RE: New NCAA APR report data shows Cin in the middle.

[Brent Wyrick]

Interesting. I think Baylor needs a big fat   *   considering how they were
impacted by the Dave Bliss and Patrick Dennehy issues. I think the NCAA
should just flat out throw away their numbers considering one of their
players was murdered by another player before either could graduate and the
almost all of the team transferred out afterwards.

 

  _____  

From: Michael Ryan [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 11:57 AM
To: BB Forum
Subject: [UC Basketball] New NCAA APR report data shows Cin in the middle.

 


I grabbed the numbers for a bunch of schools I felt would be of interest. I
picked 13 schools with higher numbers than Cin and 13 with lower. Apparently
Cincinnati's ranking was just below average tho given their attached comment
of "40-50th percentile" given by the NCAA.   

New APR report by the NCAA - dated Aug 22
<http://www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic
_reform/school_apr_data.html> . 

"The following data (that I swiped from the NCAA website) represents a
breakdown of the overall and by-sport APR averages for noted subgroups. It
is provided to permit institutional administrators to compare rates with
various subgroups by sport."  

North Carolina  - 1000 (ok, I'm impressed)
South Florida - 1000
Syracuse - 1000
Villanova - 1000
Xavier - 981   
Dayton - 980
Miami (OH) - 980
Vanderbilt - 979 
Georgetown - 975
Duke - 960
UW-Milwaukee - 953  
Indiana - 920+
Marquette - 920+
Cincinnati - 917+  "40-50th percentile"
Maryland - 917+
Ohio State - 910+
Charlotte - 909+
WVU - 893
Memphis - 891+
UConn - 889+  
Houston - 885+
Pitt - 885+
DePaul - 870
NC State - 846
Tennessee - 846
Louisville -  833
Kentucky - 827
Baylor - 647 


Heres the fine print  - important. 
+ Teams with this symbol have an estimated APR upper confidence boundary of
925 or above, even though the team's actual APR is below 925. It is
anticipated that some smaller squads that may be identified as under
performing in this year's reports will not be subject to penalty once the
confidence boundary is applied.

Note: It is important to note that all information contained in this report
is for one academic year only. This may lead to very small sample sizes
within certain sport groups. Because of that, the NCAA will not be using
these data alone for the purpose of rewarding or penalizing institutions and
the reader should use the data with caution. Eventually, the NCAA
anticipates reporting data only on the basis of a four-year rolling rate for
all sports.

-- 
Mike Ryan