http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/06/20/cal-stanford-and-san-jose-state-football-the-latest-apr-scores/

Yeah, it's bad. No way around it, though I'm sure we'll try. Also, we are last in conference against top 25 ooc opponents since 08. Not too great.

That was depressing.

Not good. This needs to be addressed. I feel that this hurts us on many levels, including recruiting. Was it Tosh who used our grad rates against us when selling UW?

Wow 11th place.

Wait a minute these are lagging indicators right? From like 2002-2003? The ghost of Tom holmoe haunts us still. Begone wretched fiend; begone vile shade!!!

Just one more nail in the coffin of Jeff Tedford. Absent a major turnaround on the field during the next couple of seasons, he's gone.

HaasBear04;841902309 said:

---

Wow 11th place.

Wait a minute these are lagging indicators right? From like 2002-2003? The ghost of Tom holmoe haunts us still. Begone wretched fiend; begone vile shade!!!

---

No, this looks like stats from '08-'11 for the multi-year and '11 for the single.

How come you can't get those boys to crack their textbooks?? Yeah..it's your fault all these ballers fall through the cracks..Didn't your drag Whiteside into class everyday?

okaydo;841902284 said:

---

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/06/20/cal-stanford-and-san-jose-state-football-the-latest-apr-scores/

---

It is a LOT easier to do well at SJSU, Fresno, SDSU, etc... in the classroom than at Cal. Kind of like comparing rushing statistics between the service academies and the WAC - they both are DI football and run the ball, but at entirely different levels in different systems.

socaliganbear;841902296 said:

---

Yeah, it's bad. No way around it, though I'm sure we'll try. Also, we are last in conference against top 25 ooc opponents since 08. Not too great.

---

Yup....JT has lost it....send in the clowns

Quote:

---

Stanford has won three of the past four

---

Stanford has won only two of the past four. Unfortunately, that's the only fault I can find with Wilner's piece. Not good news.

86Oski;841902328 said:

---

Stanford has won only two of the past four. Unfortunately, that's the only fault I can find with Wilner's piece. Not good news.

---

If we are only 0-2 against Top 25 teams, maybe a better schedule would have resulted in a different outcome. You can't beat teams you don't schedule.

A 936 mulit year with 923 and 921 as the single year scores for the last two years is not a good trend considering this:

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32961644

2012-2013 is the first season where sub 930 will result in a postseason bowl ineligibility. Cal had a 963 in 2008-09, so Cal needs around a 932 APR for the 2011-2012 season to remain eleigble for the 2013-14 bowl season. However, there is a one year lag between coursework/grades being completed and the realease of apr numbers...so the final component of the 2013-2014 score - the 2011-12 classes - have already been completed... the coaching staff and upper administration SHOULD know about where we stand.....I sure hope everyone made their grades or else it's not going to be pretty. The score isn't completely set though - players who were having academic problems last year MUST raise their grades and be retained by Cal (as opposed to failing out or transferring before correcting their grade issues), or Cal takes a double hit for a given player. It would have been very prudent for the staff to make certain players sit out some spring practices if they were behind in academics.

Cal89;841902308 said:

---

Not good. This needs to be addressed. I feel that this hurts us on many levels, including recruiting. Was it Tosh who used our grad rates against us when selling UW?

---

Look, these guys are old enough to get the job done on their own. I don't think Cal needs to hold "their hands," on this issue, other than a grounding when they do not meet the minimum GPA that is required to play.

Our University is a "candy store" of almost limitless educational opportunities. Sure, some of these guys may need a "guide" to get them jump started when they arrive on campus, but they need to be individually motivated to succeed academically and to graduate on their own. A lot of them succeed in both categories and we should be lauding them.

:gobears:

manus;841902343 said:

---

Look, these guys are old enough to get the job done on their own. I don't think Cal needs to hold "their hands," on this issue, other than a grounding when they do not meet the minimum GPA that is required to play.

Our University is a "candy store" of almost limitless educational opportunities. Sure, some of these guys may need a "guide" to get them jump started when they arrive on campus, but they need to be individually motivated to succeed academically and to graduate on their own. A lot of them succeed in both categories and we should be lauding them.

:gobears:

---

I don't think now is the time to just look the other way and give them less oversight and/or help. That's a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

Masau80;841902325 said:

---

It is a LOT easier to do well at SJSU, Fresno, SDSU, etc... in the classroom than at Cal. Kind of like comparing rushing statistics between the service academies and the WAC - they both are DI football and run the ball, but at entirely different levels in different systems.

