APR! ANNUAL PIPSQUEAK REAMING, IN NCAA-SPEAK.
It’s one of the most magical times of the year: you wake up, and there’s just a hint of summer in the air. The bees buzz, the birds warble…perhaps you hack up a thick ball of pollen-encrusted mucus, if you’re fortunate enough to live in an allergen hell like Atlanta.
And then, the children run down the street, clutching white papers with baby blue print on the letterhead: THE APR’S OUT! THE APR’s OUT!!!

Jump for joy, piglet! The APR’s out!
The NCAA’s attempt to quantify the reconciliation of athletics and academics did indeed come out yesterday, and it lives up to its reputation again as being one of the sternest, least forgiving gauges of academic performance in small schools never hoping to even play in a bowl game or sell a single piece of NCAA merchandise. The letters stand for Academic Progress Rate, but we can substitute any number of better source words for the acronym APR:
Abstruse Pedantic Ruse
Auburn? Pretty Ridiculous.
Athletes Placed in Remedials
Annual Pipsqueak Reaming
The last one is particularly apt. The schools receiving the most serious scholarship penalties and Myles Brand finger-wagging all come from college sport’s Christmas Islands: Northern Arizona University, Texas Southern, Tennessee-Chattanooga, San Jose State…and most snidely, HBCUs and schools affected by Hurricane Katrina. (Myles Brand doesn’t care about black people! ) Oh, and FIU and Georgia Southern. Those puppies got kicked, too.
The only big school of note in anything resembling trouble is the University of Arizona, which will lose four scholarships
next year following a dismal APR score. Everyone else skates, and will likely continue to. Why? Let Myles “the Hammer” Brand answer that query:
“It is important … to understand that the faculty of each college or university, rather than the NCAA, determines courses that will be taught, the standards for instruction and the requirements for degrees. They are also responsible for monitoring against academic abuse or fraud, and they take these responsibilities seriously. It is unlikely that any intrusion by the NCAA into this realm would be either practical, successful or welcome.”
Hello, prized linebacker. That D is being changed to a “C”, and as long as the University’s not looking or caring, no one else is going to sniff around no matter how rank the smell gets. The NCAA pads the natural loophole in the policy with yet another loophole cannily spotted by the vigilant attorneys over at Miami HawkTalk: the NCAA takes away the “squad size adjustment” next year, which makes next year’s APR look like a potential killing floor for dumbish teams, right?
You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir! The teams in question have to have a workable plan in place to improve–a plan and nothing more, really, creating a garage-door sized hole in the policy for schools to run whole convoys through. In truth, all a school needs to invest in to keep athletics free and clear of suspicion is a robust compliance office capable of running interference.
This post is therefore sponsored by the burgeoning field of NCAA compliance and the American Union of NCAA Compliance Officers. Through an increasingly incoherent and flexible policy, the NCAA’s done little more than subsidize the growth of an industry devoted solely to countering its own policies, and one that will likely require the services of that most pricey and ornery of professionals: the attorney. Schools unable to afford representation will gradually be razed out of sport, since the market will clip the weaker competition (HBCUs and San Jose States of the world) out of business.
In the future, the best defense in college football won’t be wearing a mouth guard and eyeblack. They’ll be carrying a valise and a J.D. from a top 25 law school, and their playbook will be much, much more complicated than that of its opposition for one very good reason: the other team faxed them the game plan before kickoff.












37
Lotta AU haters in the house, but facts are facts. Tubs does a great job with his players on and off the field and the Terds hate it. Read ‘em and weep, boys and let your over-hyped meglamaniacle athiest coach try and beat us. Right now we own you…on or off the field. :^)
Comment by TailbackU — May 6, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
36
#34: It’s hard to even respond to your loaded question, since you again assert that there was “charitable degree donation on the plains”. That’s false.
Numerous follow-ups by other papers and an internal investigation (that was received and accepted by both SACS and the NCAA) showed that nothing of the sort was happening. Basically, you had one guy that was providing way too many directed reading courses, because of the insufficient resources of the department. But it’s very clear that: 1.) That was done for all students in the department, not just athletes; 2.) The students still had to do and did do the work. It was a situation that needed to be changed because of the potential for abuse, but no abuse was ever found. Student took classes, did the work. Pretty simple concept. The worst thing that was found was that some athletes were taking an easy major. Duh.
