This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

NCAA Academic Reforms (Merged)

Discussion in 'Buckeye Football' started by BB73, Jan 10, 2005.

  1. BB73

    BB73 Loves Buckeye History Staff Member Bookie '16 & '17 Upset Contest Winner

    The NCAA approved academic reforms today. Schools need to meet graduation rates (approx. 50%) starting in 05/06 school year, or face the loss of scholarships. The most football scholarships a team could lose at any one time is 9.

    This has been in the works for the past couple of years. I'm fine with it, mainly because I think it won't hurt tOSU but might affect a handful of other powers. And in general terms, it's a good thing for student-athletes to actually be students. :)

    Props to AG and JT on seeing this coming, and raising the standards at tOSU in order to be in position to meet or exceed these goals.

    note - I made bold certain text within the article

    Plan calls for scholarship reductions for poor performance in classroom

    Posted: Monday January 10, 2005 8:50PM; Updated: Monday January 10, 2005 10:12PM

    GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) -- The NCAA approved the first phase of a landmark academic reform package Monday under which about 30 percent of Division I football teams would have lost scholarships had it been implemented immediately.
    On the last day of the NCAA convention, the Division I Board of Directors approved the Academic Progress Rate (APR), the standard teams in every sport must reach beginning in the 2005-06 school year to avoid scholarship reductions.

    <!--startclickprintexclude--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=315 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><IFRAME id=iframecontextualLinks style=\"VISIBILITY: hidden\" name=iframecontextualLinks align=right src="" width=0 height=0></IFRAME>

    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--endclickprintexclude-->Schools will receive warning reports in the next few weeks that let them know which of their teams fall below the APR set by the Division I Committee on Academic Performance. The rate is based roughly on a 50-percent graduation rate over a five-year period.

    The Academic Performance Program applies to every men's and women's sport -- more than 5,000 teams at the 325 Division I schools.

    University of Hartford president and committee chairman Walter Harrison said the biggest problems were in football (about 30 percent of teams), baseball (25 percent) and men's basketball (20 percent).

    "Our hope, of course, is not the penalty," Harrison said. "We hope it encourages different kinds of behavior so that the numbers will be lower."

    The so-called "contemporaneous penalties" are considered rehabilitative in nature and expected to serve as warnings for teams with poor academic performance. Such penalties could begin after December 2005.

    Another phase of the program will be historical penalties, which will be more severe and directed at schools with continued problems. Harrison's committee is still working on the penalties, and they will have to be approved by NCAA directors later.

    Kansas chancellor Robert Hemenway, the chairman of the NCAA board, said the board has already endorsed those tougher penalties.

    Academic reform has been a centerpiece issue for Myles Brand since he became NCAA president two years ago. In his state of the association address Saturday, he said the measures "will change the culture of college sports."

    The APR will be based on the number of student-athletes on each team who achieve eligibility and return to campus full-time each term. There will also be a longer-term graduation success rate.

    Beginning next fall, teams that fall under a minimum APR will lose scholarships when players who are academically ineligible leave the school. Such scholarships can't be re-awarded for a year.

    "This is a very strong standard," Myles said Monday. "Implementing these rules is taking a position to reinforce the idea that student-athletes are students first and are expected to make continued progress toward graduation."

    The committee did put a 10-percent cap on the number of scholarships teams could lose.

    Based on 85 total scholarships, I-A football teams could lose no more than nine scholarships in any one year. Both men's and women's basketball could only lose up to two scholarships.

    Teams that continue to have problems will be subject to the more severe penalties once the "historical penalties" are put into place.

    Consecutive years of falling below certain academic standards would lead to recruiting and further scholarship restrictions. A third straight year could lead to being banned from preseason or postseason games, and a fourth would affect Division I membership status.

    "Certainly, our hope is that would be a strong enough penalty that no one would ever reach that plateau," Harrison said.
  2. jlb1705

    jlb1705 hipster doofus Staff Member Bookie

    I wonder what teams those might have been, and how many of them come from the SEC and ACC?
  3. MililaniBuckeye

    MililaniBuckeye The satanic soulless freight train that is Ohio St Staff Member Tech Admin

    You know that a lot of these schools will have a shady mechanism in place (if not already) to ensure those questionable student-athletes get by in the classroom. A 10% cap is actually pretty high, seeing as losing 8 scholarships in one year could be devastating if a team has limited scholarships available that year.
  4. Hubbard

    Hubbard Administrator's Staff Member Bookie

    If this takes into account tranfers, NFL draft and such, this could effect OSU in a HUGE way. I know we've been under that 50% quite a bit in the past.
  5. jwinslow

    jwinslow A MAN OF BETRAYED JUSTICE Staff Member Tourney Pick'em Champ

    This was a report released in 2003... so not sure if that means it includes 2003 or refers instead to 2002 and before.