---

This would be a valid point if schools with similar academic standards even within our own conference *cough* UCLA *cough* weren't doing significantly better. We really shouldn't try and find some uniquely Cal reason for why this affects us negatively and unfairly compared to comparable schools. It's just bad, and I hope Sandy and or Ted are able to respond to this.

OR

If our own APR score hadn't been about 40 points higher just a few short years ago. So unless Cal got exponentially more difficult the last few years, I think this is pretty much what it looks like, a downward trend for the team.

Golden One;841902310 said:

---

Just one more nail in the coffin of Jeff Tedford. Absent a major turnaround on the field during the next couple of seasons, he's gone.

---

Yep, he's on life support right now. The Administration will accept 7-5 and
6-6 seasons, but not sub-standard academic performance.

With our luck, the one season we go undefeated, we won't be eligible to go to a bowl game. Hope Tedford rights this ship quickly.

oskimama;841902369 said:

---

Yep, he's on life support right now. The Administration will accept 7-5 and
6-6 seasons

but the majority of fans won't. sheesh

people who support JT still exist?!

You guys have a high pain tolerance. my god.

How exactly is the APR determined? I have heard conflicting statements on whether or not the players that transferred or left to the NFL early have negatively impacted the APR.

How people can bring up "Cal is a harder school than X" as an excuse for our sh*tty scores is AMAZING.


What we have is a guy who runs a 6 minute mile running a 7 minute mile, and then claiming it is not slower because a bike goes fast.


Cal is dropping against itself. THERE IS NO EXCUSE.





No doubt that we will continue to hear about how "Tedford does it the right way" even with atrocious grad rates, falling scores across the board, and to top it off a lack of actually "DOING IT" in the first place.



Anyone who does not look at this and see a HUGE problem might want to reassess their priorities.

I would love to know the student attrition rates for PAC 12 schools. Anyone know?

Academic failings seems to be the lagging indicator of poor coaching. This happened to Holmoe, too.

To me, wins, ethical integrity and academic achievement are the only things a coach should be measured on. I couldn't care less about crap like open or closed practices, what he says at press conferences, whether assistants stay or go or which players he starts so long as the above three things are taken care of. A coach can chew up players and assistants, be an ass to the press and close practices if those three things are taken care of, and I wouldn't give him extra credit for anything else if those three things aren't happening.

I'd be willing to cut a little slack in the short-term on the wins, so long as the coach rights the ship quickly and the other two aspects remain solid. But if the coach can't win and his players are failing academically, what's the point in keeping him?

This is downright embarrassing!

SacCityBear;841902412 said:

---

If Tedford drops the program below 930, can he be fired with cause? That would save the school a lot of money. Of course, it probably wouldn't be worth it.

---

We've already hit 923 for single year results.

ColoradoBear1;841902336 said:

---

A 936 mulit year with 923 and 921 as the single year scores for the last two years is not a good trend considering this:


2012-2013 is the first season where sub 930 will result in a postseason bowl ineligibility. Cal had a 963 in 2008-09, so Cal needs around a 932 APR for the 2011-2012 season to remain eleigble for the 2013-14 bowl season.

---

I'm not so sure about the 932 "must" number for 2011-12 to remain eligible at the 930 4-year average number that may be the new standard.

I pulled some data from the NCAA site and was a bit confused that there are no 2004-2005 numbers, but the calculations I get seem to match the reported 4-year average numbers even with this gap. Based on the year data, if Cal pulls a 911 or higher for 2011-2012, then they will meet the 4-year average 930 objective. However, with this number, the challenge will then fall to 2012-2013 where a 965 will be needed to keep the 4-year average at 930 or better. We have seen 30-40 point swings from one year to the next - both up and down, so it's not unreasonable to see that this could be managed, but this is still not good news.


You can't keep producing yearly numbers in the 920s and expect to have a 4-year average number above the 930 threshold.

northendbear;841902444 said:

---

I'm not so sure about the 932 "must" number for 2011-12 to remain eligible at the 930 4-year average number that may be the new standard.

---

You are right. 911 is the number for 2011-12 (though it would be 913 if the NCAA doesn't round up). Don't know how I botched that.

As you also point out, the key year is 2012-13 (which gets reported in the spring of 2014 and would affect the 2014-15 season) because the 963 rolls out of the average.

So no large danger for next year. But it gets worse in two years and if we have three straight sub 930 seasons, it will be time to do something about it.

ColoradoBear1;841902452 said:

---

You are right. 911 is the number for 2011-12 (though it would be 913 if the NCAA doesn't round up). Don't know how I botched that.

As you also point out, the key year is 2012-13 (which gets reported in the spring of 2014 and would affect the 2014-15 season) because the 963 rolls out of the average.

So no large danger for next year. But it gets worse in two years and if we have three straight sub 930 seasons, it will be time to do something about it.

