APR slows rebuilding process

Donate To GopherHole
GopherinPhilly

GopherinPhilly

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,590
Reaction score
266
Points
83
Kill said something very interesting during the press conference. He was talking about Alvarez's book and how Barry ran off like 40 players from Wisconsin in his first year because they weren't his kind of players. Having taken over 3 different failing companies and turned them around...I can relate...my approach is always fire everyone and then interview people for their jobs back...need to know who wants it and who will work for it.

Can't do that now...with the APR punishing teams for transfers and quiters plus the limits on how many recruits can be had in a class and the 85 total scholarship limit that Barry didn't have to deal with...it will take longer to turn a program around than it would have 20 years ago.

I still say year 3 will tell us how we are doing. Next year will suck no matter what...don't have the players and get them fast enough.
 

Scholarship limits have been in place since 1977. It was set at 95 until 1991, and didn't drop to 85 until 1994, but there were still measures in place to engender some sort of parity.
 

If a guy transfers out with a high enough GPA, it doesn't count against the APR.
 

You guys both help make my point...Alvarez could recruit 35-40 players in his first few years at Wisconsin and run off any that didn't make the cut. Now adays we can only recruit 28, actually enroll 25, cap at 85 instead of 95 (ten is a big difference) and if the ones that weren't making it left school or transferred, he didn't lose scholarships because his APR dropped too low. And the APR is both about academic eligibility and general enrollment...so if a player leaves school while in good standing academically we still lose a point. If the player leaves while academically ineligible, we lose 2 points. So running off 30 players would destroy a school for 3-4 years today, where before the APR it wouldn't have mattered.

I went back and looked at the Wiscy roster from 1991 and they had 29 FR and 7 SRs - by 1995 26 FR and 17 Srs including 12 5th year SRs and another 20 4th year Juniors. That's how Kill can turn our team around...get players that stay with the program for 5 years, make their grades and improve on the field...and IMO, its the only way we improve the program given our limitations.
 

Too much logic. Stop being a rational fan! Fire Kill after 4 games!
 


I'd guess this is part of the reason Kill was so big on having a big walk on program here.
 

gophergrad said:
I'd guess this is part of the reason Kill was so big on having a big walk on program here.
Click to expand...

Could be. Did I really see in another thread that there are 23 walk-on on the team right now? Is it just me or is that a mind-boggling number?
 

I hope that's true about the walk-ons. Having that many is the equivalent of having a whole extra class on
scholarship, and we all know that some of those kids really pan out well. The more the better, especially at this point.

It is "fascinating" in a certain way to watch all these freshmen play, though. Painful, yes, but fascinating.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
You guys both help make my point...Alvarez could recruit 35-40 players in his first few years at Wisconsin and run off any that didn't make the cut. Now adays we can only recruit 28, actually enroll 25, cap at 85 instead of 95 (ten is a big difference) and if the ones that weren't making it left school or transferred, he didn't lose scholarships because his APR dropped too low. And the APR is both about academic eligibility and general enrollment...so if a player leaves school while in good standing academically we still lose a point. If the player leaves while academically ineligible, we lose 2 points. So running off 30 players would destroy a school for 3-4 years today, where before the APR it wouldn't have mattered.

I went back and looked at the Wiscy roster from 1991 and they had 29 FR and 7 SRs - by 1995 26 FR and 17 Srs including 12 5th year SRs and another 20 4th year Juniors. That's how Kill can turn our team around...get players that stay with the program for 5 years, make their grades and improve on the field...and IMO, its the only way we improve the program given our limitations.
Click to expand...

Excellent information GIP. It's refreshing to finally see some rational thinking on this forum this week. It was getting rather depressing. From what I can see Kill seems to be following the model you described. For what it's worth, he has my support and will continue to have my support, regardless of what happens the remainder of the season.
 



Yeah, the roster I used for Wiscy was preseason and wouldn't have included FR walk ons....so I would assume add 10 to the FR classes during those years for Alvarez.

