ALinChainz
01-20-2006, 12:13 PM
By: Leland Ornelaz, Daily Trojan
January 19, 2006
(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- The USC football team narrowly avoided penalties from the NCAA, which began imposing penalties last fall for teams that did not meet academic requirements.
The NCAA instituted the Academic progress rate in 2004 as a way to measure student academic performance each semester in order to raise graduation rates among university members of the NCAA. Failing schools can ultimately have their NCAA membership revoked.
Before last fall, there was no system of penalties for schools that did not meet the academic requirements.
The Trojan football players earned a total of 927 points last season, two points above the minimum APR score of 925, according to a study done by Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute For Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida. In the 2003-04 season, the team had a score of 930.
The five bowl-bound teams from the Pacific-10 Conference -- USC, UCLA, California, Oregon and Arizona State -- scored the lowest APR scores out of this year's bowl-bound teams, the study reported.
By contrast, all 16 bowl-bound teams from the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East scored in the top 25 APR scores for college bowl-bound teams.
Many factors could account for the difference between east and west coast conferences, said Magdi El Shahawy, associate athletic director at USC.
"There could be a difference in academic standards relative to other campuses across the country," El Shahawy said. "Some might not have as many athletes turning pro, which could affect the overall APR score."
El Shawahy said that another problem is that the APR method is fairly new and there is no way of controlling how colleges determine their APR numbers. He added that it is too early to tell real academic progress with just two years of data.
"Over the course of time, once you got four or five years of data, you'll start to see things even out," El Shawahy said.
Lapchick agreed, saying that the APR data is only a snapshot of how a team is doing academically during a two-year span and that numbers will become more accurate as more data is collected.
The data was surprising because Pac-10 schools are generally outstanding and on par with east coast universities, Lapchick said.
Lapchick analyzes the APR scores released by the NCAA and publishes his analysis in an annual study.
"There is a mechanism in place for schools to look at the data that has been accumulated and point out any discrepancies that may have occurred in the numbers," said Brian Davis, assistant athletics director for academic services at the University of Texas at Austin. The Texas team had an APR score of 934.
Despite being above the cutoff score, the NCAA Web site currently lists USC at 15 points below the cutoff scores.
"Unfortunately the information that is published on the NCAA Web site and the information that the media and the public looks at is the unadjusted score which is below the 925," said Tim Tessalone, sports information director at USC. "The NCAA has not posted the adjusted scores so, therefore, there is erroneous information going around out there. We have to clean up this mess."
The NCAA does officially recognize the 930 and 927 football APR scores and plans to update the information in February, Tessalone said.
The APR is determined by awarding points to each player on a team roster for every semester. If a player meets NCAA academic standards, they are awarded a maximum of two points per semester. One point is awarded for being enrolled at a university and another for having a 2.0 or higher GPA.
Points are totaled up and the end of the academic year and divided by total number of points possible then multiplied by 1000. The NCAA chose 925 as the passing score because 925 reflects an expected 50 percent graduation rate.
By failing to earn a score of 925, the NCAA may issue a "contemporaneous penalty" -- a loss of NCAA grant money for every ineligible athlete that leaves the school. Teams that fail to improve face harsher penalties, including scholarship and recruiting restrictions and ultimately, loss of NCAA membership.
The NCAA sees the APR as a more accurate way of measuring student-athletes' performance in the classroom than the former method, which based academic progress on graduation rates.
Before the APR was introduced, the NCAA used a federal formula to calculate academic success. The formula monitored freshmen athletes who entered on scholarships to see how many graduated within six years.
But the old method did not take into account students who transferred out of the school or turned pro while still maintaining good academic standing, which negatively impacted the graduation rates.
Despite the new APR system, football and basketball players still have the lowest academic standings among college athletes, according to the NCAA report.
Part of the reason for the low graduation rates could be a student's emphasis on turning pro in football and basketball, said Lapchick.
"Too many people think they're going to play for the NFL or the NBA and concentrate too much of their efforts on that," Lapchick said. "Often times students are young and they think sports are going to be their ticket to fame and fortune and they don't understand that the odds are small that they will make the pros."
Lapchick also said he believes that football and basketball athletes arrive unprepared for college, especially students who come from underfunded urban schools where resources are more scarce.
El Shahawy said that football and basketball are big revenue sports with more opportunity at turning pro and playing the sport as a career.