---

You are talking about our ability to avoid a bowl punishment. What about your pride as a Cal student/alum. I hold our athletes to a higher standard, pure and simple. These numbers are horrible.

I am surprised so many care about the apr scores. I do, but I am old and am still clinging to some nostalgia about collegiate athletics and what the student athlete represents. The NCAA lost all credibility long ago when it comes to amateurism, why should I, or anyone, care about graduation rates?

Sorry, if you come to coach at a school like Cal, you have to know there are limits as to who you can recruit, and that the alums do care about the player's academic aptitudes. We are all representatives of Cal. I can suffer through mediocre football years, but you I just can't compromise academic standards. I hope this isn't just me.

OdontoBear66;841902480 said:

---

You are talking about our ability to avoid a bowl punishment. What about your pride as a Cal student/alum. I hold our athletes to a higher standard, pure and simple. These numbers are horrible.

---

I have to assume that the 930 is not an "unreasonable" standard to meet, although it is apparent that some schools are having difficulties meeting this. Cal's current 936 4-year average would be second to last in the Big 10,only ahead of Minnesota, and tied for 14th in the SEC with Arkansas. The fact that so many schools are doing better would suggest that it is not an impossibly difficult standard to meet.

I'm also wondering about how the players who leave for the draft would be counted and the impact of this. I don't think this is counted as a "negative" but I think this would reduce the total available and increase the impact of the remaining players who either dropped out academically ineligible or are still enrolled but not eligible.

One scenario:

85 players on scholarship
80 of them are enrolled and eligible
3 are enrolled but ineligible (is 3 out of 85 an unreasonable number - given Freshman year adjustments and other factors?)
2 more don't cut it and drop out while they were academically ineligible

If I understand the formula right, this would calculate to a score of 959.

I don't know what happens if someone declares and leaves early for the draft. I don't think this is a negative (drop out but eligible) but I think it would decrease the total number of players in the calculation. Using the above scenario, assume 3 players declare for the draft and drop out.
I think that then looks like the following:

85 players, but 3 have declared for the draft:
82 players remain on scholarship
3 of them are enrolled but ineligible
2 of them still drop out while they were academically ineligible.

That would calculate to a 957 score, so it seems there is an impact if players declare and leave, but it's maybe not as significant as you might think. If there are no players in trouble, the score would still be 1000,even with players leaving the program.

Under this same scenario (3 leave), to get a 921 single year score you would have to have 3 on scholarship drop out while ineligible and 7 enrolled while ineligible and the remaining 72 (after the 3 left for the draft) enrolled and eligible. Obviously lots of schools are doing better than Cal is, but for these numbers you are talking about 10 out of 85 student-athletes struggling to make grades or struggling, then dropping out altogether.

I expect the program and the support staff to do better (and they need to or there will be repercussions), but I'm not sure that I'm readily to villify the entire organization for not getting a 950 or better based on the numbers that produce a 921. It's clear that a 921 won't cut it in the long run, but maybe we should at least realize the swing that 3-4 players can have on the overall number.

Phantomfan;841902407 said:

---

How people can bring up "Cal is a harder school than X" as an excuse for our sh*tty scores is AMAZING.

What we have is a guy who runs a 6 minute mile running a 7 minute mile, and then claiming it is not slower because a bike goes fast.

Cal is dropping against itself. THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

No doubt that we will continue to hear about how "Tedford does it the right way" even with atrocious grad rates, falling scores across the board, and to top it off a lack of actually "DOING IT" in the first place.

Anyone who does not look at this and see a HUGE problem might want to reassess their priorities.

---

Agreed Phantomfan. If another school, oh say UCLA, with similar academic difficulty got the APR scores we just did and their fans started making excuses for their coaching staff about classes being tough and it being the players' responsibility, we would call them delusional apologists. I'm surprised no one has blamed the tree-sitters yet.

I have to admit, if we were playing at an elite level on the field, I probably wouldn't care as much, though that is a personal fault - I should care as much even then. But to be so mediocre on the field and in the classroom just plain sucks.

Tedhead03;841902385 said:

---

With our luck, the one season we go undefeated, we won't be eligible to go to a bowl game. Hope Tedford rights this ship quickly.

---

This might actually cause me to consider ending it all.

The really disturbing thing is that Cal is a lot closer to getting disqualified b/c of academics than we are at making it to a Rose Bowl.

I put our chances of getting put on probation sometime soon at 35%, whereas our RB chances have to be less than 5%. These are just guesses. But who would have thought in 2006 that we would be a lot closer to academic probation than to the Rose Bowl?

and this thread would disappear...Yes, I'm talkin to you!