers. Now that the (APR) is in place, we have to improve, do it in a more manageable way. It won't affect us this year or next year, but it will if we don't adapt. As we get into the next couple years, we'll have to be even more careful about the decisions we make (in recruiting)."

I don't think transfers count in the APR anymore, but if the players separate from the school during the season, or blow off the semester, even if they transfer later--that will probably hurt the APR a great deal...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Chris

[/url]

Thanks for linking this - very gratifying to see that the "studet-athlete" isn't a myth...W&M really fosters balance...

And in many sports, we are very competitive too... (although don't watch the basketball team if you know what's good for you... of course, I have season tickets and subject myself regularly)...

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Found this in the Star-Bulletin

http://starbulletin.com/2006/03/02/sports/story02.html



I don't think transfers count in the APR anymore, but if the players separate from the school during the season, or blow off the semester, even if they transfer later--that will probably hurt the APR a great deal...

Found something in the Honolulu Advertiser.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...html/?print=on

The NCAA created a formula — the Academic Progress Rate (APR) — that awards points for each semester a player remains at a school and in good academic standing during a two-year period. For instance, each semester a player remains at his school and remains eligible (or graduates), he earns two points. A player who is academically eligible but transfers or leaves early to pursue a professional career, receives one point. An ineligible player who leaves earns no points.

So transfers do count into the equation. June Jones makes a good point in that same article.

"I recruit a lot of quarterbacks, and I recruit certain positions, and when guys get frustrated and they're not playing, I try to get them scholarships at other schools," Jones said. "I've called other coaches around the country. Like Michael Bass is at Montana (State). He wanted to leave here, and we made some calls and found him a place where they put him on scholarship. That's happened a bunch of times. Now those things are going to come back to haunt you. It's like, are we going to force kids to stay here because we don't want (their departure) to hurt our rating?"

Klingerware, you should check out the SportsHawaii board. It meets my requirements of a good Hawaii football board in that a) it's free b) it's active c) no trolls. I just lurk but it is definately one of the better Hawaii football boards out there. Link is http://www.sportshawaii.com/hs/viewforum.php?f=3

[Klinglerware]

Thanks for the info Taz, I'll definitely check out that board...