New NCAA acedemic Standards

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:21 pm

NCAA is institiuting new acedemic standard next year, based of acedmic performance of a schools athletes to make progress towards graduation. If a program does not make a certain score they can be sanctioned one scholarship for one year for students not making progress towards graduation. Below is the rating each big sky school receved if the rule was in effect this year. A score of 925 or lower will start costing a program a scholarship. Lower scores can cost more scholarships.

Institution Football Basketball

MSU -Football 872 Basketball 1000
UofM -Football 904 Basketball 916
EWU -Football952 Basketball 912
PSU -Football 896 Basketball 900
NAU -Football 872 Basketball 938
ISU -football 888 Basketball 896
Weber- Football 930 Basketball 950
SacState- Football 752 Basketball 759

Notice something about Football

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:24 pm

...there's more kids?

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:25 pm

...there's more kids?

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:27 pm

How about 6 of 8 programs are below the sanction line!

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:34 pm

The Montana football team, and UM, EWU, ISU and PSU basketball teams have the following footnote:
"+ Teams with this symbol have an estimated APR upper confidence boundary of 925 or above, even though the team’s actual APR is below 925. It is anticipated that some smaller squads that may have been identified as underperforming in this year’s reports will not be subject to penalty once the confidence boundary is applied."

I don't know exactly what this means, but I think it means the scores will be adjusted and the teams won't be penalized.

http://www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athl ... _data.html

edit by kmax to fix link for the lazy.

Post by **rtb** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:42 pm

How is the score calculated?

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:56 pm

rtb wrote:How is the score calculated?

Pissssssst
If the NCAA told you they would have to Kill you!

Don't ask don't tell

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:00 pm

grizbeer wrote:The Montana football team, and UM, EWU, ISU and PSU basketball teams have the following footnote:
"+ Teams with this symbol have an estimated APR upper confidence boundary of 925 or above, even though the team’s actual APR is below 925. It is anticipated that some smaller squads that may have been identified as underperforming in this year’s reports will not be subject to penalty once the confidence boundary is applied."

I don't know exactly what this means, but I think it means the scores will be adjusted and the teams won't be penalized.

www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athletes/ed ... _data.html

In UM situation I think it means Booker, Mansel and Davis will have left the program so the score should go up.

OK OK send all your hate mail directly to me and don't bog down the board!!

mchammer · Post by **mchammer** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:01 pm

The scores reflect eligibility status, retention, and graduation rates. But there are a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet. It's complicated, especially when you consider all of the various transfer situations. It's new, and coaches are still learning the rules. You'll see scores rise as coaches give fewer opportunities to marginal students. It's going to be harder in the future to be eligible out of high school anyhow, as the core course requirement increases from 14 to 16 for 2008. It was 13 a year ago. There's a trend.

Mike Carignan

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:09 pm

My guess is that the NCAA will be hearing from Civil Rights folks about this. I'm sure they're prepared for that, but this will have stronger ramifications in areas with poorly funded and staffed education systems than it does in other areas of our country. Take it from there.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:10 pm

mchammer wrote:The scores reflect eligibility status, retention, and graduation rates. But there are a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet. It's complicated, especially when you consider all of the various transfer situations. It's new, and coaches are still learning the rules. You'll see scores rise as coaches give fewer opportunities to marginal students. It's going to be harder in the future to be eligible out of high school anyhow, as the core course requirement increases from 14 to 16 for 2008. It was 13 a year ago. There's a trend.

Mike Carignan

Mike
It is my understudying that MSU and UM have the highest academic admission
requirements of the Big Sky schools. How would/will this effect recruiting. I have often
heard from Football and Basketball coaches that the Montana requirements put them at a
disadvantage, but by the same token once those athletes are in school we end up with a
high quality of academic students. What is your opinion.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:22 pm

mslacat wrote:
grizbeer wrote:The Montana football team, and UM, EWU, ISU and PSU basketball teams have the following footnote:
"+ Teams with this symbol have an estimated APR upper confidence boundary of 925 or above, even though the team’s actual APR is below 925. It is anticipated that some smaller squads that may have been identified as underperforming in this year’s reports will not be subject to penalty once the confidence boundary is applied."

I don't know exactly what this means, but I think it means the scores will be adjusted and the teams won't be penalized.

www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athletes/ed ... _data.html
In UM situation I think it means Booker, Mansel and Davis will have left the program so the score should go up.

OK OK send all your hate mail directly to me and don't bog down the board!!

Pretty funny, but I really thought there would be an intersession joke there instead

Actually maybe you are right - maybe there is an adjustment made for a new coach, so Kennedy's kids get a pass?

In all seriousness although all of those kids have had eligibility problems I think Mansel and Booker were academically eligible when they left, so maybe the "+" was contingent on Davis getting eligible?

mchammer · Post by **mchammer** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:34 pm

I think that the intent of the rule is to help the student get through school, but I don't see that it will make a great difference except that coaches will not be as willing to take a chance on a marginal student. I have recruited a 15 ACT student from a JC, and a learning disabled one out of high school. Both will graduate but it hasn't been easy for them. As proud as I am of them, I doubt that I would recruit students like them again. It was easy to give them a chance when there was nothing to lose. Now I don't feel that I have the right to jeapordize the program with longshots.

As for MSU or UM having tougher admission standards, I can only speak for MSU. I don't think that it is hard to get into MSU at all, it's much harder to graduate eligible for NCAA participation, which may be part of the reason why our athletes graduate at a higher rate than non-athletes. Maybe MSU attracts higher test scores because of our Engineering School. I know that students that can't make it here can transfer to another university in the conference and make it easy, happens every time. So we would be wise to recruit good students. We tend to get them in track, especially the distance runners.

By the way, the BSC is looking at making it mandatory for transfers within the conference in any sport to sit out a year. In track you could transfer without worrying about this. Like I say, the trend is to make everything more challenging for coach and athlete alike. Not a problem once we know the rules.

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:40 pm

the intent of the rule is definitely good - help more kids get through school that need it. that is especially true of most BSC athletes! but as mchammer points out, it could really screw some of the marginal players. i'm thinking they'll get away with it, though.