The best thing about a lot of walk ons is it allows the team to practice at a higher tempo and with more hitting. You just don't want to first O against Second D during full go practices very often...it destroys your depth. But if you can have a scout team that is FR and Walk Ons...you can go full go and hit without worrying you are crushing your two deep...right now, we don't have a scout team which is why you heard Kill talking about not hitting a lot in practice...it was his pounding of his hands together showing how you beat down your players in practice and then they can't perform in the game.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
And the APR is both about academic eligibility and general enrollment...so if a player leaves school while in good standing academically we still lose a point.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Remember, although it's usually referred to as a whole number score, the APR is simply a percentage. There is a numerator and a denominator. In the case of a transfer using your example, the difference can be 0/2 (losing 2 from the numerator, but not adjusting the denominator when a student-athlete leaves school while academically ineligible) as compared to 1/1 ("losing" 1 from both the numerator and denominator when a there is a transfer in good academic standing).

Unless you have reductions to the numerator without an adjustment to the denominator, completely unrelated to a transfer in good academic standing (which most programs do), there is absolutely zero impact to the APR when a student-athlete transfers in good academic standing. If there are other reductions to the numerator, the impact is limited to being mathematically dilutive and often is immaterial.
 

nm
 

Attachments

  • schrodeq.jpg
    schrodeq.jpg
    6.2 KB · Views: 17
  • seq3.gif
    seq3.gif
    3.7 KB · Views: 17

Gopher Warrior said:
Not exactly. Remember, although it's usually referred to as a whole number score, the APR is simply a percentage. There is a numerator and a denominator. In the case of a transfer using your example, the difference can be 0/2 (losing 2 from the numerator, but not adjusting the denominator when a student-athlete leaves school while academically ineligible) as compared to 1/1 ("losing" 1 from both the numerator and denominator when a there is a transfer in good academic standing).

Unless you have reductions to the numerator without an adjustment to the denominator, completely unrelated to a transfer in good academic standing (which most programs do), there is absolutely zero impact to the APR when a student-athlete transfers in good academic standing. If there are other reductions to the numerator, the impact is limited to being mathematically dilutive and often is immaterial.
Click to expand...

What your saying is kinda true. The school must apply for a waiver to get the reduction, and then the student who transferred must have a high enough GPA. It isn't automatic and a student athlete could be eligible to play but still not have a high enough GPA for the school to gain relief from the NCAA.

The greater issue for Kill is he is saddled with the poor progress made under Brewster and can't just jettison these kids, even if they aren't willing to do the work...he has to coddle them and put resources towards them to ensure that their failures don't cost the entire program scholarships. Guys like Jewan used valuable resources from tudors and support people when in the pre-apr years, he would have simply been dismissed from the team for being a punk.
 



GopherinPhilly said:
You guys both help make my point...Alvarez could recruit 35-40 players in his first few years at Wisconsin and run off any that didn't make the cut. Now adays we can only recruit 28, actually enroll 25, cap at 85 instead of 95 (ten is a big difference) and if the ones that weren't making it left school or transferred, he didn't lose scholarships because his APR dropped too low. And the APR is both about academic eligibility and general enrollment...so if a player leaves school while in good standing academically we still lose a point. If the player leaves while academically ineligible, we lose 2 points. So running off 30 players would destroy a school for 3-4 years today, where before the APR it wouldn't have mattered.

I went back and looked at the Wiscy roster from 1991 and they had 29 FR and 7 SRs - by 1995 26 FR and 17 Srs including 12 5th year SRs and another 20 4th year Juniors. That's how Kill can turn our team around...get players that stay with the program for 5 years, make their grades and improve on the field...and IMO, its the only way we improve the program given our limitations.
Click to expand...

Not going to research official NCAA rule book, but found this which reads to me that you are incorrect: "The NCAA does adjust APR, on a student-by-student basis, in two circumstances—when a player transfers to another school with a sufficiently high GPA, or leaves for a professional sports career while still in good academic standing."

