[71Bear]

UC was given permission by the NCAA to release their APR numbers early.

Four year average 938 (academic years ending 10, 11, 12, 13)
Single year figure 969 (academic year ending 2013)

No sanctions since UC met the minimum requirements.

Quite frankly, these figures are still an embarrassment but progress is better than regression....

We will see how UC stacks up against the other P12 schools next week.

[71Bear]

UC was given permission by the NCAA to release their APR numbers early.

Four year average 938 (academic years ending 10, 11, 12, 13)
Single year figure 969 (academic year ending 2013)

No sanctions since UC met the minimum requirements.

Quite frankly, these figures are still an embarrassment but progress is better than regression....

We will see how UC stacks up against the other P12 schools next week.

[Papa John]

I don't make it a practice to cheer against Cal when it comes to academics--I married into a Cal family--but it seems that all is not rosy when it comes to the (lack of) academic success for Cal football and men's basketball players. Exhibit A: The NCAA's 2013 graduation rate report, which gives graduation rates for the classes that reached the end of their six-year graduation windows in the years 2009 through 2012.

http://stanford.scout.com/2/1399111.html

Also, I don't understand why Cal is in such a hurry to release its lukewarm APR scores, but I guess a little good news is better than no good news at all.

[Papa John]

I don't make it a practice to cheer against Cal when it comes to academics--I married into a Cal family--but it seems that all is not rosy when it comes to the (lack of) academic success for Cal football and men's basketball players. Exhibit A: The NCAA's 2013 graduation rate report, which gives graduation rates for the classes that reached the end of their six-year graduation windows in the years 2009 through 2012.

http://stanford.scout.com/2/1399111.html

Also, I don't understand why Cal is in such a hurry to release its lukewarm APR scores, but I guess a little good news is better than no good news at all.

[Leftcoast]

Berke.ley's single year score of 969 sure looks like an improvement to me.  For reference, Stanford's and Ca.l's football single year scores from the 2013 published data were 977 and 923 respectively.  So Cal registered a 46 basis point improvement in this latest result and came within 8 points of Stanford's score from last year. 

Clearly Ca.l is calling out the single year score to show the departure from the dismal multi-year and to provide some evidence to fans that they REALLY DID "turn the corner" last year as they claimed in their June 11, 2013 press release. 

Keep in mind that these new numbers cover the 2012-2013 results so Dy.kes was just barely on board for the last part of the academic year covered by the data.  The trick for Ca.l will be sustaining APR improvement amidst the pressure to win RIGHT NOW in the competitive PAC12 North after a dismal first season under Dy.kes.  With coaching jobs, stadium funding and a restive fan base all pressuring the department to cut corners and admit academically challenged students you could see how this improvement could be temporary. 

Anyway, congrats to Berke.ley for a decent year - We'll hold the applause until Dy.kes repeats this success in his first full year.


Link to Wilner on last year's scores
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-stanford/

/Lefty

[Leftcoast]

Berke.ley's single year score of 969 sure looks like an improvement to me.  For reference, Stanford's and Ca.l's football single year scores from the 2013 published data were 977 and 923 respectively.  So Cal registered a 46 basis point improvement in this latest result and came within 8 points of Stanford's score from last year. 

Clearly Ca.l is calling out the single year score to show the departure from the dismal multi-year and to provide some evidence to fans that they REALLY DID "turn the corner" last year as they claimed in their June 11, 2013 press release. 

Keep in mind that these new numbers cover the 2012-2013 results so Dy.kes was just barely on board for the last part of the academic year covered by the data.  The trick for Ca.l will be sustaining APR improvement amidst the pressure to win RIGHT NOW in the competitive PAC12 North after a dismal first season under Dy.kes.  With coaching jobs, stadium funding and a restive fan base all pressuring the department to cut corners and admit academically challenged students you could see how this improvement could be temporary. 

Anyway, congrats to Berke.ley for a decent year - We'll hold the applause until Dy.kes repeats this success in his first full year.


