2.) A waiver option against losing retention APR points for those student athletes who are not retained due to outside extenuating circumstances
3.) Counting Walk-ons in APR calculations
Tim Richardson
Academic Counselor
Monday, July 23, 2007
Topics for Discussion...
1.) Reduce the minimum number of summer hours required to receive athletic scholarship from 6 to 3 credits.
2.) A waiver option against losing retention APR points for those student athletes who are not retained due to outside extenuating circumstances
3.) Counting Walk-ons in APR calculations Boston College
2.) A waiver option against losing retention APR points for those student athletes who are not retained due to outside extenuating circumstances
3.) Counting Walk-ons in APR calculations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
1) Reduce the summer hours from 6 to 3 --- Do not support. Coaches are taking advantage of the "voluntary" summer work-out as it is with the 6 credit requirement. The abuse will increase with the decrease of minimum summer credit hours.
2) A waiver option for the loss of retention point in APR --- Support. The waiver would have to extreme like pregnancy, loss of employment by main caregiver or environmental (example: Hurricane Katrina)
3) Counting Walk-on in APR --- Do not support. Defeats the purpose of the APR, which was created to challenge recruiting processes. The "walk-on" does not get the admissions assistance as the "recruited/scholarship" psa. The recruited/scholarship psa SHOULD be looking at the institution and will I be happy there with all the institution is offering, ACADEMICALLY as well as athletically. That does not always happen, thus the APR was created so institutions will look at themselves that way.
Item 2: CAP is having some discussion to waive the transfer retention point if a student-athlete transfers with a gpa above 2.6 cumulative.
Item 3: PLEASE do NOT count the walk-ons in the APR!!!!
1) Support for students who only attend one summer term. We are not given time with SA to properly prepare and provide resources for 6 hrs. Many are withdrawing anyway which is costing athletic departments and setting the wrong tone academically. Some students are not ready for 6 hrs in a 5 week session. Give schools the opportunity to do what is best for the student. If they are ready for six, sign them up; if not, sign them up for 3. Also, policing the coaches doesn't seem to work so they are going to abuse this rule no matter what it is. You could also change it to enroll and "complete" 6 hrs--that would take care of their "Voluntary" workouts.
2) As someone doing APR, the more waivers the more hassle. We are making it too complicated. For teams consistently above the cut score, if you are at 960 or 970 it doesn't matter--that isn't the point of APR--it is ok to lose points.
3)DO NOT SUPPORT--please don't even discuss.
I agree with everything Kim said except, I think that pregancy should be an automatic exception for APR (with documentation)much like the Pro Wavier. How can we allow an exception for Pro's (mostly men) and not allow an exception for Motherhood?
1) Support - there should not be a minimum of hours due to the fact that you do not have to complete six you just have to enroll in six hours. This also adversely effects learning disabled and learning deficient student-athletes that may not be able to handle 6 hours in an abbreviated summer session.
2) Against -I am a bit confused at this topic because any circumstance that is beyond the control of a student-athlete that adversely affects APR will be considered by the NCAA through the adjustment period. So I would speculate that the NCAA would say this already exists. See the APR Adjustment Directive on the NCAA website under the Committee on Academic Performance/ Appeals and Waivers
3) Absolutely against—please do not even bring up. It clearly would invite abuse by coaches to the intent of the APR program.
3)I agree with the other comments on whether walk-ons should be counted in the APR. "NO" is my answer. It seems to be a "two-sided coin." While some would help the APR, others would certainly hurt it. There are far too many issues that make counting walk-ons a bad idea. No way to counting walk-ons in the APR.
1) Against reducing the required number of hours from 6 to 3 because we believe that it gives the student-athlete a false sense of security when entering our institution.
2) Against waiver option
3) Against having walk-ons count in APR calculations
1)Do not support. Programs that can afford the cost/loss financially should determine their own policies relative to dropping/withdrawing.
2)Process already in place via adjustment period.
3)Do not support. The value of the WO is determined by his/her worth to the program on many levels. APR should not drive that determination. Give the WO a GIA if the program wants to benefit from his/her academic success, just as it does from the physical prowess of those in tenders upfront.
1. Against reducing summer hours to 3 for summer for many of the reasons listed above.
2. I am for an adjustment to the APR for situations generally out of the schools control such as arrests, pregnancy, legal issues, etc...
3. I am for adding bonus points to the APR if 3,4,5 whatever number can be agrred upon, walk-ons graduate...assumming they particiapted consistently athletically.
1. Support moving from 6 to 3. At our institution most students can't take summer term 1 or 2 because they are still in high school and so they are forced to take all 6 hours in summer term 3. We also have very few courses for them to take. This year there were about 10 viable options for 18 incoming student-athletes. We don't have remedial courses and we have very little tutoring available in the summer. Some of these students need serious help.
2. Support waiver option for extreme circumstances.
3. Do not support counting walk-ons because the level of academic commitment on behalf of the coach, student, etc. is not necessarily the same as with GIA. I also agree with Demetrius.
Post a Comment