http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...pr-cutline

Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA is wasting no time in imposing higher academic standards for college athletes.

One day after university presidents talked about making changes, the governing body's board of directors approved a measure Thursday to raise the historical Academic Progress Rate cutline from 900 to 930. The APR is a calculation for each team at each school and determines whether student-athletes are making enough progress toward graduation.

Teams that previously fell below the 925 mark would receive a warning letter that they could face stronger penalties if they continued to fall below the mark.

A handful of teams have been given postseason bans for consistently substandard scores, the harshest sanction imposed so far. University presidents, however, thought raising the cutline would push athletes to achieve more in the classroom.


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

Looks like it will be a 4-year rolling average, and will be phased in after a few years.

(08-11-2011 02:20 PM)RDA Trojan Wrote:  Looks like it will be a 4-year rolling average, and will be phased in after a few years.

Link?

(08-11-2011 02:33 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 02:20 PM)RDA Trojan Wrote:  Looks like it will be a 4-year rolling average, and will be phased in after a few years.

Link?

Saw a tweet from SI's Stewart Mandel.

slmandel Stewart Mandel
NCAA anticipates a "three to five year ramp-up period" for new APR standards, with increasing scores during that time.
44 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Also:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/publ...ce+concept
Less than 24 hours after emerging from a landmark Presidential retreat, the Division I Board of Directors unanimously approved the concept of increasing the required academic performance of all teams and mandated that teams must meet those requirements in order to participate in any NCAA-sponsored championship or football bowl game.

NCAA President Mark Emmert touted the change as proof of the NCAA’s commitment to the academic success of all student-athletes. “This is about the academic performance of all of our students in all of our sports. This is about the academic expectations we have for all of our student-athletes.”

The board voted to raise the Academic Progress Rate benchmark from 900 to 930 and supported a penalty structure that will require teams to earn at least a 930 four-year, rolling APR in order to participate in postseason competition.

These changes stemmed from the two-day presidential retreat which concluded Wednesday and focused on improving intercollegiate athletics in a variety of ways: academics, fiscal responsibility and integrity. The presidents also directed NCAA President Mark Emmert to assemble whatever groups are necessary to codify the recommendations in all three areas discussed at the retreat.

“We have made some very significant recommendations that we want to turn into action. We will begin working on this immediately,” Emmert said. “We will come before this group no later than October with a clear action agenda to implement the ideas that were developed over the past two days. Some of that action began today.”

The presidents felt strongly that the academic principles be adopted swiftly and decidedly, with details to be finalized in October. The Board directed the Committee on Academic Performance to produce particulars about the new changes in academic requirements, including a timeline for phased-in implementation for both the new 930 benchmark and the penalty structure.

Currently, the most serious APR penalties are assessed when a team falls below a 900 four-year APR. The move to 930 will be significant, especially as it relates to championship participation.

Thanks.

Guess who they're going after here.

I just counted up all the Sun Belt penalties for football, since inception, and then went to all the AQ's. The Sun Belt, by itself, has more sanctions than all the AQ's combined. hmm. Doing what's right? or forcing more and more onerous expectations on the have-not's?...you know what I think.

(08-11-2011 03:30 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Thanks.

Guess who they're going after here.

I just counted up all the Sun Belt penalties for football, since inception, and then went to all the AQ's. The Sun Belt, by itself, has more sanctions than all the AQ's combined. hmm. Doing what's right? or forcing more and more onerous expectations on the have-not's?...you know what I think.

Found it in another thread here about APR

Football:
Sun Belt
Middle Tennessee 979
Western Kentucky 959
Arkansas State 943
Louisiana 943
FIU 936 -- lost one scholarship. (Failed to meet conditions that would have waived the penalty).
North Texas 932
Troy 932
FAU 920 -- lost three scholarhips
ULM 908 -- lost seven scholarships

(05-24-2011 06:49 PM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  APR for men's basketball:

Arkansas State 895 (has not been higher than 906 in six years)
Ark - Little Rock 971
Denver 958
FAU 950
FIU 910 (highest score in six years)
UL 984
UL-Monroe 852 (has not been higher than 874 in it's first four years in Sun Belt as full member)
MT 964
North Texas 946
South Alabama 898 (2nd straight year under 900)
troy 953
WKU 964

And a few interesting things I saw on Twitter.

RT @McMurphyCBS: If NCAA had 930 APR for bowls; 17 of 120 teams ineligible. Six from BCS: Colo, Maryland, Mich, UL, NCSt, WashSt

An emailer points out (and I confirmed): Florida would have been ineligible for its second national title run ('06-'07) w/ 917 APR

Per @bylawblog, 10 tourney teams last yr would have been ineligible < 930 APR, including UConn, FSU and Syracuse

If it extended to football: BYU, Louisville, Southern Miss, Tulsa, NCSU, Maryland, Michigan would have been ineligible for their bowl

For bowls, 17 would have been ineligible, but only 8 actually participated in a bowl last year that would have been unable to under the new system. They are:

Louisville 908
UTEP 918
Maryland 922
Tulsa 927
Michigan 928
Southern Miss 928
BYU 929
NC State 929

I heard these two questions posed on a talk show yesterday...

a football program or any program (wbb, mbb, etc) will know it's ineligible for post season play before the start of the season? Doesn't the ncaa allow seniors on programs under sanction to transfer out without having to sit out???

(08-11-2011 03:30 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Thanks.

Guess who they're going after here.

I just counted up all the Sun Belt penalties for football, since inception, and then went to all the AQ's. The Sun Belt, by itself, has more sanctions than all the AQ's combined. hmm. Doing what's right? or forcing more and more onerous expectations on the have-not's?...you know what I think.

Well that's not exactly fair. Conference wide our results aren't that bad when you take out ulm's scholarship losses.

(08-13-2011 07:16 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 03:30 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Thanks.
Guess who they're going after here.
I just counted up all the Sun Belt penalties for football, since inception, and then went to all the AQ's. The Sun Belt, by itself, has more sanctions than all the AQ's combined. hmm. Doing what's right? or forcing more and more onerous expectations on the have-not's?...you know what I think.

Well that's not exactly fair. Conference wide our results aren't that bad when you take out ulm's scholarship losses.

Yeah, but we all know it's about $$$. Who usually transfers from an AQ conference school to a non-AQ school?...usually the more troubled athlete.

It's about resources....let's see if the NCAA puts its money where its mouth is.