4th Team

[Bill Marsh]

For years, Gumby? How many years?

Obviously we all know about last year's situation, but APR hadn't been a problem in the past and it isn't now.

The fact is that UConn has not had a chronic problem with the academics of their athletes. You need to post something more than graduation rates because number of players going to the NBA and number of transfers all contribute to graduation rates.

The APR isn't just a solid black line. When schools near the threshold the NCAA invites them to present an academic plan that shows how they intend to improve the academic success of their student-athletes. So there is great opportunity for a school to demonstrate that it is able to provide an educational environment to help these kids be successful after basketball. Uconn was one of 9 teams or roughly 3% of all schools that failed to qualify (even with the additional "extra credit"). Since 2004 when the NCAA started tracking APR, UConn's average yearly APR has been: 914.6

Here are some other schools and their avg. APR, who have also had a lot of players either transferring out or leaving early to play professionally:
Kansas - 994
UNC - 984
Kentucky - 952
Syracuse - 939
Villanova - 985
Gtwn - 953

Care to take another stab at why UConn's APR caused them to be ineligible? It certainly is not b/c of the transfers and those that bolted to play professionally. Kentucky should be 0 if that were the case. No school has had more kids bolt for the NBA than them yet they are still, on average 37 odd points better than UConn. Hmmmm...

This is total BS, Gumby.

1. 2004 through what year? We're looking at a pretty small sample. Why not post a link?

2. How many is "a lot of leaving early or transferring out"? There's no way to do a meaningful comparison without actually talking numbers in a specific time frame.

3. You make a ridiculous statement about Kentucky when the numbers are probably already several years out of date and the average therefore reflects primarily the Tubby Smith era, yet you characterize the program for what it's been more recently under Calipari. Nice try.

4. The world knows that UConn had a problem for 2 seasons about 5 years ago, but that is hardly evidence of a chronic problem. The Calhoun era, which is what this average is reporting, dates back to 1986. The only way to put the recent problem in context is to look at what the situation was during Calhoun's entire tenure, not to simply pick a specific incident. That would be like calling Syracuse a corrupt program based on their suspension from the tournament back in the '90's while ignoring the rest of Boeheim's career.

5. Knowing about the 2008 problem, the average is obviously going to be lowered, but to establish that was any more than an isolated problem, you have to show what the average was in the other years. You're hardly breaking new ground with a number that shows there was a recent problem.

Care to take another stab at it and provide a full report with all the facts rather than this kind of B/S nonsense.

[Bill Marsh]

Um... You do realize that UConn was ineligible because it's players failed to meet BASIC academic standards, right? This wasn't a one year thing. For years UConn has demonstrated that the success of its basketball team trumped the success of its student athletes. When your coach has a record of graduating less than 50% of his players that tells you all you need to know about priorities at the school.

For years, Gumby? How many years?

Obviously we all know about last year's situation, but APR hadn't been a problem in the past and it isn't now.

The fact is that UConn has not had a chronic problem with the academics of their athletes. You need to post something more than graduation rates because number of players going to the NBA and number of transfers all contribute to graduation rates.

APR is a rolling average over several years (4 I think). In order to not have a satisfactory score, it means that you had bad numbers for several of those years - you aren't going to be banned from the postseason for one bad year.

True, but you can be banned for 2 bad years, which is what happened at UConn.

What was really unfair about it is that the ban was imposed retroactively for a violation that occurred before the rule was even in effect. How would you like to get a speeding ticket for being clocked at 60 mph on radar a week before the speed limit was dropped from 65 to 55. That's what happened here. Totally unfair. Especially unfair to punish the kids who had nothing to do with the violation and whose academic performance was very good. That was a great idea by the NCAA. As usual, really puttingt he best interests of the student athletes first.

[Bill Marsh]

I'm still not sold on Xavier as a lock. To me, they are the flip of Marquette, whereas Xavier has had a very friendly first 6 games in the league. They have played 4 home games, at Creighton (close loss), and at DePaul. While they are 5-1, which is an impressive start, they could easily go 4-8 or 5-7 the rest of the way. If they do, they will be on the outside looking in. I think their game at Providence on Saturday is enormous for them (for both teams, really). As others have stated, I also think Providence is a team capable of a strong finish in league play.

I would say the only locks right now to play into the Tournament are Nova and Creighton, with Xavier in a good spot, but with the real teeth of their schedule in front of them. Marquette and Providence are both well positioned to make this interesting.

I'm just not as sold on Xavier as others I guess, but I certainly hope I'm wrong and they continue to play well and represent the league well into March. I am a big fan of their coach, and I know they have an UNREAL class coming in next year, so the future certainly seems bright for the X-Men.

I agree with your comment about Xavier's favorable schedule, I think you're stretching the point to suggest that they'll go 4-8 or 5-7 the rest of the way, which ignores the fact that their success has not been based on just a favorable schedule. They've been playing very well. Certainly have made a believer out of me. I certainly don't expect them to continue to win at the same rate as they have with their 5-1 conference start, but something along the lines of 7-5 would be in keeping with the level at which they've been playing through the first 3 months of the season.

I also think you're understating just how much difficulty Marquette has been having. Unless they change the way they've been playing this season since November, I expect they will be the same ,500 team at the end of conference play as they are right now.