In the end, there was nothing more damning to the Auburn football team than what can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/ogopc
Comment by HFS — May 4, 2007 @ 8:15 am
35
#17
The answer to your question….Mike Stoops!
Arizona cleaned it up real quiet like, rolling in with an 883 APR.
WOO!
Comment by Jason — May 3, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
34
HFS, What scrutiny do you speak of? I have yet to see anyone justify the charitable degree donation on the plains.
#19 and 21, as a senior in highschool trying to decide what institution of higher learning I would be learning high in, Alabama sends me a pamphlet. The heading was, and I quote, “Thinking Ivy? Think again. Think Bama”
I hate bob witt.
Comment by Kecalf Bailey — May 3, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
33
#4 Steve, you should be ashamed that your school was too stupid to figure out how to beat the system.
Comment by NewAZTiger — May 3, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
32
Fantastic analysis - this story jumped right out at me when I read it, and I think your take is pretty dead-on.
Comment by extrapolater — May 3, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
31
“Orson’s point, if I understand it correctly, is that the BCS schools with Zevonesque resources will figure out ways to skate around these rules while Delaware State dies for our sins.”
Certainly, but this is true in any regulatory context. Its only problematic here because, as Orson and DevilGrad over at Miami Hawk Talk assert, BCS schools are better able than smaller schools to take advantage of the loopholes.
I find this difficult to believe. These non-BCS schools you speak of no doubt employ lawyers and other legal-type folks to comply with a panoply of local, state and federal regulations. If the policy is as incoherent as you guys assert–if it truly has loopholes that you can drive a truck through–then Delaware State should have no trouble skirting the policy, right?
Evidently not, if this year’s results are indicative of the long term trend. But they might not be: This is, after all, pretty early in the program. We’ll have a much better idea next year, after the squad size adjustments are eliminated, whether small schools will continue to bear the brunt of the APR sanctions.
Assuming they do, this might not be a bad thing. Its not clear from Orson’s post or the articles I’ve read that the overrepresentation of smallish schools on the APR sanction list is due to disparities in legal resources and not to, say, actual differences in satisfying the otherwise legitimate goals of the program. If Michigan is better able than FIU to provide the resources needed to graduate student athletes, then maybe FIU shouldn’t be fielding a football team.
In short: I think its too early to condemn this program as yet another instance of NCAA overreaching.
As an aside, the reaction to this APR business is the most conclusive proof yet that the NCAA can do no right by most of the blogging community. They implement a flexible program and its condemned as incoherent and loophole ridden. Had they designed an airtight, consistent, loophole free regulatory regime, everyone would be condemning Brand for overregulating.
Comment by Daniel Adams — May 3, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
30
I just know that if HBCUs are mentioned, minorities are involved, so there must be a lawsuit in there somewhere.
Comment by Beergut — May 3, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
29
Re #28: According to the ESPN article Orson linked, “BCS teams, however, accounted for only 11 of 112 penalized teams, and no school from the BCS conferences received a warning letter.”
Orson’s point, if I understand it correctly, is that the BCS schools with Zevonesque resources will figure out ways to skate around these rules while Delaware State dies for our sins.
Comment by DevilGrad — May 3, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
28
I’m not sure I understand your point here. What’s the problem with the NCAA forcing schools to graduate their players?
“Through an increasingly incoherent and flexible policy, the NCAA’s done little more than subsidize the growth of an industry devoted solely to countering its own policies, and one that will likely require the services of that most pricey and ornery of professionals: the attorney.”
This policy sounds plenty coherent to me. Moreover, that the policy might encourage schools to pay lawyers to fight it says nothing about the merits of the policy itself. If the SDSUs of the world aren’t educating their athletes, why should they be allowed to field football teams?
Comment by Daniel Adams — May 3, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
27
RE # 14
MATT- AW man why all the anger?? You know I was really trying too think of some dumb AL athletes too make fun off, but really just cant think of any…..I guess its just been so long since you guys put any real talent in the pro’s…..
maybe ya’ll do better next season?
Comment by AULIVESNFTWORTH — May 3, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
26
I miss the good old days of athletic competition, when the celebrity status that being a genetic freak brought you only got you out of little things, like getting drunk and beating your wife.
Comment by Steve — May 3, 2007 @ 1:36 pm