(07-10-2011 11:20 PM)Adler Wrote: Where do they get these ideas that there are Sun Belt schools that "take short cuts academically and face a lot of APR problems"?
I'm not saying that the criticism is accurate, but I do think that just looking at this year's APR penalties doesn't paint an accurate picture of where that criticism is coming from.
This year... There is at least one athletics program that has three sports below the 925 mark, with no current penalties applied.
Last year, we had several teams that had scholarship reductions and/or restricted practice time in Men's Basketball. I don't know for sure that I remember them all off the top of my head, so I won't name names... But I can think of at least 3 schools (and I'm pretty sure there was a 4th) that were under penalty last year. That doesn't include schools that were below the 925 mark but weren't penalized.
There's one athletics department, which I won't name because I don't want it to seem like I'm ripping them in a year when they've taken a huge (and VERY commendable) APR leap forward... But one of our member schools sponsors 15 sports. Last year, SEVEN of them were hit with APR penalties. Another one of their programs was below 925, but was given a conditional waiver to avoid penalties in that year. Another program was 39 points below the 925 mark, but also unpenalized. Add it up, and 9 of their 15 sports were below par according to APR benchmarks. And this isn't ancient history... It's last year.
Anyway... I don't know how this compares to the WAC, but anyone looking at our conference APR history ***prior to this year's reports*** could, if they were looking to find fault, conceivably hit the conference overall with a bad APR label. And when you consider the source of the quote, and which school that source was undoubtedly looking at first and most intently... I'm not shocked that the reputation lingers in his mind.
It's not the problem it was in recent years, but it WAS a problem in recent years. Improving doesn't mean it never happened.