[stever20]

I'm still not sold on Xavier as a lock. To me, they are the flip of Marquette, whereas Xavier has had a very friendly first 6 games in the league. They have played 4 home games, at Creighton (close loss), and at DePaul. While they are 5-1, which is an impressive start, they could easily go 4-8 or 5-7 the rest of the way. If they do, they will be on the outside looking in. I think their game at Providence on Saturday is enormous for them (for both teams, really). As others have stated, I also think Providence is a team capable of a strong finish in league play.

I would say the only locks right now to play into the Tournament are Nova and Creighton, with Xavier in a good spot, but with the real teeth of their schedule in front of them. Marquette and Providence are both well positioned to make this interesting.

I'm just not as sold on Xavier as others I guess, but I certainly hope I'm wrong and they continue to play well and represent the league well into March. I am a big fan of their coach, and I know they have an UNREAL class coming in next year, so the future certainly seems bright for the X-Men.

according to the Projected RPI- if Xavier finishes 20-10 they would have a RPI of 35.8. That would have them finishing 6-6 from here. Even going 5-7 from here to 19-11 their RPI is projected at 44.1. They would have to completely go into the tank to not make it. Highly unlikely they collapse enough to not get in now.

[Bill Marsh]

I'm still not sold on Xavier as a lock. To me, they are the flip of Marquette, whereas Xavier has had a very friendly first 6 games in the league. They have played 4 home games, at Creighton (close loss), and at DePaul. While they are 5-1, which is an impressive start, they could easily go 4-8 or 5-7 the rest of the way. If they do, they will be on the outside looking in. I think their game at Providence on Saturday is enormous for them (for both teams, really). As others have stated, I also think Providence is a team capable of a strong finish in league play.

I would say the only locks right now to play into the Tournament are Nova and Creighton, with Xavier in a good spot, but with the real teeth of their schedule in front of them. Marquette and Providence are both well positioned to make this interesting.

I'm just not as sold on Xavier as others I guess, but I certainly hope I'm wrong and they continue to play well and represent the league well into March. I am a big fan of their coach, and I know they have an UNREAL class coming in next year, so the future certainly seems bright for the X-Men.

according to the Projected RPI- if Xavier finishes 20-10 they would have a RPI of 35.8. That would have them finishing 6-6 from here. Even going 5-7 from here to 19-11 their RPI is projected at 44.1. They would have to completely go into the tank to not make it. Highly unlikely they collapse enough to not get in now.

Actually RPI Forecast has Xavier finishing 21-9, 9-3 OOC, 12-6 conf. That means that they are projected to go 7-5 the rest of the way in the Big East.

[GumbyDamnit!]

This is total BS, Gumby.

1. 2004 through what year? We're looking at a pretty small sample. Why not post a link?

2. How many is "a lot of leaving early or transferring out"? There's no way to do a meaningful comparison without actually talking numbers in a specific time frame.

3. You make a ridiculous statement about Kentucky when the numbers are probably already several years out of date and the average therefore reflects primarily the Tubby Smith era, yet you characterize the program for what it's been more recently under Calipari. Nice try.

4. The world knows that UConn had a problem for 2 seasons about 5 years ago, but that is hardly evidence of a chronic problem. The Calhoun era, which is what this average is reporting, dates back to 1986. The only way to put the recent problem in context is to look at what the situation was during Calhoun's entire tenure, not to simply pick a specific incident. That would be like calling Syracuse a corrupt program based on their suspension from the tournament back in the '90's while ignoring the rest of Boeheim's career.

5. Knowing about the 2008 problem, the average is obviously going to be lowered, but to establish that was any more than an isolated problem, you have to show what the average was in the other years. You're hardly breaking new ground with a number that shows there was a recent problem.


Care to take another stab at it and provide a full report with all the facts rather than this kind of B/S nonsense.

Bill be careful what you wish for. It may get even uglier for your argument. I'd be happy to get you a link when back in my office. The APR that I referenced covered 2004 through 2012. But keep in mind that it is a 5 year rolling average so that APR in 2004 covers 2000-2004. Is 13 years too small of a sample? But if you'd like details I'd be happy to oblige. Stay tuned. And to boot this doesn't even cover how Calhoun responded to players who acted poorly off the court. I'd be happy to share that info too if you'd like. You remember when the starting PG on the #1 team in the country stole laptops from his classmates and Calhoun decided to let him come back and play for the team, right? Would you like to go down that rabbit hole as well?

[GumbyDamnit!]

Bill, here you go.

http://web1.ncaa.org/maps/tiwitytilamvmaprRelease.jsp

Feel free to search anyone you'd like. I do stand corrected that it is a 4 year rolling avg and not 5. BTW, Kentucky has improved its APR since Calipari came to UK. So there goes that argument.

And to go back to what I said, how was I in any way inaccurate? I simply noted that UConn was in eligible for post season play because they had performed miserably at the basic academic requirements that all Div. 1 schools were held to. Is that a false statement because the facts seem pretty clear to me? You countered that it was because of the "transfers and players leaving early to play professionally." I showed that many schools face that, or have had even more transfers and early NBA draft picks. I pointed to Kentucky as. Prime example of that. Do you really want me to go back and present each schools #s or do you at least concede that UConn is no different than many of the schools that I compared them to?