Here's a list of the 17 Division I-A football programs that were hit with scholarship sanctions. The typical limit is 85.

.
.

Akron: Limit of 80 next year
Buffalo: 83
Central Michigan: 83
FAU: 82
FIU: 82
Hawaii: 84
Idaho: 77
Kansas: 83
New Mexico State: 82
North Texas: 80
San Diego State: 79
San Jose State: 67
Temple: 81
Toledo: 79
UAB: 76
UNLV: 84
Washington State: 77


.
.
.
.

Here's a list of the 53 Division I basketball programs that were hit with scholarship sanctions. The typical limit is 13.


.
.

Arkansas State: Public notice
Cal State Northridge: Public notice
Cal State Sacramento: Limit of 12 next year
Centenary: 12
Central Connecticut State: 12
Chicago State: Public notice
Cleveland State: Public notice
College of Charleston: 12
Colorado: Public notice
Colorado State: 11
East Carolina: 11
Florida International: 12
Fresno State: 10
Georgia State: Public notice
Hampton: 12
Hawaii: 11
Idaho: 12
Illinois-Chicago: 12
Jacksonville State: 11
Kansas State: 12
Lamar: 11
Liberty: 11
Louisiana-Lafayette: Public notice
Louisiana Tech: 12
Manhattan: 12
Mercer: 12
Morehead State: Public notice
New Hampshire: 12
New Mexico: 12
New Mexico State: 12
Norfolk State: Public notice
North Texas: 12
Portland State: Public notice
Purdue: 12
Quinnipiac: 11
San Francisco: 12
San Jose State: 11
Seton Hall: 12
South Alabama: 12
South Carolina: 12
Southeastern Louisiana: Public notice
Southern Utah: 12
St. Bonaventure: Public notice
St. Peter's: 12
Tennessee: 12
Texas State: Public notice
UAB: 11
UC Santa Barbara: Public notice
UNC-Greensboro: 12
USC: 11
UTEP: 12
Western Illinois: Public notice
Wyoming: 12

.
.

The NCAA notified schools of their individual APR scores and potential penalties last fall. Some applied their scholarship penalty for the 2007 season.


.
.
.


story

If NSU was put on public notice. Maybe you should re-word the title of your thread to 'Hampton' heads list of MEAC school hit...though I heard Howard also will lose some football scholarships and Morgan lost football and volleyball scholarships.

can someone explain this to me?

I really dont understand this at all. Clearly my alma mater is on notice and has had its hand slapped. Exactly how serious is this? What is the real deal with the cut off threshold score of 900? Also, how is it a school can be sanctioned when an athlete in poor academic standing leaves/transferred? If the facilities are available to the student for academic success and the student does not make full use of such facilities, how much burden should the respective institution bear? I am truly at a loss and any meaningful insight is appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:
I really dont understand this at all. Clearly my alma mater is on notice and has had its hand slapped. Exactly how serious is this? What is the real deal with the cut off threshold score of 900? Also, how is it a school can be sanctioned when an athlete in poor academic standing leaves/transferred? If the facilities are available to the student for academic success and the student does not make full use of such facilities, how much burden should the respective institution bear? I am truly at a loss and any meaningful insight is appreciated.

here ya go. here's a "brief" summary of how the process works, but i'm sure there's a lot more details involved. i pulled this info from one of the greensboro newspapers…

"The APR is a complex measurement. It is compiled on a 1,000-point scale, and a team's final number in any reporting period is its four-year average score. The May 2008 report covers the academic years of 2003-04 through 2006-07. Teams under 925 are placed on warning of future sanctions if they don't meet or exceed that baseline, but the rules include several exceptions, one of which spares teams if they are "performing better than the institution's general student body, or based on institutional, athletics and student resources."

...waiting to hear from Jafus on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by oleschoolaggie:

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:
I really dont understand this at all. Clearly my alma mater is on notice and has had its hand slapped. Exactly how serious is this? What is the real deal with the cut off threshold score of 900? Also, how is it a school can be sanctioned when an athlete in poor academic standing leaves/transferred? If the facilities are available to the student for academic success and the student does not make full use of such facilities, how much burden should the respective institution bear? I am truly at a loss and any meaningful insight is appreciated.

here ya go. here's a "brief" summary of how the process works, but i'm sure there's a lot more details involved. i pulled this info from one of the greensboro newspapers…

"The APR is a complex measurement. It is compiled on a 1,000-point scale, and a team's final number in any reporting period is its four-year average score. The May 2008 report covers the academic years of 2003-04 through 2006-07. Teams under 925 are placed on warning of future sanctions if they don't meet or exceed that baseline, but the rules include several exceptions, one of which spares teams if they are "performing better than the institution's general student body, or based on institutional, athletics and student resources."

thanks mayun. I have done some digging myself and it seems that a transferring student in poor academic standing will count against the institution that the student is transferring from. The fact is that SOME, not all, athletes simply can not cut it in the classroom. Period.The real question in my mind is IF a student is given adequate resources to be successful in the classroom, but doesnt make full use of those resources and does not achieve academically as a result, should the institution get "dinged" for that poorly achieving student? I dont think so.

