ACC APR scores...

[GMan 3,569]

A perfect score is 1000, and the NCAA can impose penalties if it drops below 900.

 

All Division I: 949

Public schools: 944

Private schools: 964

Football Bowl Subdivision: 954

Duke: 989

Clemson: 985

GT: 983

BC: 982

Miami: 977

VT: 970

Wake: 970

UVA: 959

FSU: 954

NC State: 947

Maryland: 937

UNC: 934

 

Next season the minimum for possible NCAA penalties will increase to a 930, which means the Tar Heels are dangerously close to that number. Overall, the ACC averages a 965.58 multi-year APR score. As a comparison, the SEC averages a score of 955.25. No SEC school would rank in the top four of the ACC.

[sixcat 2,937]

Carolina's APR is a little higher than most people thought it might be given the academic problems they got themselves into. It should go up over the next year.

[sixcat 2,937]

On the flip side, for Maryland to be that low and to consider themselves academically "superior" to the majority of the ACC is comical. Knock yourselves out in the BIG.

[GMan 3,569]

What I found interesting is Alabama had the highest APR in the SEC followed by Vandy. Both were between 981 and 971, knowing that VT would have been #3 in the SEC according to the article I got the info from

[Deleted Account 5,203]

The APR is a garbage statistic and should be eliminated. Here is the definition from the NCAA itself: "Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one retention point for staying in school and one eligibility point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by one thousand to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate score."

 

For the APR to accurately measure what it is intended to measure, one premise must be that all institutions of higher learning are considered equal in difficulty and policy. This isn't the case. Anyone who thinks that a 2.0 from Boise State Community College and Stanford is equal needs to make a trip to the Institute in Marion. It's similar to how I can outrun all the residents of Heritage Hall, but couldn't stay on the field with any high school track-and-field team. Professors grade on curves in many majors, and it's lunacy to think that the average person would do the exact same in a room full of yokels as opposed to a room full of Judge Smailses.

 

This is aside from schools that impose their own additional requirements such as Virginia. I'm not upset that Virginia's lower than VT; it isn't as if Virginia is in danger of becoming ineligible. Virginia, though, has lost 37 players in football alone in the last decade due to academics that were NOT ineligible by NCAA standards (see: Sims, Phillip). The APR punishes schools who set their own bar higher. In what world is this acceptable?

 

If a statistic cannot be accurate in that which it is intended to be accurate, it must be abandoned.

[GMan 3,569]

The APR is a garbage statistic and should be eliminated.

 

Its only garbage because UVA's APR is lower than VT's and ranks 8th out of 12 teams in the ACC. If UVA had the highest APR in the Conference, you'd be bragging about it and saying what a great measuring stick it is to compare schools.

 

'nuff said....

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Its only garbage because UVA's APR is lower than VT's and ranks 8th out of 12 teams in the ACC. If UVA had the highest APR in the Conference, you'd be bragging about it and saying what a great measuring stick it is to compare schools.

 

'nuff said....

 

As I said, I don't give a turd where UVA ranks. As long as UVA's eligible and doesn't match the Huggins Graduation Quotient, I'm fine with it. Doesn't change the fact that the APR penalizes institutions that impose higher barriers than the NCAA for its student athletes.

 

But I give you props on moving the goalposts. Too bad I won't let that slide unnoticed.