past few years alot of players have left

[joepublic]

Isn't it a little lame to blame the turnover rate on a coach who left 5 or is it 6 yrs. ago. The main reason for the turn over in players is the turn over in coachs. Now that we have Mac that situation should be taken care of. If we lose players now hopefully it will be to the NBA.

Cyrocket, I'm not blaming turnover on Floyd or Eustachy. They were both excellent coaches. But the fact is, they both relied on a lot of player turnover at ISU to get the team they wanted.

I think player turnover is here to stay. Anyone who believes that McD's arrival signals a new era in turnover in the short term is nuts, because you cannot bring in as many players as he's going to bring in for next season and the following season without losing players. Fact of life. In addition, after2-3 years he'll start getting some assistant coach turnover, and that will affect player retention.

[Clone_12]

I was always and will always be a Eustachy supporter, but I wouldn't say that he "relied" on player turnover...I think most of the player turnover that happened during the time he was with ISU was because players didn't really know what they were getting theirself into with his rugged practices and "tough love", and decided that they would be best-off elsewhere...as far as player improvement goes though, I don't think I've ever seen a coach better at developing players throughout their careers as Eustachy-if they decided they could handle it, and decided to stick around for more than a year or two.

[Clone_12]

Floyd definately relied on player turnover though, and for the most part-it has worked for him over his career...the one that I will never understand though was Derek Hayes...who went on to have a very solid career at Detroit and almost led them to an NCAA tourney win over Ron Artest and St. John's...Hayes was a freshmen when Hoiberg and Meyer were seniors, and he made Big Eight all freshmen team and was supposed to be one of our leading scorers the next year, and he was completely blind-sided when Floyd told him it'd be best if he went elsewhere...then again-I'm sure Floyd knows a bit more than me about basketball.

[Wesley]

10 stayed out of 29 for 33% average in last four years. Guess we will lose scholarships Last three years is 9 for 24. New class if everyo0ne stayed four would be 15 for 30. We cannot lose one person or we lose schollies.

[cyclonedcm]

a lot of players come to college and get disenchanted when they find out they aren't as good as their mom and dad think they are.

[Jerry1982]

10 stayed out of 29 for 33% average in last four years. Guess we will lose scholarships Last three years is 9 for 24. New class if everyo0ne stayed four would be 15 for 30. We cannot lose one person or we lose schollies.

The Academic Progress Rate program isn't quite that simple. Now I'm not saying we wont' lose a scholarship, but the math you used above is not the way the NCAA figures things.
***
There are four points possible per athlete per year. If at the end of the semester if they are in good academic standing, that's one point. If they return for the next semester or if they graduated, that's a second point. Same deal for spring semester. Four points total. 13 scholarship athletes on the BB team means 52 points total for one year. (only scholarship athletes are used in this calculation)

total number of points earned/total points possible x 1000 = APR score

An exception exists for the student athlete that elects to turn pro, but would have been eligible. For the year this student would have earned both points for elegibility and one point for retention, losing the second retention point for electing to leave school and turn pro. Rather that scoring this athlete as 3/4, the denominator is allowed to be reduced by one, so the pro student athlete scores 3/3 and the team's total number of points possible would be reduced by one, from 52 points to 51 points.

Four years of data will be used in the APR score.

Now...there are two types of penalties:
1) contemporaneous penalties - Here we can lose a scholarship, up to a maximum of two per team I believe, if we have an 0-2 scholarship athlete on the team ( 0-2 athete is one who is neither elegible nor retained for the following semester ) These penalties only come into play when your APR score falls below 925

2) historical penalties - When a team's APR score falls below 900 they may be assessed the incremental historical penalties, that can become severe. These penalties are incremental and I'm not sure what the easy end of the spectrum might be, but more severely there will be limits of financial aid, postseason bans and who knows what else.

It will be May 2007 when the universities will be subjected to a public warning if their APR score is below 900.

When I checked into this APR program I decided it wasn't something I wanted to take the time to understand 100%. I'll trust our athletic department to handle it.

If you think I've got all the details and all the fine print analyzed you're wrong. This should be a good overview, but hell, I'm not a lawyer. There may be some things I've overlooked in my interpretation. And it's been said on here before, so NOBODY should freak out about this until we hear official word from the university. ALL schools are following these same rules. It is a new program and very likely has some quirks that will be addressed as time passes. I don't know how they will handle Ross. I do know we don't want any 0-2 athletes.

We should be hearing more about this in the next 45 days, as the public warnings hit the media.