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:

quote:

Originally posted by oleschoolaggie:

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:
I really dont understand this at all. Clearly my alma mater is on notice and has had its hand slapped. Exactly how serious is this? What is the real deal with the cut off threshold score of 900? Also, how is it a school can be sanctioned when an athlete in poor academic standing leaves/transferred? If the facilities are available to the student for academic success and the student does not make full use of such facilities, how much burden should the respective institution bear? I am truly at a loss and any meaningful insight is appreciated.

here ya go. here's a "brief" summary of how the process works, but i'm sure there's a lot more details involved. i pulled this info from one of the greensboro newspapers…

"The APR is a complex measurement. It is compiled on a 1,000-point scale, and a team's final number in any reporting period is its four-year average score. The May 2008 report covers the academic years of 2003-04 through 2006-07. Teams under 925 are placed on warning of future sanctions if they don't meet or exceed that baseline, but the rules include several exceptions, one of which spares teams if they are "performing better than the institution's general student body, or based on institutional, athletics and student resources."

thanks mayun. I have done some digging myself and it seems that a transferring student in poor academic standing will count against the institution that the student is transferring from. The fact is that SOME, not all, athletes simply can not cut it in the classroom. Period.The real question in my mind is IF a student is given adequate resources to be successful in the classroom, but doesnt make full use of those resources and does not achieve academically as a result, should the institution get "dinged" for that poorly achieving student? I dont think so.

yeah, i hear ya. i stopped tryin' to figure out ncaa regulations a long time ago. you've got to be a freakin' lawyer to untangle all that stuff…

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:
I really dont understand this at all. Clearly my alma mater is on notice and has had its hand slapped. Exactly how serious is this? What is the real deal with the cut off threshold score of 900? Also, how is it a school can be sanctioned when an athlete in poor academic standing leaves/transferred? If the facilities are available to the student for academic success and the student does not make full use of such facilities, how much burden should the respective institution bear? I am truly at a loss and any meaningful insight is appreciated.

Pook, it's a little more than a hand slap for Hampton. They lose a full men's basketball scholarship next year. Maybe that just means they don't replace Pilgrim, I don't know.

But according to this article from the Virginia Pilot, if a team fails to top 900 for 3 straight years, it loses the right to play in postseason competition. And Hampton has fallen below 2 straight years.

VA Pilot article link

This is not good to hear!

quote:

Originally posted by oleschoolaggie:

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:
I really dont understand this at all. Clearly my alma mater is on notice and has had its hand slapped. Exactly how serious is this? What is the real deal with the cut off threshold score of 900? Also, how is it a school can be sanctioned when an athlete in poor academic standing leaves/transferred? If the facilities are available to the student for academic success and the student does not make full use of such facilities, how much burden should the respective institution bear? I am truly at a loss and any meaningful insight is appreciated.

here ya go. here's a "brief" summary of how the process works, but i'm sure there's a lot more details involved. i pulled this info from one of the greensboro newspapers…

"The APR is a complex measurement. It is compiled on a 1,000-point scale, and a team's final number in any reporting period is its four-year average score. The May 2008 report covers the academic years of 2003-04 through 2006-07. Teams under 925 are placed on warning of future sanctions if they don't meet or exceed that baseline, but the rules include several exceptions, one of which spares teams if they are "performing better than the institution's general student body, or based on institutional, athletics and student resources."

But see that's what we're talking about.....They take the average of 4 years in our case May 2008 = 2003-04 through 2006-07 aka 3 years of Collins' mess + 1st yr of Coach Nickelberry's Clean Up. I personally think that's unfair and unjustified to do that and if what outsider is saying is true about failing 3 straight years and you can't participate in postseason action, then voices are going to be heard. There should be some type of sub APR rule in place for new coaches with revamped squads. Collins' mess is still going to linger until May 2011 at this rate

If I remember right, NLM, I think Hampton was supposed to lose scholarships this year in men's hoops (2007-08), but Nickelberry appealed b/c their whole APR score was low b/c of the previous coach. But I guess they didn't get an exception this year. Hopefully they can keep pulling it up for next year.

But, you better hope your seniors graduated this year, b/c you are already losing ground by getting rid of Pilgrim.

HU again loses scholarships
NCAA academic progress reports tell a good-news, bad-news story for Hampton University.