Link to Wilner on last year's scores
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-stanford/

/Lefty

[Redrum]

...is that based on comments on BI,  a significant amount of this "progress" was made by the departures of players that weren't cutting it academically.  That is good.  "Cleaning up the books" is the business phrase.  That is part of the Ba.re's problem.  But, in a way, that is the easy part.    The hard part is to change the system and the recruiting standards enough so that mass departure of bad academic performers is not a vital necessary fix again in the future.  That means really putting UC's money where it's mouth is.  Will they really be able to hold the academic standards line with desirable recruits who are just so close to meeting the new standard but not meeting it?  Or will some familiar,  fuzzier, more flexible standards emerge when faced with tough choices?  Will they really support the athletes with discipline and aid to help them adapt to a higher standard of academic performance?  Will they make sure it really is the athletes performing as students, not a "support" system that does the work for them ?  It will take a few years to know the answers.

[Redrum]

...is that based on comments on BI,  a significant amount of this "progress" was made by the departures of players that weren't cutting it academically.  That is good.  "Cleaning up the books" is the business phrase.  That is part of the Ba.re's problem.  But, in a way, that is the easy part.    The hard part is to change the system and the recruiting standards enough so that mass departure of bad academic performers is not a vital necessary fix again in the future.  That means really putting UC's money where it's mouth is.  Will they really be able to hold the academic standards line with desirable recruits who are just so close to meeting the new standard but not meeting it?  Or will some familiar,  fuzzier, more flexible standards emerge when faced with tough choices?  Will they really support the athletes with discipline and aid to help them adapt to a higher standard of academic performance?  Will they make sure it really is the athletes performing as students, not a "support" system that does the work for them ?  It will take a few years to know the answers.

[71Bear]

Some follow-up re: Lefty's and Bete Rouge's comments...

Lefty - "and a restive fan base all pressuring the department to cut corners and admit academically challenged students"... To the contrary, the fan base has been hammering the AD for the lousy academic performance of the footballers.  The majority of well-placed B.ear Backers and other alums who support the program have made it clear - if it has to be one, academics trump athletic performance.  Fortunately, it does not have to be one over the other.  A number of schools have proven that academics and athletics can happily cohabitate.

BR - a significant amount of this "progress" was made by the departures of players that weren't cutting it academically.  In fact, none of the significant progress was made by CoachDykes running players off the program.  The figures are for the last four years of the CoachTedford era.  Next year, we will see whether CoachDykes' first year on the job yields the kind of academic results that do not embarass the alums.

Of course, NONE of this will postively influence the UC GSR scores.  I expect the grad rate to remain low for several more years because of the poor recruiting by CoachTedford during the latter part of his tenure and the aforementioned "run off" of low performers during the 2013-14 academic year.

Bottom line - baby steps........ 

[71Bear]

Some follow-up re: Lefty's and Bete Rouge's comments...

Lefty - "and a restive fan base all pressuring the department to cut corners and admit academically challenged students"... To the contrary, the fan base has been hammering the AD for the lousy academic performance of the footballers.  The majority of well-placed B.ear Backers and other alums who support the program have made it clear - if it has to be one, academics trump athletic performance.  Fortunately, it does not have to be one over the other.  A number of schools have proven that academics and athletics can happily cohabitate.

BR - a significant amount of this "progress" was made by the departures of players that weren't cutting it academically.  In fact, none of the significant progress was made by CoachDykes running players off the program.  The figures are for the last four years of the CoachTedford era.  Next year, we will see whether CoachDykes' first year on the job yields the kind of academic results that do not embarass the alums.

Of course, NONE of this will postively influence the UC GSR scores.  I expect the grad rate to remain low for several more years because of the poor recruiting by CoachTedford during the latter part of his tenure and the aforementioned "run off" of low performers during the 2013-14 academic year.

Bottom line - baby steps........ 

[Redrum]

I didn't specify that the "cleaning up the (academic) books" took place under the old or new regime.

[Redrum]

I didn't specify that the "cleaning up the (academic) books" took place under the old or new regime.

