SWAC Commissioner talks SCG, APR, Post Season Bans & Basketball Tournament

[Jag-BR]

Well Stump just got to SU but they are going to look at last year, and say it wouldn't matter anyway. Pete is the reason the APR scores are low because he got complacent.

 

[usa today]

Also the SWAC is on a uneven playing field. We know most PWC's have General studies and such to keep their athletes eligible, and tutors to do all of their work, while @ HBCU's athletes are majoring in real majors.

Who doesn't have General Studies in the SWAC? What kind of jobs will general studies get you? HBCU's were built to really educate black people we must not lose that focus and water down even though we offer that. It's not like many of our football players are getting drafted so i would hope that most would stray away from General Studies.

 

[SUjagTILLiDIE]

Who doesn't have General Studies in the SWAC? What kind of jobs will general studies get you? HBCU's were built to really educate black people we must not lose that focus and water down even though we offer that. It's not like many of our football players are getting drafted so i would hope that most would stray away from General Studies.

SU dont . We have real majors and dont give athletes grades.

 

[usa today]

It's not like this has just happened. HBCU's have been getting screwed since the beginning but in the past we got through it and still can, the leaders/ presidents just have to make sure things happen.

 

[EB]

Dude, you seem to be contradicting yourself or perhaps you don't understand how the NCAA works. This rule was put in place with no HBCU's in mind, the very schools that allow the most low-performing athletes into institutions of learning perhaps in the nation.

And we still have compliance officers who don't know how to accurately calculate the numbers or "get over" on the system like the schools who can afford mutliple compliance officers. Coaches still don't understand it five years later.

Just keep in mind that when the NCAA makes up rules like the APR, they're surely not doing it for the benefit of HBCU's.

Look at the number of basketball players that haven't graduated from Kentucky over the last two years. Where are their penalties? Guess what, they have none.
The main key to staying out of APR trouble is not whether players graduate, but whether they are in good academic standing when they leave. So when John Wall goes one-and-done but finishes the spring semester, Kentucky doesn’t get penalized.
Go figure.

Another thing is when players decide to leave on their own without completing courses, the school takes an APR hit. Coaches can't control that.
At HBCU's we get these type players all the time because we're trying to give them second chances, hoping they'll endure, but oftentimes they don't.

So what’s the NCAA’s answer to programs that can’t manipulate the APR? They take away scholarships, which isn’t a penalty for the program as much as for athletes. Following the NCAA’s logic trail, the remedy for a program struggling academically is to take academic opportunities away from kids.

Schools that have a high APR and a low graduation rate are exploiting these kids.
More hypocrisy from the powers that be.

A sport's writer with guts could easily mention these things. I have not read a column that called out the NCAA and some of the big schools. Actually, Frank Deford did mention some related things in a commentary on NPR in 2006. He was the only one whom I have heard or read to say these things. Still, compliance officers and coaches at our schools have to understand the APR.

 

[JayRob]

A sport's writer with guts could easily mention these things. I have not read a column that called out the NCAA and some of the big schools. Actually, Frank Deford did mention some related things in a commentary on NPR in 2006. He was the only one whom I have heard or read to say these things. Still, compliance officers and coaches at our schools have to understand the APR.

Perhaps we can get Kendrick on this ASAP.:lol:

 

[Panther88]

You wasted a lot of bandwidth usa. :smh: Folx don't want to hear ya' but they're reading what you're saying and it's on point.

The only choice is pretty obvious, IMO. The guidelines and parameters to the <b>game</b> are set. If you fall outside of it, you get penalized. Those same rules were applied <b>evenly</b> to all participants. No "special" favor was given to any one. I kind of liken it to those folk who get speeding tix. Posted speed limit sez 65 and one gets busted doing 72. Gets in court to argue w/ a judge that the next vehicle was going faster than they so they themselves shouldn't get penalized for getting caught.

Okay---> :retard:. Don't worry about ----> and <----- and ^^^^^ and VVVVV. Just make sure YOURS is in order and well w/in the guidelines. :tup:

 

[Panther88]

Perhaps we can get Kendrick on this ASAP.:lol:

:emlaugh:

He's out there doing "stuff." Put him on it. :lol:

 

[JayRob]

You wasted a lot of bandwidth usa. :smh: Folx don't want to hear ya' but they're reading what you're saying and it's on point.

The only choice is pretty obvious, IMO. The guidelines and parameters to the <b>game</b> are set. If you fall outside of it, you get penalized. Those same rules were applied <b>evenly</b> to all participants. No "special" favor was given to any one. I kind of liken it to those folk who get speeding tix. Posted speed limit sez 65 and one gets busted doing 72. Gets in court to argue w/ a judge that the next vehicle was going faster than they so they themselves shouldn't get penalized for getting caught.

