Myles Brand — Chicken-Hearted "Reformer"
Earlier today, the NCAA released its latest round of "academic progress reports" and, for the first time, imposed scholarship cuts on certain schools that fell short of the APR "cut line." Click on the headline for a full analysis of this issue – and the NCAA#8217;s sham "reform."
I#8217;ve got good news, bad news, and a full-on rant for you.
First, the good news. Miami#8217;s scores were excellent again this year. Six Miami teams were among the top 10% in all of Division I, and, as best we can tell from the data, Miami#8217;s football team was among the top performers in Division I-A.
TOP APRs IN DIVISION I-A FOOTBALL
(tentative—subject to revision)
1. Stanford—995
2. Navy—992
3. Boston College—982
4. Auburn—981
5. Duke—975
6. UConn—974
7. Rice—971
8. Wake Forest—970
9. Air Force—967
10. Florida—966
11. MIAMI—964
12. Army—963
13t. Rutgers—961
13t. Northwestern—961
15. Ole Miss—958
Others of note: Vanderbilt (957), Virginia (956), and Iowa (950).
Now, the bad news. The MAC, as a whole, fared poorly. Buffalo, Northern Illinois, Temple, Toledo, and Western Michigan all will lose multiple football scholarships for 2006-07. Kent will lose two basketball scholarships. As a result, the MAC is likely to attract a lot of bad press over the next few days – and those schools deserve it.
But that brings me to the rant. Not one BCS football school was hit with a current-year scholarship penalty today – despite the fact that many, including at least five Big Ten schools and major powers such as Alabama – failed to meet the alleged NCAA "cut line" requiring a minimum APR of 925.
Instead, the NCAA has explained that it has made "squad-size adjustments" for certain schools. According to the NCAA#8217;s releases, these adjustments are intended to prevent the imposition of sanctions for near-misses of the 925 standard while there is still not a full set of data. That explanation rings hollow in the context of 85-man football rosters. The NCAA has warned schools not to view this adjustment as a "safety net" and notes that, unless they make the cut line later on, penalties from this year will roll forward and accumulate for enforcement later. However, it appears that schools that come into compliance by 2007 will get a mulligan for the scholarship sanctions they should have faced this year.
In all, fifty-three Division I-A and I-AA schools fell short of the "cut line" but avoided current sanctions because of the squad-size adjustment. Based on our spot checks this afternoon, among the schools benefiting from this laxity were Marshall, East Carolina, Central Florida, Houston, UTEP, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Wisconsin, UCLA, Oregon, and Alabama. (We haven#8217;t checked the rest of the Pac-10 yet, but their numbers were atrocious last year.) Again, not one BCS school was sanctioned today.
Moreover, this selective use of data allows the NCAA to dumb down its own standards, paper over its problems, and present a rosy picture to the press, even though without the "adjustments," over 40% of Division I-A and I-AA football programs would have flunked.
We#8217;re not whining for the MAC. There is no excuse for our conference mates’ performance, and, in particular, Toledo’s and Temple’s scores are an abomination. But they should have a lot more company in the public stockades this evening.
The NCAA chickened out.
Sources:
- NCAA APR database for 2006.
- NCAA#8217;s “Public Recognition Schools” for 2006
- NCAA "Backgrounder on Squad-Size Adjustments"
- NCAA: Top Ten Percent of Teams by Sport
Know someone who would find this article interesting? Send them a link!