[Farm93]

Seems like the APR game is to just avoid penalties, so UCB's one year will really help keep UCB's 4 year average above the danger zone.  Yay!  Not sure why that is worthy of an early announcement, but I suspect the leaders of the UCB AD need news like this to save their jobs.

The 1-11 season could really hurt UCB's APR and GSR, so I guess we will see what happens.  My belief is that the very best teams could struggle with APR and GSR as the athletes dream of national championship and NFL glory.  The worst teams could struggle because losing is depressing and marginal players might essentially quit football and college.  Obviously some schools can succeed without dinging their APR (see Stanford), but I always thought that the teams at the extremes were most likely to get caught by the APR.  (See UConn and SJSU hoops)

[Farm93]

Seems like the APR game is to just avoid penalties, so UCB's one year will really help keep UCB's 4 year average above the danger zone.  Yay!  Not sure why that is worthy of an early announcement, but I suspect the leaders of the UCB AD need news like this to save their jobs.

The 1-11 season could really hurt UCB's APR and GSR, so I guess we will see what happens.  My belief is that the very best teams could struggle with APR and GSR as the athletes dream of national championship and NFL glory.  The worst teams could struggle because losing is depressing and marginal players might essentially quit football and college.  Obviously some schools can succeed without dinging their APR (see Stanford), but I always thought that the teams at the extremes were most likely to get caught by the APR.  (See UConn and SJSU hoops)

[terry]

Not sure why that is worthy of an early announcement

Making an early announcement to highlight a one-year number is consistent with what they've been done in the past at UCBerkeley. They cherry-pick carefully selected data, which often is calculated by non-standard methods, and they tout that one bit of data as evidence that they've really turned things around. Then, when the real data come out later, it turns out that the big picture is not as good as the one data point they've been touting.

There's a reason that one-year numbers aren't used by the NCAA. One-year numbers can be misleading because they're subject to fluctuations that don't reflect the overall picture.

After seeing the same sort of thing coming out of Berkeley for years, I think maybe I'm going to wait and see whether there is real improvement this time, as measured by standard metrics, sustained over a period of years.

[terry]

Not sure why that is worthy of an early announcement

Making an early announcement to highlight a one-year number is consistent with what they've been done in the past at UCBerkeley. They cherry-pick carefully selected data, which often is calculated by non-standard methods, and they tout that one bit of data as evidence that they've really turned things around. Then, when the real data come out later, it turns out that the big picture is not as good as the one data point they've been touting.

There's a reason that one-year numbers aren't used by the NCAA. One-year numbers can be misleading because they're subject to fluctuations that don't reflect the overall picture.

After seeing the same sort of thing coming out of Berkeley for years, I think maybe I'm going to wait and see whether there is real improvement this time, as measured by standard metrics, sustained over a period of years.

[Papa John]

Although I appreciate LeftCoast's comments, I'm still with Farm93. The bottom line is that a single year's worth of APR data does not mean squat to the NCAA. Consider the following from the NCAA website: "For 2014-15 championships, teams must earn a 930 four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in championships." I don't know what the benchmark is regarding a bowl ban (or if there even is one anymore), but the fact that the one-year spike in APR yields a 4-year average of 938 doesn't seem like a reason to shout from the mountaintops:

"You know it. You tell the story. Tell the whole damn world this is Bear Mediocrity."

[Papa John]

Although I appreciate LeftCoast's comments, I'm still with Farm93. The bottom line is that a single year's worth of APR data does not mean squat to the NCAA. Consider the following from the NCAA website: "For 2014-15 championships, teams must earn a 930 four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in championships." I don't know what the benchmark is regarding a bowl ban (or if there even is one anymore), but the fact that the one-year spike in APR yields a 4-year average of 938 doesn't seem like a reason to shout from the mountaintops:

"You know it. You tell the story. Tell the whole damn world this is Bear Mediocrity."