Daily Press
May 7, 2008

Hampton University will lose athletic scholarships for the third consecutive year for failing to meet NCAA academic progress requirements. Hampton's men's basketball and men's indoor track teams lose one scholarship each, according to Academic Progress Rate (APR) data released Tuesday.

But Hampton's APR performance was better than the previous two years, and the news also is good for most other area and state programs. Old Dominion's wrestling team loses a fraction of a scholarship, but no other area program received scholarship penalties.

William and Mary fared best among state schools, with four men's and four women's programs receiving Public Recognition Awards for academic excellence. Four W&M sports programs posted perfect APR scores: men's golf and gymnastics and women's gymnastics and volleyball.

Hampton loses one of its 13 men's basketball scholarships because its four-year APR average is well below the benchmark of 925. An APR of 925 projects to about a 60-percent graduation success rate, a number the NCAA requires to avoid penalties.

HU's basketball team averaged 870 for the 2003-04 to 2006-07 school years. HU athletic director Lonza Hardy said the men's team scored 977 in 2006-07, the first for coach Kevin Nickleberry, but scored 797, 860 and 865 under previous coach Bobby Collins.

"Coach Nickelberry is not responsible for the poor (academic) history of the men's basketball program, but he's suffering the consequences," Hardy said. "Fortunately, Coach Nickelberry has made an effort to recruit students better qualified to meet the high academic standards of this university while representing the university as athletes.

"The previous staff put too much effort to winning on the court and not enough to winning in the classroom."

The scholarship loss is the third since Nickelberry became head coach in March 2006, although the academic problems predate his tenure. He expressed frustration at the news, but said he is optimistic about the future.

"We've replaced almost the entire roster in two years and now we have student-athletes who, for the most part, want to do things the right way," he said. "It's a shame that the program dropped to such a low state academically, and that we have to pay for the major academic shortcomings of the six years before we got here.

"I'm very happy with what the players and coaches have done academically the past two years, while still being competitive. That's like reaching the Sweet 16 to me."

HU's men's indoor track and field team loses a scholarship, because an athlete who would not have been academically eligible left school. Otherwise, APR news was good for the school.

The football team did not lose any scholarships, after losing three in 2006 and two a year ago. The football team's multi-year average has improved from 893 in 2006 to 918 this year. The NCAA often will not assess penalties to a program that is demonstrating marked academic improvement.

"The football team took care of business," Hardy said. "Their guys are eligible and they are retaining them because they've done a better job of recruiting and providing academic support.

"These are the kinds of things now in place with men's basketball and indoor track."

Among other state teams, neither Virginia nor Virginia Tech lost any scholarships. Liberty University loses two men's basketball scholarships, while VMI loses almost a full wrestling scholarship and Virginia Commonwealth University loses a fraction of a men's indoor track scholarship.

The NCAA reported that fewer teams than anticipated received penalties. However, several Division I-A football programs were hammered for poor academic performance: Alabama-Birmingham lost nine football scholarships, while Idaho and Washington State were docked eight apiece.

This is more NCAA talkin out the side of their neck BS!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is it soooooooooooo many D1 programs that are making MAJOR money in MAJOR conferences have soooooooooo many schools that fail to meet requirements yet qualified for an exception from sanction? It stinks of double talk.

Here is a utopic, but novel idea.......the NCAA should penalize the TEAM the COACH IS CURRENTLY COACHING FOR. The reason I say this is that often times, institutions are not "in the know" about what is going on in their respective programs until its too late. And when it is "too late", even with involved oversight committees, the coach that cant/wont play nice with others has moved on. It may do more to deter rules infractions if the penalties FOLLOWED THE COACH doing the wrong doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Pook:
Here is a utopic, but novel idea.......the NCAA should penalize the TEAM the COACH IS CURRENTLY COACHING FOR. The reason I say this is that often times, institutions are not "in the know" about what is going on in their respective programs until its too late. And when it is "too late", even with involved oversight committees, the coach that cant/wont play nice with others has moved on. It may do more to deter rules infractions if the penalties FOLLOWED THE COACH doing the wrong doing.

i definitely feel your pain pook, but that wouldn't work because ultimately the school is responsible for monitoring compliance of all ncaa regulations. if it wasn't, a school could hire a coach and allow him to cheat for as long as possible until he gets caught. then fire the coach and hire someone else who could cheat and leave without penalty to the school.

so even though collins "may" be responsible for the penalized era, the school was responsible for ensuring compliance. so the school can penalize the coach by firing him, but the coach's actions while employed at another school does not follow him unless the ncaa places sanctions on him. an example is kevin sampson. oklahoma had to accept penalties for sampson's actions while sampson was free and clear at indiana (at least until he messed up again)…