Football APR Scores

[All Hail]

Bug used to post these every year back in the day when UCLA received better scores and used fewer special admissions requests on their student athletes. 

Here are the multi-year scores.

 

UW - 986

Stanford - 985

Utah - 983

Cal - 876

ASU - 975

USC - 973

CU - 970

Oregon - 969

WSU - 969

OSU - 968

UCLA - 967

Arizona - 946 - wow, that's really bad. 

 

Edit: here are the basketball scores.  Man, what is going on at UCLA?

 

Stanford - 1000

UW - 986 

Utah - 985

ASU - 975

USC - 973

Cal - 970

CU - 970

WSU - 967

Arizona - 963

Oregon - 957

Oregon State - 952

UCLA - 944

[MrBug708]

Pretty much all of their revenue sport athletes are special admits. They just didn't and dont take the NCAA minimum kids. It just goes to show the difficulty of ucla academics.

Cal needs to fix their score in the 800s

I saw SC 's released earlier today, googled for ucla and didn't see them and forgot. Still see you are salty about those old standards

[KUGRDON]

WSU Women’s Golf 1000

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MrBug708]

Kentucky basketball somehow has an APR of 1000.

[All Hail]

18 hours ago, MrBug708 said:

Pretty much all of their revenue sport athletes are special admits. They just didn't and dont take the NCAA minimum kids. It just goes to show the difficulty of ucla academics.

Cal needs to fix their score in the 800s

I saw SC 's released earlier today, googled for ucla and didn't see them and forgot. Still see you are salty about those old standards

UCLA academics aren't any tougher than Cal and Stanford, both of whom are boat racing UCLA when it comes to APR scores and probably only marginally tougher than UW's.  I just think it's funny you used to post about his stuff with so much pride back in the day. 

[MrBug708]

4 minutes ago, All Hail said:

UCLA academics aren't any tougher than Cal and Stanford, both of whom are boat racing UCLA when it comes to APR scores.  I just think it's funny you used to post about his stuff with so much pride back in the day. 

It was harder than Cal, who had to come up with self imposed restrictions because of all of the problems they were having with kids making the grades with their old model. You loosely tying APR to admission standards does given me a good chuckle either way. One day you'll correctly understand it!

[MrBug708]

Here is the same old tired argument you keep bringing up

 

 

[Quack 12]

So just to clarify, Cal's multi-year number in the original post is a typo, right? It should be 976? 

[All Hail]

1 minute ago, Quack 12 said:

So just to clarify, Cal's multi-year number in the original post is a typo, right? It should be 976? 

Correct.

[All Hail]

28 minutes ago, MrBug708 said:

It was harder than Cal, who had to come up with self imposed restrictions because of all of the problems they were having with kids making the grades with their old model. You loosely tying APR to admission standards does given me a good chuckle either way. One day you'll correctly understand it!

I understand the issue just fine. You're conflating the issue of admissions standards with UCLA athletes and their poor grades.  The two have nothing to do with one another.  If anything, UCLA's high admissions standards should equate to better APR scores but as you've mentioned, UCLA has lower standards for admitting athletes than Cal or Stanford does and so the scores make sense.  UCLA has only itself to blame for their poor scores.  Cal used to have poor scores as well and addressed the problem by a self-imposed 3.0 GPA quota on the vast majority of their athletes.  I wonder if UCLA will take their poor scores as seriously.  I would think a top tier academic institution would. 

[All Hail]

17 minutes ago, MrBug708 said:

Here is the same old tired argument you keep bringing up

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  It's funny how this conversation aged.  IE Bruin rightfully accused Cal of letting in athletes who had no business of being at Cal.  The irony is that UCLA was in the process of doing the very same thing unbeknownst to IE Bruin.

On 4/5/2015 at 1:02 AM, I.E. Bruin said:

On 4/4/2015 at 3:58 PM, All Hail said:

This post made me laugh out loud.

80% of Cal football recruits must have a 3.0 or higher by 2017. UCLA will still play the special admit game and then spend far more money on academic resources for athletes to make sure they pass. Something Cal is finally doing themselves.

www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_26823904/80-percent-cal-recruits-must-have-3-0

Exactly, Why is Cal suddenly raising their admission requirements for student athletes? Because of their embarrassing low APR and GSR scores due to admitting basketball and football players that have no business attending Cal.