Okay---> :retard:. Don't worry about ----> and <----- and ^^^^^ and VVVVV. Just make sure YOURS is in order and well w/in the guidelines. :tup:

Sorry to tell you this Panther, but your post is flawed in so many areas.

How can one school have a HIGHER APR rating, yet be banned and a school with a lower APR isn't? How is that fair.

How can a school have a high APR rating, yet have a piss poor low graduation rate, yet that be fair to the athlete? Please explain.

 

[Panther88]

Sorry to tell you this Panther, but your post is flawed in so many areas.

How can one school have a HIGHER APR rating, yet be banned and a school with a lower APR isn't? How is that fair.

How can a school have a high APR rating, yet have a piss poor low graduation rate, yet that be fair to the athlete? Please explain.

Panther88 didn't make the rules JayRob. All Panther88 knows is that the RULES and GUIDELINES are in place... they are applied FAIRLY and EVENLY amongst ALL members. Period.

Vandy, Duke, Rice, et al upper-tier academic types have the same issue. They address and comply. Now, what's hard to understand about that? BTW, I know what your arg is and to a certain extent, it does look fallable. Institution "A" has a higher genr'l undergrad grad rate and fball team's grad rate does not meet the overall grad rate of the genr'l undergrad student body. Institution "B" (lets say PVAMU ) has a LOWER genr'l undergrad grad rate than institution "A" BUT... it's fball team grad % meets or exceeds the genr'l undergrad grad % of its institution (B) and yet and still, institution "A" gets dinged and institution comes out smelling like a yellow rose while institution "B"s grad % is much, MUCH lower than the grad % of institution "A."

The NCAA made the <b>rules</b>. Just like an off-sides penalty being evenly applied to 2 opposing fball teams, when you do wrong, you get penalized. Period.

 

[TexasTerror]

Sorry to tell you this Panther, but your post is flawed in so many areas.

How can one school have a HIGHER APR rating, yet be banned and a school with a lower APR isn't? How is that fair.

How can a school have a high APR rating, yet have a piss poor low graduation rate, yet that be fair to the athlete? Please explain.

If I am not mistaken and I am far from being an expert on APR - but the 'bans' come from historical APR issues...

 

[JayRob]

If I am not mistaken and I am far from being an expert on APR - but the 'bans' come from historical APR issues...

There's no historical SWAC rules to address APR/SCG issues. Even if the NCAA rules are historical, how is it fair for a school with a higher APR rating to be banned over a school with lower APR issues? Still shows a flawed system regardless.

 

[JayRob]

Panther88 didn't make the rules JayRob. All Panther88 knows is that the RULES and GUIDELINES are in place... they are applied FAIRLY and EVENLY amongst ALL members. Period.

Vandy, Duke, Rice, et al upper-tier academic types have the same issue. They address and comply. Now, what's hard to understand about that? BTW, I know what your arg is and to a certain extent, it does look fallable. Institution "A" has a higher genr'l undergrad grad rate and fball team's grad rate does not meet the overall grad rate of the genr'l undergrad student body. Institution "B" (lets say PVAMU ) has a LOWER genr'l undergrad grad rate than institution "A" BUT... it's fball team grad % meets or exceeds the genr'l undergrad grad % of its institution (B) and yet and still, institution "A" gets dinged and institution comes out smelling like a yellow rose while institution "B"s grad % is much, MUCH lower than the grad % of institution "A."

The NCAA made the <b>rules</b>. Just like an off-sides penalty being evenly applied to 2 opposing fball teams, when you do wrong, you get penalized. Period.

How do the rules of the NCAA apply to the SWAC's APR/SCG rules? NCAA rules have no jurisdiction over the SWAC's SCG, so I'm trying to understand your point when it comes to football.

I'm not refuting basketball bans, I'm refuting SCG bans due to the fact that there are no SWAC rules addressing APR/SCG issues and the NCAA has left it up to the SWAC to address those issues.

 

[DallasCowboyGirl]

There's no historical SWAC rules to address APR/SCG issues. Even if the NCAA rules are historical, how is it fair for a school with a higher APR rating to be banned over a school with lower APR issues? Still shows a flawed system regardless.

Jay for you and others on here stuck on stupid about this "The this year's SWAC Champs had lower APR's and they are not band BS" I need you to get off the computer and or better yet go to NCAA.org and find out how this APR is calculated and then you will know why we were not band this year it is so obivous that you all don't get how this shyt occurs....sheesh!