"Students might forgo their college education to pursue professional opportunities," El Shahawy said.
January 19, 2006
(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- The USC football team narrowly avoided penalties from the NCAA, which began imposing penalties last fall for teams that did not meet academic requirements.
The NCAA instituted the Academic progress rate in 2004 as a way to measure student academic performance each semester in order to raise graduation rates among university members of the NCAA. Failing schools can ultimately have their NCAA membership revoked.
Before last fall, there was no system of penalties for schools that did not meet the academic requirements.
The Trojan football players earned a total of 927 points last season, two points above the minimum APR score of 925, according to a study done by Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute For Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida. In the 2003-04 season, the team had a score of 930.
The five bowl-bound teams from the Pacific-10 Conference -- USC, UCLA, California, Oregon and Arizona State -- scored the lowest APR scores out of this year's bowl-bound teams, the study reported.
By contrast, all 16 bowl-bound teams from the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East scored in the top 25 APR scores for college bowl-bound teams.
Many factors could account for the difference between east and west coast conferences, said Magdi El Shahawy, associate athletic director at USC.
"There could be a difference in academic standards relative to other campuses across the country," El Shahawy said. "Some might not have as many athletes turning pro, which could affect the overall APR score."
El Shawahy said that another problem is that the APR method is fairly new and there is no way of controlling how colleges determine their APR numbers. He added that it is too early to tell real academic progress with just two years of data.
"Over the course of time, once you got four or five years of data, you'll start to see things even out," El Shawahy said.
Lapchick agreed, saying that the APR data is only a snapshot of how a team is doing academically during a two-year span and that numbers will become more accurate as more data is collected.
The data was surprising because Pac-10 schools are generally outstanding and on par with east coast universities, Lapchick said.
Lapchick analyzes the APR scores released by the NCAA and publishes his analysis in an annual study.
"There is a mechanism in place for schools to look at the data that has been accumulated and point out any discrepancies that may have occurred in the numbers," said Brian Davis, assistant athletics director for academic services at the University of Texas at Austin. The Texas team had an APR score of 934.
Despite being above the cutoff score, the NCAA Web site currently lists USC at 15 points below the cutoff scores.
"Unfortunately the information that is published on the NCAA Web site and the information that the media and the public looks at is the unadjusted score which is below the 925," said Tim Tessalone, sports information director at USC. "The NCAA has not posted the adjusted scores so, therefore, there is erroneous information going around out there. We have to clean up this mess."
The NCAA does officially recognize the 930 and 927 football APR scores and plans to update the information in February, Tessalone said.
The APR is determined by awarding points to each player on a team roster for every semester. If a player meets NCAA academic standards, they are awarded a maximum of two points per semester. One point is awarded for being enrolled at a university and another for having a 2.0 or higher GPA.
Points are totaled up and the end of the academic year and divided by total number of points possible then multiplied by 1000. The NCAA chose 925 as the passing score because 925 reflects an expected 50 percent graduation rate.
By failing to earn a score of 925, the NCAA may issue a "contemporaneous penalty" -- a loss of NCAA grant money for every ineligible athlete that leaves the school. Teams that fail to improve face harsher penalties, including scholarship and recruiting restrictions and ultimately, loss of NCAA membership.
The NCAA sees the APR as a more accurate way of measuring student-athletes' performance in the classroom than the former method, which based academic progress on graduation rates.
Before the APR was introduced, the NCAA used a federal formula to calculate academic success. The formula monitored freshmen athletes who entered on scholarships to see how many graduated within six years.
But the old method did not take into account students who transferred out of the school or turned pro while still maintaining good academic standing, which negatively impacted the graduation rates.
Despite the new APR system, football and basketball players still have the lowest academic standings among college athletes, according to the NCAA report.
Part of the reason for the low graduation rates could be a student's emphasis on turning pro in football and basketball, said Lapchick.
"Too many people think they're going to play for the NFL or the NBA and concentrate too much of their efforts on that," Lapchick said. "Often times students are young and they think sports are going to be their ticket to fame and fortune and they don't understand that the odds are small that they will make the pros."
Lapchick also said he believes that football and basketball athletes arrive unprepared for college, especially students who come from underfunded urban schools where resources are more scarce.
El Shahawy said that football and basketball are big revenue sports with more opportunity at turning pro and playing the sport as a career.
"Students might forgo their college education to pursue professional opportunities," El Shahawy said.