ColoradoBear1;842307154 said:

---

Since the NCAA hasn't released data from the 2012-13 years yest (that release comes out in June every year and thie year it affects postseason eligibility for the 2014-15 bowl season), I think it's safe to assume that the 969 is for that 2012-13 academic year. Obviously, the data for the 2013-14 academic year is not complete. If the release in June doesn't match what Sonny is saying, then it's fair to question what he is talking about. But the athletic department has known a ballpark for 2012-13 since last September (after summer school grades come in), but they need to get the NCAA to go over it and validate it as there might be exceptions due to transfers, leaving schools or taking classes over.

---

So how much is Tedford responsible for the umping of the APR numbers since he was around for 1 of the 2 semesters?

okaydo;842307155 said:

---

So how much is Tedford responsible for the umping of the APR numbers since he was around for 1 of the 2 semesters?

---

Honestly, I don't think we'll ever know for sure other than rumors. Sounds like players took a lot of summer school to make up for failed classes and those could have been used to replace fall or spring classes.

well at least it looks like we're getting it done in the classroom. now for the field, if we make similar progress............

going from 22 players on academic probation to just 1 is pretty huge... you definitely don't want to be that one guy who's not getting it done in the classroom... a much different feel for that guy now than when a quarter of his teammates were on probation

I forgot - is this only scholarship players, or ? What is measured exactly?

BearlyClad;842307698 said:

---

I forgot - is this only scholarship players, or ? What is measured exactly?

---

It's only scholarship players, and I believe it's only recruited scholarship players, so you can't add walk-ons to prop up the APR.

The actual formula simply gives a point for being in good standing and a point for remaining in school - tallied each semester. So with 85 scholarship players, that's typically 170 points per semester possible, or 340 for a year. But if players leave in good standing, they are excused from the retention point - so essentially, the only time a school loses that point is when a player leaves in poor standing. A 930 means a team received 93% of those possible 340 points for an entire year (or out of XXX points if players leave in good standing).

It's a pretty crude statistic, and I'm not sure it really measures what the NCAA claims it measures (they say a 930 means 50% of team is ON TRACK to graduate). And obviously feeding athletes into bogus classes like UNC keeps the grades up but never gives players even a shot at graduating. But the leaving in good or bad standing is what kills programs APRs. A fall APR is only a partial picture - Spring APR's are the dangerous ones for both basketball and football because of the timing of the drafts. The worst case for football would be for a player to fail a number of fall classes, but enroll in class for spring. And then train for the draft, fail again and leave. At least in basketball, a player would presumably have to pass fall classes to play in the spring (but they still could play all season, train for the NBA draft and fail all their spring classes).

Again I think it's likely this 969 is for the 2012-13 year since that's what the NCAA will release soon. It could be for the fall of 2013, which would also be really good considering the number of transfers and NFL draft bound players (some were rumored to be in academic trouble). Again the retention point is only lost when a player leaves in poor standing.

2013-14 is just as important as 2012-13 in staying off probation (in 2015). So very good to hear academic probation among the players is down from 22 to 1.

socaltownie;842306954 said:

---

Second in the Pac-12. God it is hard to swallow 1-11 but that is really good news and deserves big hat tip to the coaches and, of course, the student athletes. Go Bears!

---

If Dykes can get them to class at 1-11, that is a pretty big deal. Bigger than the increase would otherwise seem, I think.

Phantomfan;842307740 said:

---

If Dykes can get them to class at 1-11, that is a pretty big deal. Bigger than the increase would otherwise seem, I think.

---

These numbers are from 12-13. So Tedford got them to class at 3-9 and then Dykes got them to class coming off 3-9.

Phantomfan;842307740 said:

---

If Dykes can get them to class at 1-11, that is a pretty big deal. Bigger than the increase would otherwise seem, I think.

---

The future should see a steady increase as STUDENT-athletes who understand the value of a Cal degree and will work to get it are signed.

Thank you Colorado great summary.

StillNoStanfurdium;842307132 said:

---

People should realize that a high APR indicates either:

1. A good support system and emphasis on academics for athletes
2. A joke of system that values academics for athletes that suggest you can coast easy

Cal having a poor APR probably meant it didn't have the best recruiting policies as far as getting students that can hang with the curriculum, but likewise it means that Cal wasn't willing to undercut it's standards for the sake of athletics.

---

If Cal always had a low APR, I suppose this idea would track, but the fact that we had a very reasonable APR not long ago makes me question that.

grandmastapoop;842307743 said:

---

These numbers are from 12-13. So Tedford got them to class at 3-9 and then Dykes got them to class coming off 3-9.

---

Ha, yeah. Still.

Getting a losing team to class is my point.

Phantomfan;842308062 said:

---

If Cal always had a low APR, I suppose this idea would track, but the fact that we had a very reasonable APR not long ago makes me question that.

---

Well I think it plays into me talking about our recruiting policies where we shifted to players that couldn't hang with the curriculum.

unless you look carefully at the actual majors our players are now enrolled in..When the starters were introduced on the Jumbotron at the Northwestern game this past season, they also shouted out their majors - all very soft in my mind - lots of American Studies (I know, this has been discussed!), and nothing even close to a science or tech major. Treggs was "undeclared." I simply think Sonny has done more "guiding" of our football players into classes/courses of study that they can better handle. I don't get all excited about the increased scholasticism of our football guys - some of you sound like it.. Sonny is simply playing the game better with finding the right academic routes. The NFL is still the #1 lure for our top players, not a degree. We are all meatheads who go on to that field of battle. :woohoo

72CalBear;842309679 said:

---

unless you look carefully at the actual majors our players are now enrolled in..When the starters were introduced on the Jumbotron at the Northwestern game this past season, they also shouted out their majors - all very soft in my mind - lots of American Studies (I know, this has been discussed!), and nothing even close to a science or tech major. Treggs was "undeclared." I simply think Sonny has done more "guiding" of our football players into classes/courses of study that they can better handle. I don't get all excited about the increased scholasticism of our football guys - some of you sound like it.. Sonny is simply playing the game better with finding the right academic routes. The NFL is still the #1 lure for our top players, not a degree. We are all meatheads who go on to that field of battle. :woohoo

---

I call BS.