[yvonne]

ESPN's Pac-12 blog posted the listing of Pac-12 football APR scores.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...l-with-apr

Here’s the ranking of the Pac-12 APR with last year’s multi-year rate in parenthesis:

Stanford: 984 (978)
UCLA: 979 (966)
Utah: 970 (963)
Washington: 967 (954)
Arizona: 960 (956)
Oregon: 958 (951)
Colorado: 955 (946)
Oregon State: 950 (957)
Washington State: 944 (942)
Arizona State: 941 (937)
USC: 941 (945)
Cal: 938 (935)

[yvonne]

ESPN's Pac-12 blog posted the listing of Pac-12 football APR scores.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...l-with-apr

Here’s the ranking of the Pac-12 APR with last year’s multi-year rate in parenthesis:

Stanford: 984 (978)
UCLA: 979 (966)
Utah: 970 (963)
Washington: 967 (954)
Arizona: 960 (956)
Oregon: 958 (951)
Colorado: 955 (946)
Oregon State: 950 (957)
Washington State: 944 (942)
Arizona State: 941 (937)
USC: 941 (945)
Cal: 938 (935)

[FarmBoy]

The SFGate Headline:

"Cal football players make slight improvement academically"

Now that's a news clipping Sandy will clearly be clipping and putting on the cover of her Ca.l scrap book!

[FarmBoy]

The SFGate Headline:

"Cal football players make slight improvement academically"

Now that's a news clipping Sandy will clearly be clipping and putting on the cover of her Ca.l scrap book!

[terry]

The Academic Progress Rate is based on players staying eligible and staying in school. It's not based on graduation. As long as a school can keep players eligible, its APR should be OK. The Oklahomas of the world are pretty good at doing whatever they need to do to keep players eligible, so they usually have decent APRs. The schools that get into trouble with APRs and are hit with penalties usually are the "have nots" -- schools such as Savannah State, Alabama State, Mississippi Valley State, etc. I'm not a fan of the APR as an academic metric because it's based on the ability of the school to keep players eligible, even if they aren't really making meaningful progress. I prefer to focus on graduation. But the NCAA uses the APR to impose penalties, so it's relevant for that reason.

The top APRs among major conference football programs are:

992  Duke
991  Northwestern
989  Wisconsin
984  Stanford
983  Georgia Tech
983  Clemson
981  Boston College

The worst APRs among major football programs are:

929  Oklahoma St.
932  Texas Tech
932  Tennessee
935  Arkansas
937  Kentucky
938  C'al
938  North Carolina

Oklahoma St. was the only major conference school to be penalized. It was hit with a reduction of practice time, but not with a bowl ban.

The only FBS school hit with a bowl ban was UNLV. The rest of the post-season bans were imposed on FCS schools.

[terry]

The Academic Progress Rate is based on players staying eligible and staying in school. It's not based on graduation. As long as a school can keep players eligible, its APR should be OK. The Oklahomas of the world are pretty good at doing whatever they need to do to keep players eligible, so they usually have decent APRs. The schools that get into trouble with APRs and are hit with penalties usually are the "have nots" -- schools such as Savannah State, Alabama State, Mississippi Valley State, etc. I'm not a fan of the APR as an academic metric because it's based on the ability of the school to keep players eligible, even if they aren't really making meaningful progress. I prefer to focus on graduation. But the NCAA uses the APR to impose penalties, so it's relevant for that reason.

The top APRs among major conference football programs are:

992  Duke
991  Northwestern
989  Wisconsin
984  Stanford
983  Georgia Tech
983  Clemson
981  Boston College

The worst APRs among major football programs are:

929  Oklahoma St.
932  Texas Tech
932  Tennessee
935  Arkansas
937  Kentucky
938  C'al
938  North Carolina

Oklahoma St. was the only major conference school to be penalized. It was hit with a reduction of practice time, but not with a bowl ban.

The only FBS school hit with a bowl ban was UNLV. The rest of the post-season bans were imposed on FCS schools.

[71Bear]

http://smcgaels.com/fls/21400/pdf/Compli...M_ID=21400

An excellent illustration of how APR is calculated....

[71Bear]

http://smcgaels.com/fls/21400/pdf/Compli...M_ID=21400

An excellent illustration of how APR is calculated....