Sharp and the presidents can discuss this untill they are blue in the face, but until these president are willing to give each of these athletic departments more money to staff a complete "competent & NCAA trained" compliance staff, this issue will be just that Talk, and the problems will continue...How is that for REAL TALK!

 

[Robber]

How do the rules of the NCAA apply to the SWAC's APR/SCG rules? NCAA rules have no jurisdiction over the SWAC's SCG, so I'm trying to understand your point when it comes to football.

I'm not refuting basketball bans, I'm refuting SCG bans due to the fact that there are no SWAC rules addressing APR/SCG issues and the NCAA has left it up to the SWAC to address those issues.

Dude ain't nobody trying to acknowledge this point. There are rules in place. The NCAA set those rules. The NCAA issued its punishment in accordance with those rules. But now that folk realize that the SCG ain't a post-season game, and there really ain't no punishment in football, they wanna make up rules as they go.

I'd love for someone to show me one instance in any sport where a conference went behind the NCAA and imposed additional penalties on top of what the NCAA imposed. I'm talking in the history of college sports.

 

[Panther88]

I'd love for someone to show me one instance in any sport where a conference went behind the NCAA and imposed additional penalties on top of what the NCAA imposed. I'm talking in the history of college sports.

Right off cuff, I don't think anyone will be able to dig up any 411 regarding a conference subsequently imposing addt'l penalty on a school. The school itself might have but not an entire conference.

If this occurs, it'll be a 1st, I'm sure. :read:

 

[Robber]

Right off cuff, I don't think anyone will be able to dig up any 411 regarding a conference subsequently imposing addt'l penalty on a school. The school itself might have but not an entire conference.

If this occurs, it'll be a 1st, I'm sure. :read:

But that's what's about to happen here.

 

[mighty hornet]

Dude ain't nobody trying to acknowledge this point. There are rules in place. The NCAA set those rules. The NCAA issued its punishment in accordance with those rules. But now that folk realize that the SCG ain't a post-season game, and there really ain't no punishment in football, they wanna make up rules as they go.

I'd love for someone to show me one instance in any sport where a conference went behind the NCAA and imposed additional penalties on top of what the NCAA imposed. I'm talking in the history of college sports.

I agree. But I go back to what I have posted (I know you're tired of hearing it :lol: ) . It goes back to the sentiment that the SCG is viewed as our post season game, regardless of how its viewed by the NCAA. We have always promoted it as such. No other reason that there would (or should) be a consideration of an "additional" penalty for a "regular season" game.

And the more I think about it, I question if there should be any difference in basketball and football. Ban in both sports or neither.

 

[JayRob]

Jay for you and others on here stuck on stupid about this "The this year's SWAC Champs had lower APR's and they are not band BS" I need you to get off the computer and or better yet go to NCAA.org and find out how this APR is calculated and then you will know why we were not band this year it is so obivous that you all don't get how this shyt occurs....sheesh!

Sharp and the presidents can discuss this untill they are blue in the face, but until these president are willing to give each of these athletic departments more money to staff a complete "competent & NCAA trained" compliance staff, this issue will be just that Talk, and the problems will continue...How is that for REAL TALK!

Actually, I mentioned that in an earlier post and I agree with you. The larger schools with multiple compliance officers have figured out ways to get over on the system.

Over the last two years, Kentucky's basketball team has had at least 40 percent of their players leave early to go to the NBA but they have no APR sanctions. Why? Because they've figured out that if a player leaves school in "good academic standing", there's no penalty.

A school can have a high APR, yet still have a low graduation rate. We haven't figured out that there are loopholes in the system that we can take advantage of like the other schools.

 

[JayRob]

I agree. But I go back to what I have posted (I know you're tired of hearing it :lol: ) . It goes back to the sentiment that the SCG is viewed as our post season game, regardless of how its viewed by the NCAA. We have always promoted it as such. No other reason that there would (or should) be a consideration of an "additional" penalty for a "regular season" game.

And the more I think about it, I question if there should be any difference in basketball and football. Ban in both sports or neither.

Typical MH jargon. I know you're right....BUT yadda yadda yadda, especially when it comes to anything labelled JSU.:smh:

 

[jag4life]

Dude ain't nobody trying to acknowledge this point. There are rules in place. The NCAA set those rules. The NCAA issued its punishment in accordance with those rules. But now that folk realize that the SCG ain't a post-season game, and there really ain't no punishment in football, they wanna make up rules as they go.

I'd love for someone to show me one instance in any sport where a conference went behind the NCAA and imposed additional penalties on top of what the NCAA imposed. I'm talking in the history of college sports.

No other Division 1 conference has a championship game that is NOT considered a post-season game. There won't be a precedent here, because there CAN'T be one.