 

 

[MrBug708]

UCLA of course let's athletes in under standards. UCLA letting someone in with a 2.6 isn't great, is a special admit. Nobody has ever denied it. Cal letting in a kid with a 2.3 was also not great. Cal just was much better at getting more athletes who didn't need to be qualified as special admits then ucla did, whether is was a special admit with a gpa of 2.9, 3.3, or 3.8 . Cal had lower admissions but also had a more athletes with Cal grades, whether walkons or scholarships. UCLA doesn't take as many 4.0 athletes as Cal did, but still took a high level of low kid. Nothing said was untrue, you can rationalize however you would like

[All Hail]

21 minutes ago, MrBug708 said:

UCLA of course let's athletes in under standards. UCLA letting someone in with a 2.6 isn't great, is a special admit. Nobody has ever denied it. Cal letting in a kid with a 2.3 was also not great. Cal just was much better at getting more athletes who didn't need to be qualified as special admits then ucla did, whether is was a special admit with a gpa of 2.9, 3.3, or 3.8 . Cal had lower admissions but also had a more athletes with Cal grades, whether walkons or scholarships. UCLA doesn't take as many 4.0 athletes as Cal did, but still took a high level of low kid. Nothing said was untrue, you can rationalize however you would like

You're overthinking this.  I am merely pointing out that UCLA's standards for their athletes appears to slipping and clearly lags behind that of Cal and Stanford's. 

[MrBug708]

Of course. We need to fire our AD

[MrBug708]

The NCAA has some fairly stringent APR rules, which try to hold programs accountable for academic progress of its scholarship players. Basically, without getting into how the APR scores are exactly calculated, programs are awarded points for scholarship players being in school and academically eligible. The NCAA uses a four-year rolling point total. If you go under a designated point total, the NCAA will penalize the program beginning with less practice time, all the way up to coaching suspensions, a reduction in scholarships, and post-season ineligibility. One of the biggest issues to consider in regard to the large of players that have transferred out of the program since Chip Kelly came to UCLA is the impact on the football program’s APR.

If a player transfers to a two-year school he must have a GPA of 3.3, and if he transfers to a four-year he must have a 2.6 GPA or the program he’s transferring from will lose points. Of the 19 players that have left the program, it’s undetermined how many actually are considered transfers, but probably upward of 12 of them. If those players had a GPA that didn’t meet the requirement it will take away important APR points. Keep in mind, UCLA football’s last four-year rolling APR score wasn’t great – in May of 2018 it was 967 (tied for 72nd in the nation). The minimum APR score is 930 to avoid NCAA penalties. With the four-year rolling method of figuring the score, potential point deductions from these transfers might not have a big enough impact on UCLA’s point total next year, but it could be significant in the APR scores 2-4 years out. 

[KUGRDON]

57 minutes ago, MrBug708 said:

The NCAA has some fairly stringent APR rules, which try to hold programs accountable for academic progress of its scholarship players. Basically, without getting into how the APR scores are exactly calculated, programs are awarded points for scholarship players being in school and academically eligible. The NCAA uses a four-year rolling point total. If you go under a designated point total, the NCAA will penalize the program beginning with less practice time, all the way up to coaching suspensions, a reduction in scholarships, and post-season ineligibility. One of the biggest issues to consider in regard to the large of players that have transferred out of the program since Chip Kelly came to UCLA is the impact on the football program’s APR.

If a player transfers to a two-year school he must have a GPA of 3.3, and if he transfers to a four-year he must have a 2.6 GPA or the program he’s transferring from will lose points. Of the 19 players that have left the program, it’s undetermined how many actually are considered transfers, but probably upward of 12 of them. If those players had a GPA that didn’t meet the requirement it will take away important APR points. Keep in mind, UCLA football’s last four-year rolling APR score wasn’t great – in May of 2018 it was 967 (tied for 72nd in the nation). The minimum APR score is 930 to avoid NCAA penalties. With the four-year rolling method of figuring the score, potential point deductions from these transfers might not have a big enough impact on UCLA’s point total next year, but it could be significant in the APR scores 2-4 years out. 

The new red shirt rule could play into this with negative impact on a lot of schools.