    01. Boston College 95%
    02. Notre Dame 92%
    22. Wisconsin 72%
    25. Florida?! 69%
    26. Auburn 68%
    33. OU 65%
    49. FSU?!!!! 59%
    53. Purdue 57%
    57. Miami??????? 55%
    58. MSU 53%
    67. tOSU 50%
    67. UM 50%
    77. Tennessee 47%
    81. USC 45%
    90. Iowa 39%
    99. WVU 33%
    99. Illinois 33%
    107. LSU 27%
    114. Texas 19%
    116. Pitt 16%
    117. BYU 12%
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2008
  6. MililaniBuckeye

    MililaniBuckeye The satanic soulless freight train that is Ohio St Staff Member Tech Admin

    I thought that we've been near or above 50% for a few years now since the arrival of Tressel and his emphasis on academics. BuckeyeFROMscUM's post shows we're close to that...
  7. tsteele316

    tsteele316 Mr. Such and Such

    i thought i read that osu was at about a 58% grad rate last year.
  8. jwinslow

    jwinslow A MAN OF BETRAYED JUSTICE Staff Member Tourney Pick'em Champ

    I think the article said this was a three year study. And if it was released in 2003, it would have included some of those horrible Cooper classes (including some that made up the 2001 bowl team that had an atrocious rate).

    So 58% could be last year's rate, but the three year rate as of 2003 could be an average of 50%
  9. Hubbard

    Hubbard Administrator's Staff Member Bookie

    I need to look it up I know under Cooper we were pretty bad. I do realize this is a different Coach now, but if you have a bad year with a lot of transfers and academic causalities it could be disastrous.
  10. jlb1705

    jlb1705 hipster doofus Staff Member Bookie

    I would imagine there is some type of provision for early entry into the draft. At the same time though, measures like this one are aimed at making sure that NCAA member institutions don't become total football factories.

    I can see where they're coming from on this, but I also think that bigtime college football players are training for a vocation - just as a business major or education major is. Granted, they are training for a much less stable vocation than the typical student, but I think that needs to be taken into account.

    Part of the point of making sure that programs are graduating their players it to make sure that these guys have a degree to "fall back on". If somebody is good enough to leave early for the NFL (or NBA) that person has obviously excelled in his "vocational training". Look at all the IT guys who quit school and get jobs in their field... nobody's throwing a big fit about them not having a degree to fall back on. Second of all, if a guy is good enough to enter the draft early, he's gonna make enough money that he will be able to either be set for life, or finish school on his own dime without benefit of an athletic scholarship (should they choose to do so).
  11. BrutusBobcat

    BrutusBobcat Icon and Entertainer

    I wonder if they are going to have a Mormon exception. The reason that BYU is at the bottom of that list is almost certainly because nearly all of their students (and players) go on a multi-year evangelical mission during their college years.
  12. MililaniBuckeye

    MililaniBuckeye The satanic soulless freight train that is Ohio St Staff Member Tech Admin

    As we used to say in the Air Force, "There's a waiver for everything".
  13. here is the site with the latest "official" numbers
    ok it transfers terribly, hit the link if you can its better there
  14. jwinslow

    jwinslow A MAN OF BETRAYED JUSTICE Staff Member Tourney Pick'em Champ

    It says 97-98 tho. Kind of confusing. Seems like its from the 90's, not the 00's.

    In my attempt to find out how futile Texas really was, here's what I tracked down (these rates for FSU sound better, but Miami is surprising):

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Rank/team Record Grad. rate*[/font] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Southern California 7-0 59%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Oklahoma 7-0 43%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Auburn 8-0 59%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. Miami 6-0 62%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. Florida State 6-1 33%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. Wisconsin 8-0 50%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7. California 5-1 50%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8. Texas 6-1 27%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9. Utah 7-0 40%[/font]

    [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10. Georgia 6-1 41%[/font]
  15. Oh8ch

    Oh8ch Cognoscente of Omphaloskepsis Staff Member

    That is the major issue with this proposal. We have kids coming out of HS today with 3.5 GPAs who can't get a qualifying SAT score. What does that say about standards?

    How far will schools go to make their basket-weaving and kinesiology programs easier and easier? Colleges are monitored for accreditation today but I am not sure how comprehensive or effective that is in addressing small groups of strudents who get favorable treatment.

    OSU is proposing to separate the programs that provide student assistance from the athletic department - but that is a local call not an NCAA mandate. Will this just encourage more 'cheating' at many schools?

    Regardless, I like the proposal a lot. A long overdue step in the right direction.

Share This Page