 

[Fiyah]

All you homers need to get off the stuck on stupid mentality.

It makes no sense at all. That's why I said that those who are taking the "academic integrity" angle needs to rethink that. Basically what the vote would say is, "We will ban JSU and SU for repeated low APRs, while there has been improvement. We will do this for the respect of the NCAA and our academic integrity and thus illustrating our high priorities on academics. However, our defending SWAC champs, who has the lowest APR in APR history, will have the ability to defend their title." If it solely based on academics, then there needs to be a ban for all institutions with an APR below 900.

It's for historically having a low APR not just having the current year with a low APR. Those schools that are getting the penalty are getting it for having the low APR for several years consecutively.

But the SWAC Football Championship isnt post season play.

We need to get off this mess....we all know that this is really a post season game and not a regular season game since it comes after the parameters of the dates for FCS regular season games.

off topic ...:topic:


"The auditors found that 95 of the 104 athletic events the university participated in were not supported by signed contracts between the competing schools, including 67 Southwestern Athletic Conference events and the Bayou Classic football game."


They need to discuss this at the SWAC Meeting. It makes all of us look bad ... not just Southern and Grambling

Being apart of a conference is giving the conference the right to schedule all conference games. In doing so you don't have to have a signed contract to play these games since you gave that right to the conference office to schedule for you in leuw of contracts with each individual schools within that conference.

You know APR tracks back 4 years. Some of these kids wasnt even in college then.

The same can be said for kids that go to USC or other schools that have a ban against them for NCAA rules violations. This has nothing to do with it.

The SWAC should have strict rules in place for the SCG (since it's not under NCAA jurisdiction) before banning teams. Don't make up rules after the fact. APR/SCG guidelines should've been put in place five years ago, but the SWAC office dropped the ball on this one.
Now we've been relegated to allowing subjective voting by Presidents who may have their own agenda for voting yea or nay. That sounds more like bush-league than anything.

This is also the first time that this scenerio has come up. Some times you can't think of everything until it comes up. So since it has come up they are looking to give a ruling on it.

Also the SWAC is on a uneven playing field. We know most PWC's have General studies and such to keep their athletes eligible, and tutors to do all of their work, while @ HBCU's athletes are majoring in real majors.

There are HBCU's that have this degree.

Who doesn't have General Studies in the SWAC? What kind of jobs will general studies get you? HBCU's were built to really educate black people we must not lose that focus and water down even though we offer that. It's not like many of our football players are getting drafted so i would hope that most would stray away from General Studies.

I can tell you that nothing this low is at Prairie View A&M University.

Sorry to tell you this Panther, but your post is flawed in so many areas.

How can one school have a HIGHER APR rating, yet be banned and a school with a lower APR isn't? How is that fair.

How can a school have a high APR rating, yet have a piss poor low graduation rate, yet that be fair to the athlete? Please explain.

You just don't understand it since you keep spouting this mess. Like someone else said, it is not for the current year and current year only. It's for historically having low APR scores over the previous 4 year period.

There's no historical SWAC rules to address APR/SCG issues. Even if the NCAA rules are historical, how is it fair for a school with a higher APR rating to be banned over a school with lower APR issues? Still shows a flawed system regardless.

SMH.... Hey Homer

Actually, I mentioned that in an earlier post and I agree with you. The larger schools with multiple compliance officers have figured out ways to get over on the system.

Over the last two years, Kentucky's basketball team has had at least 40 percent of their players leave early to go to the NBA but they have no APR sanctions. Why? Because they've figured out that if a player leaves school in "good academic standing", there's no penalty.

A school can have a high APR, yet still have a low graduation rate. We haven't figured out that there are loopholes in the system that we can take advantage of like the other schools.

The players that are leaving our programs arn't leaving because they are in good standing academically. Most are leaving because they are failing and/or they have exhausted their athletic eligibility.

 

[Robber]

We need to get off this mess....we all know that this is really a post season game and not a regular season game since it comes after the parameters of the dates for FCS regular season games.

Bull. You can call it a scrimmage, but that won't make it one. You can call it a professional event, but that won't make it one. So, calling it a post-season game doesnt' make it one. The NCAA defines what's post-season and what's not. The NCAA defines it as a regular season game. That's what it is.

 

[Blacknbengal]

True

 

[mighty hornet]

Bull. You can call it a scrimmage, but that won't make it one. You can call it a professional event, but that won't make it one. So, calling it a post-season game doesnt' make it one. The NCAA defines what's post-season and what's not. The NCAA defines it as a regular season game. That's what it is.

Going with that (even though I really don't LOL), but in your opinion, why is there even ANY discussion, consideration, or upcoming vote about a ban?