Tuesday, May 06, 2008

APR numbers released

The NCAA released its annual academic progress rate (APR) report today and Georgia came out pretty well. The main thing is the Bulldogs ranked first in the Southeastern Conference in football (a four-year average of 965), second in men's basketball (958) and third in women's basketball (971).

Overall, all 20 UGA teams represented on the report ranked ahead of the 925 cutoff (score below that and you're subject to penalties). Fourteen of the 20 were above the national average for that particular sport. You can view UGA's complete results on the report here.

So that's good. While obviously these numbers are important, it's awfully dull to write about national averages and academic retention and eligibility rates in a way that would prevent the average reader from nodding off -- and me from wanting to do so while writing it.

So let's talk about who took a swift kick in the rear because of today's results. That's more fun, right? Here are the dirty details of why the numbers matter, as best as my little pea brain can explain my understanding of them:

* If any school has a team that scores below 925 (which represents about a 60 percent graduation rate), the school has to come up with an academic improvement plan.
* If a team scores below 925 and has a player leave while academically ineligible, the school will not be allowed to fill that scholarship the following year.
* If a team scores below 900 for two straight years, it faces "historical penalties" that can include restricted practice time or loss of scholarships. Starting next year, a third straight year with a sub-900 score can bring a postseason ban along with the scholarship and practice restrictions.

A few programs that are of some level of local interest that were hit with scholarship losses:
* UAB football (where former UGA offensive coordinator Neil Callaway is now head coach) lost NINE scholarships. UAB scored 869, down from 906 last year when it lost a single scholarship. That's the highest number of scholarship losses for any sport at any school. Idaho and Washington State football tied for second with eight scholarship losses apiece.
* Georgia Southern football lost 3.51 football scholarships and a third of a men's golf scholarship because of 905 and 913 scores.
* Mercer men's basketball lost a men's basketball scholarship
* Tennessee lost a men's basketball scholarship and 1.17 in baseball.
* South Carolina lost one in men's basketball
* LSU lost 0.34 in baseball
* Auburn saved itself from men's basketball penalties by scoring a perfect 1,000 over the last year, raising its multi-year average to 905. The demonstrated improvement kept the program from being sanctioned. Truthfully, however, I wonder how much a loss of a scholarship would be reflected in Auburn's record? Not much, I'd wager, which does irritate me a bit as someone who very much enjoyed watching Auburn hoops as a student.
* Auburn didn't exactly fare well, though, as four teams scored below 925 and only six of 20 scored at or above the national average for their sport. Football was one of the few to score better than the national average, with Auburn's 953 exceeding the national average of 934.

Overall, 218 teams at 123 different schools received some level of sanction. Out of that group, 113 face an immediate penalty like a scholarship reduction. Twenty-six of those teams have two straight years of sub-900 scores and will face a postseason ban next year if they don't fix the problem.

See, isn't that academics stuff a lot more interesting when you talk about penalties?

LINKAGE:
* Here's the story I wrote on the APR data. Went through the numbers for Auburn, Alabama, Georgia and Georgia Tech.

* While we're at it, check out Troy's column on David Pollack from yesterday's charity golf tournament. I thought Troy did his standard excellent work.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do think this is important to cover though. The media loves to report about the off-court debacle in UGA MBB and often cites football's low grad rate (with no mention of the fact that until this year, that rate included Donnan players, not Richt's). In fairness, the fact that the three marquee sports (FB, MBB, WBB... I would mention gymnastics but not all schools have that and I'm sure ours have good numbers anyway) are all in the top three in the conference. Damon Evans's policies are working.

Is football really ahead of Vandy in APR? I wonder how we compare to Tech. They can b*tch all they want about academics hampering athletics but it looks like we can make it work (and it's not like Tech is any better of a school than UGA, just nerdier!)...

BuLLdawg said...

Georgia Institute of Technology AGAIN has scored WORSE than UGA in APR Academic Progress Rate in Football, by a LONG SHOT.

951 Tech APR Football

965 UGA APR Football

These are the latest May 2008 Academic Progress Rate multiyear grades for the student-athletes who at Tech do drugs, are only given counseling, and covered-up by Tech and covered up by the AJ-C “that both Tech and UGA did ok in Academic Progress Rate. “

Excuse me.

958 UGA Men’s Basketball APR

931 Tech Men’s Basketball APR

BS Tech fans that you do it the right way.

957 Tech Women’s Basketball APR.

971 UGA Women’s Basketball APR.

UGA student-athletes outperform Tech “student-athletes” by wide margin both on the field of competition and in the classrooms.

UGA http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2007/2572007_apr.pdf

Tech http://web1.ncaa.org/appdata/apr2007/2552007_apr.pdf

How could the AJ-C report both did ok, when in fact, UGA kicked Tech’s student-athletes’ butts in athletics, not being drug users, and therefore in Academics.

This is the only measure the NCAA uses to determine academic prowess of 1 school compared to another school. And, the only 1 the NCAA uses to dish out public penalties.

You want to talk about Tech's fans claim that although the lose to UGA in sports, that they do better in class and don't get arrested (or die) from drugs ? Ok, let's talk.

David Ching said...

You don't want to hear it, but I don't think that's necessarily true. Fourteen of Georgia's 20 teams were at or above the national averages. Thirteen of Tech's 17 were.

A Tech fan might point to its 974 in baseball, compared to 927 from Georgia. Or its 1000 score in men's golf, which earned a public recognition award. Georgia didn't have a team win that award. Tech also did really well in a lot of the secondary women's sports.

It's fine to thump your chest over Georgia's scores, because the school did pretty well overall. But it's kind of silly to act like UGA creamed Tech on this thing -- which is an imperfect measure of academic credibility, anyway. Both sides fared well and I don't think either could claim a substantial victory, except that I guess Georgia scored better in the three sports most people look at first.