No loss to the APR for transfers with decent GPA
 

GopherinPhilly said:
What your saying is kinda true. The school must apply for a waiver to get the reduction, and then the student who transferred must have a high enough GPA. It isn't automatic and a student athlete could be eligible to play but still not have a high enough GPA for the school to gain relief from the NCAA.

Guys like Jewan used valuable resources from tudors
Click to expand...

Your understanding is not accurate. Ask your tudor!
 


BisonGopher said:
Not going to research official NCAA rule book, but found this which reads to me that you are incorrect: "The NCAA does adjust APR, on a student-by-student basis, in two circumstances—when a player transfers to another school with a sufficiently high GPA, or leaves for a professional sports career while still in good academic standing."

No loss to the APR for transfers with decent GPA
Click to expand...

Decent GPA and academic eligibility are two different things...a student athlete can be eligible but not have a high enough GPA to get relief from the APR if he transfers. And you can't be assured that a kid you run off will transfer...he may just take a year off or join the army or get shot in VA...then it is a double hit. The school must apply for an adjustment to get the reduction. It isn't automatic and a student athlete could be eligible to play but still not have a high enough GPA for the school to gain relief from the NCAA.

The greater issue for Kill is he was saddled with the poor progress made under Brewster and can't just jettison these kids, even if they aren't willing to do the work...he has to coddle them and put resources towards them to ensure that their failures don't cost the entire program scholarships. Guys like Jewan used valuable resources from tudors and support people when in the pre-apr years, he would have simply been dismissed from the team for being a punk.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Decent GPA and academic eligibility are two different things...a student athlete can be eligible but not have a high enough GPA to get relief from the APR if he transfers. And you can't be assured that a kid you run off will transfer...he may just take a year off or join the army or get shot in VA...then it is a double hit. The school must apply for an adjustment to get the reduction. It isn't automatic and a student athlete could be eligible to play but still not have a high enough GPA for the school to gain relief from the NCAA.

The greater issue for Kill is he was saddled with the poor progress made under Brewster and can't just jettison these kids, even if they aren't willing to do the work...he has to coddle them and put resources towards them to ensure that their failures don't cost the entire program scholarships. Guys like Jewan used valuable resources from tudors and support people when in the pre-apr years, he would have simply been dismissed from the team for being a punk.
Click to expand...

Brewster sank like a stone, but the APR situation improved under him. Took one big hit from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 when we lost three scholarships, but he didn't inherit a great classroom situation.

APR is just another one of the challenges facing the program and it's largely due to the instability in the program over the past four decades. We just seem to shed players for one reason or another (not always academics) which has killed our on-field depth and now our off-field APR. It didn't help when Brewster's best recruiting class had some academic issues and much of it evaporated. And I'm not going to lay it at Mason's feet, because I feel the problem goes much, much deeper than who is on the sidelines.

It's been talked about in several threads, but the lack of stability is at the heart of the problem and I don't know why we cannot build a foundation under the program. With a new President, my guess is we'll get a new athletic director. Hopefully, that athletic director will be on the same page as Kill and we can re-build the foundation from the bottom up.

I'm not going to criticize Kill for on-field performance (although I do wonder what Tracy Claeys is thinking about) as he has a big job ahead of him. I think he's starting at the root of the problem, while his predecessors didn't. I believe that at least gives us a chance.
 

All I ask for next year is that we beat our crappy non-conference opponents.
 

there are a lot of moving parts to rebuilding a team. Brent Moss (possibly still in prison) had 0 qualifications to attend a BT school but Barry was able to get the powers to look the other way. The buy in that Barry was able to obtain from the academia won't happen here.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Decent GPA and academic eligibility are two different things...a student athlete can be eligible but not have a high enough GPA to get relief from the APR if he transfers. And you can't be assured that a kid you run off will transfer...he may just take a year off or join the army or get shot in VA...then it is a double hit. The school must apply for an adjustment to get the reduction. It isn't automatic...
Click to expand...

There are still some inaccuracies in your understanding. Remember, the APR continues to evolve and there have been numerous changes over its short life.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom