TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on May 20, 2020 12:52:29 GMT -5
Probably because they didn't factor in a global pandemic, the cancellation of multiple seasons, and widespread remote learning? Willfully dumb tweet.
|
|
BSM
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 489
|
Post by BSM on May 20, 2020 14:46:09 GMT -5
2019-20 are not part of the data. This is a four year average from 2015-16 to 2018-19. The number for 2020 will be even lower but it is a four year average, which helps GU in this situation. The numbers could be close to the 930 line next year, but what is not known is whether any 2019-20 transfer while academically ineligible, which would certainly affect the totals. ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/gradrates/data/2018RES_2018APRDataSharingCodebook.pdfGiven the 2015, 2016, 2017 numbers, we could probably reverse engineer this much more accurately, but here's my quick back of the envelope, assuming everyone was eligible and 950 was also indicative of a three year average of 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 : 2019-2020 : 21/26 = 807 4 year total : 950 + 950 + 950 + 807 = 914 I'm not sure if the 807 should be an 807 for the year or it should be (22/26 + 16/18) / 2, if you calculate it on a per-semester basis. It might be worse than that because (a) the 2018-2019 figures are really being weighed down by 2016-2017's Copeland/Peak/Campbell departures, which should also count toward the 4 year of 2019-2020 and (b) I'm not sure what year Paul White's transfer counts against. They may get lucky and McClung may transfer after the semester ends though. Maybe I'm reading the formula incorrectly but Campbell may actually help. He sat out his senior year, but was still on scholarship so GU gets credit both semesters for being elligible and sticking around. He was a grad transfer so I don't think GU loses points for the transfer. Also it looks like the first penalty for going under 930 is losing practice time--from 20 hours to 16--with the four hours meant to be devoted to academics. Part of the grand NCAA tradition of penalizing the kids on the team for the sins of the guys who left. If you dip under 930 a second year in a row, then you get the post season ban--at least that's how I read it on the NCAA's explanation of the APR.
|
|
DudeSlade
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by DudeSlade on May 21, 2020 10:43:33 GMT -5
Naive question: Do walk-ons count toward the APR or just scholarship players? I would think this would be a way to game the system if they did. UNC for instance has a full JV team of walk-ons.
Maybe we bring an extra walk-on or two onboard to keep us above the limit while we're this close due to transfers... I know we want to earn it the right way, but having academically on-track transfers who transfer for basketball reasons count against you this much is kind of harsh if the idea is to measure academic performance.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on May 21, 2020 10:50:18 GMT -5
Naive question: Do walk-ons count toward the APR or just scholarship players? I would think this would be a way to game the system if they did. UNC for instance has a full JV team of walk-ons. Maybe we bring an extra walk-on or two onboard to keep us above the limit while we're this close due to transfers... I know we want to earn it the right way, but having academically on-track transfers who transfer for basketball reasons count against you this much is kind of harsh if the idea is to measure academic performance. No only scholarship players count.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jun 16, 2022 6:59:34 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 16, 2022 7:06:52 GMT -5
Disgraceful. That post-season ban seems like an awfully empty threat…
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Jun 16, 2022 7:12:32 GMT -5
I believe we have crossed over the chasm into a win-at-all-costs model. Things like graduation rates have fallen to the wayside. With the hiring of Nickelberry and the formation of our Frankenstein roster, we will win some games this year. Fans will be happy, alums may have mixed feelings.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 16, 2022 7:14:19 GMT -5
I believe we have crossed over the chasm into a win-at-all-costs model. Things like graduation rates have fallen to the wayside. With the hiring of Nickelberry and the formation of our Frankenstein roster, we will win some games this year. Fans will be happy, alums may have mixed feelings. We have not crossed over a chasm; rather we have plunged head long into one… We are now the type of school we used to mock… Let that sink in.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,362
|
Post by calhoya on Jun 16, 2022 8:00:00 GMT -5
So my understanding is that each player can earn 2 points a semester toward the calculation of APR--one for returning and one for being academically eligible to play. If a kid transfers out of a school and has a 2.60 GPA at the time, the school does not lose the retention point for that athlete and there is no adverse impact on the school's APR. If below 2.60 GPA then the transferring athlete costs the school a point. The 2.6 GPA is not the minimum to remain eligible to play, but just what is needed to avoid the school losing a point. The requirements for athletes to remain eligible for sports may be tougher at Georgetown, but in many schools it's around 1.8 GPA after the freshman year then moving to 1.9 and 2.0 by senior year.
If the player is academically ineligible to play, the school also loses a point. I cannot recall any players who were academically ineligible in recent years, which must mean that some/many of the players transferring out must have let their GPAs fall below 2.6. I guess it's entirely possible that if a kid decides to transfer they could simply let their class work go to hell while trying to maintain minimum eligibility.
Just trying to figure out where it is going wrong in the basketball program.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 16, 2022 8:14:10 GMT -5
So my understanding is that each player can earn 2 points a semester toward the calculation of APR--one for returning and one for being academically eligible to play. If a kid transfers out of a school and has a 2.60 GPA at the time, the school does not lose the retention point for that athlete and there is no adverse impact on the school's APR. If below 2.60 GPA then the transferring athlete costs the school a point. The 2.6 GPA is not the minimum to remain eligible to play, but just what is needed to avoid the school losing a point. The requirements for athletes to remain eligible for sports may be tougher at Georgetown, but in many schools it's around 1.8 GPA after the freshman year then moving to 1.9 and 2.0 by senior year. If the player is academically ineligible to play, the school also loses a point. I cannot recall any players who were academically ineligible in recent years, which must mean that some/many of the players transferring out must have let their GPAs fall below 2.6. I guess it's entirely possible that if a kid decides to transfer they could simply let their class work go to hell while trying to maintain minimum eligibility. Just trying to figure out where it is going wrong in the basketball program. A-Z should cover it… Academics—-dead last On Court—dead last Fan interest —on life support On the positive side, lots of growth potential…
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Jun 16, 2022 8:18:22 GMT -5
What an embarrassment for current students, faculty and alumni! This happened (and was allowed) under DeGioia’s watch. Once again Villanova shows that it can be done the right way. What’s The Family’s excuse this time?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 16, 2022 9:12:07 GMT -5
So my understanding is that each player can earn 2 points a semester toward the calculation of APR--one for returning and one for being academically eligible to play. If a kid transfers out of a school and has a 2.60 GPA at the time, the school does not lose the retention point for that athlete and there is no adverse impact on the school's APR. If below 2.60 GPA then the transferring athlete costs the school a point. The 2.6 GPA is not the minimum to remain eligible to play, but just what is needed to avoid the school losing a point. The requirements for athletes to remain eligible for sports may be tougher at Georgetown, but in many schools it's around 1.8 GPA after the freshman year then moving to 1.9 and 2.0 by senior year. If the player is academically ineligible to play, the school also loses a point. I cannot recall any players who were academically ineligible in recent years, which must mean that some/many of the players transferring out must have let their GPAs fall below 2.6. I guess it's entirely possible that if a kid decides to transfer they could simply let their class work go to hell while trying to maintain minimum eligibility. The 2.6 rule was eliminated in 2021. To maintain a retention point after transfer, an outbound freshman must have at least a 1.8, a sophomore 1.9, and an upperclassman 2.0. www.ncaa.org/news/2021/8/4/general-di-board-adopts-apr-change-for-transfers.aspx
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jun 16, 2022 9:25:04 GMT -5
There simply is no excuse for this. But, I feel like fans are largely checked out, the administration doesn't care, and there is general apathy for anything related to our program. Oftentimes, fans on here take the high road to explain our deficiencies - Georgetown is a tougher place to go to school, Ewing/Georgetown have higher standards, etc. This shows that this is, at least in part, nonsense. There's no point in beating a dead horse, but our program's leadership has been an abysmal failure in every sense of the word over the last few years.
I know it sounds cynical, but I could probably live with lower APR ratings if it translated to on court success. But, we aren't successful on or off the Court. It's a sad state of affairs.
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Jun 16, 2022 10:18:12 GMT -5
How did we end up with 11 mens basketball players having BE All-Academic status, though? Including 8 scholarship players? This comes out in July, so those numbers are from the 2020-201 season. Isn't that a measure of classroom success, albeit one that does not penalize transferring, just recognizes GPA annually? I get the desire to pile on against Ewing. But, do the players who earned BE all-academic deserve to be labeled classroom losers?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jun 16, 2022 10:25:37 GMT -5
How did we end up with 11 mens basketball players having BE All-Academic status, though? Including 8 scholarship players? This comes out in July, so those numbers are from the 2020-201 season. Isn't that a measure of classroom success, albeit one that does not penalize transferring, just recognizes GPA annually? I get the desire to pile on against Ewing. But, do the players who earned BE all-academic deserve to be labeled classroom losers? I think you need to look at the 2020-2021 BE All-Academic team and ask yourself how many of those players did Ewing run out of the program that year or one year later. So yes, the issue is transfers, but it is transfers the program is directly responsible for, and it is pushing out BE All-Academic team members. The program doesn't care about education.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jun 16, 2022 10:38:24 GMT -5
If I'm reading this right - we're going to carry the 2020-21 score in our four year average into 2023, and I haven't run the numbers but 2022's score is probably going to be worse - the program is going to be facing some sort of penalty in 2023 and 2024, right?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 16, 2022 10:44:16 GMT -5
From the richly ironic department, our devotion to preserving the legacy of Big John through Patrick has essentially destroyed Big John’s greatest legacy—that of a winning basketball team whose players made exemplary academic progress.
We are all the way through the looking glass to an historically losing program whose academic progress stinks out loud.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,402
|
Post by iowa80 on Jun 16, 2022 14:06:41 GMT -5
I’m going to ask this in full knowledge of the fact that it marks me as a dummy. At least on this topic.
How does one make credible judgements about academics given the number of transfers we’ve had? This may have been answered but not to my satisfaction.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 16, 2022 14:14:01 GMT -5
I’m going to ask this in full knowledge of the fact that it marks me as a dummy. At least on this topic. How does one make credible judgements about academics given the number of transfers we’ve had? This may have been answered but not to my satisfaction. To the extent you are asking me that question, I am using the APR. I would also suggest that a revolving door of players speaks poorly of commitment to a GU education.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jun 17, 2022 7:29:14 GMT -5
From the richly ironic department, our devotion to preserving the legacy of Big John through Patrick has essentially destroyed Big John’s greatest legacy—that of a winning basketball team whose players made exemplary academic progress. We are all the way through the looking glass to an historically losing program whose academic progress stinks out loud. If Ewing still has the deflated basketball in the office, that would be about the most hypocritical thing I can imagine.
|
|