Schools with limited resources schools hit by poor APR scores
Eighteen Division I teams will miss the postseason, and another 18 in men's basketball and nine other college sports will trade practice time for remedial classroom sessions under NCAA academic progress reports released Tuesday.
Poor Academic Progress Rate scores mean postseason bans in the 2013-14 academic year for teams from 10 schools: Alabama State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Florida A&M, Florida International, Grambling State, Mississippi Valley State, New Orleans, Norfolk State, Savannah State and Southern. That compares to 15 teams ineligible for the 2012-13 postseason.
Five teams received Level 3 APR penalties, which can include financial aid reductions and multiyear postseason bans: the men's basketball teams at Grambling, Mississippi Valley, New Orleans and Louisiana-Monroe and Chicago State's women's volleyball team.
Most of the penalized schools have significantly more limited resources than top NCAA programs, including 11 historically black schools. Four of those banned are men's basketball squads from the 10-team Southwestern Athletic Conference.
The overall four-year APR score across Division I was 974, a one-point increase from last year. Scores are calculated by individual D-I teams based on eligibility and graduation and retention rates. A minimum four-year average score of 900, or 930 over the most recent two years, is required for postseason participation. The minimum required APR scores will increase to 930 over four years or 940 over two years, starting with the 2014-15 postseason. The cutoff is equivalent to a 50 percent graduation rate.
“If you can't graduate half your student-athletes, you shouldn't be worried about playing in championships or tournaments,” NCAA president Mark Emmert said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.