72CalBear;842309679 said:

---

unless you look carefully at the actual majors our players are now enrolled in..When the starters were introduced on the Jumbotron at the Northwestern game this past season, they also shouted out their majors - all very soft in my mind - lots of American Studies (I know, this has been discussed!), and nothing even close to a science or tech major. Treggs was "undeclared." I simply think Sonny has done more "guiding" of our football players into classes/courses of study that they can better handle. I don't get all excited about the increased scholasticism of our football guys - some of you sound like it.. Sonny is simply playing the game better with finding the right academic routes. The NFL is still the #1 lure for our top players, not a degree. We are all meatheads who go on to that field of battle. :woohoo

---

isnt that what they do down on the farm ... im just saying one step at a time

72CalBear;842309679 said:

---

increased scholasticism

---

:headbang

72CalBear;842309679 said:

---

unless you look carefully at the actual majors our players are now enrolled in..When the starters were introduced on the Jumbotron at the Northwestern game this past season, they also shouted out their majors - all very soft in my mind - lots of American Studies (I know, this has been discussed!), and nothing even close to a science or tech major. Treggs was "undeclared." I simply think Sonny has done more "guiding" of our football players into classes/courses of study that they can better handle. I don't get all excited about the increased scholasticism of our football guys - some of you sound like it.. Sonny is simply playing the game better with finding the right academic routes. The NFL is still the #1 lure for our top players, not a degree. We are all meatheads who go on to that field of battle. :woohoo

---

The entirety of your post is pretty much ridiculous.

First of all, these guys are at Cal to play football and go to school.

Secondly, why does it seem you are under the impression that the team was somehow comprised of EECS and MCB majors prior to Sonny taking over? The major distribution was likely no different at all.

Lastly, even if that were the case, wouldn't graduating from our beloved UC Berkeley with any degree be better than failing out in less than two years in any other field while simultaneously not having a shot at the NFL?

NOTHING has changed except the success rate of our guys in the classroom.

Take those anti-Dykes blinders off and be happy about this improvement.

72CalBear;842309679 said:

---

unless you look carefully at the actual majors our players are now enrolled in..When the starters were introduced on the Jumbotron at the Northwestern game this past season, they also shouted out their majors - all very soft in my mind - lots of American Studies (I know, this has been discussed!), and nothing even close to a science or tech major. Treggs was "undeclared." I simply think Sonny has done more "guiding" of our football players into classes/courses of study that they can better handle. I don't get all excited about the increased scholasticism of our football guys - some of you sound like it.. Sonny is simply playing the game better with finding the right academic routes. The NFL is still the #1 lure for our top players, not a degree. We are all meatheads who go on to that field of battle. :woohoo

---

You are trying to make this sound like the turnaround is no big deal and was easily done. If this were the case, Tedford wouldn't have failed so miserably at it. Especially since he had so much more experience as HC and dealing with the Cal bureaucracy and academia.

slider643;842309752 said:

---

You are trying to make this sound like the turnaround is no big deal and was easily done.....

---

As jamonit said earlier in this thread,

jamonit;842307123 said:

---

Yes only a one year score... our 4 year score won't go up much as we are taking out a high score like 960-964 or something and replacing it with this one. The good news if we would have scored less than 964 we would have been punished and next year if we can put up a big score it will make a huge difference with our 4 year score.

---

This 969 score replaces the 963 in 2008-9, but we still have to deal with the three scores of 921, 923, and 923 posted in 2009-10 through 2011-12. Hopefully, the early departures this past semester won't impact the 2013-14 score too drastically.

72CalBear;842309679 said:

---

unless you look carefully at the actual majors our players are now enrolled in..When the starters were introduced on the Jumbotron at the Northwestern game this past season, they also shouted out their majors - all very soft in my mind - lots of American Studies (I know, this has been discussed!), and nothing even close to a science or tech major. Treggs was "undeclared." I simply think Sonny has done more "guiding" of our football players into classes/courses of study that they can better handle. I don't get all excited about the increased scholasticism of our football guys - some of you sound like it.. Sonny is simply playing the game better with finding the right academic routes. The NFL is still the #1 lure for our top players, not a degree. We are all meatheads who go on to that field of battle. :woohoo

---

I guess I'm a bit sensitive about this type of post because I was in a 'soft' major: philosophy. BFD! I actually hope Cal starts guiding athletes toward any type of degree program that allows the players to play at a high level and graduate. If some want to become doctors or lawyers or engineers great. But for all the others get some sort of degree and play your sport at the highest level. You will be fine. I've got a 30 year IT career (technical side, not managerial side) to back up my assertion. Aren't you a teacher, 72CalBear? Did you really need to major in something 'hard' to teach? No slam on teachers but I'll bet your attitude toward learning and continuing to explore your field have more to do with being a great teacher than what you learned in a major at Cal.

:rollinglaugh:

82gradDLSdad;842309776 said:

---

I guess I'm a bit sensitive about this type of post because I was in a 'soft' major: philosophy. BFD! I actually hope Cal starts guiding athletes toward any type of degree program that allows the players to play at a high level and graduate. If some want to become doctors or lawyers or engineers great. But for all the others get some sort of degree and play your sport at the highest level. [U]You will be fine[/U]. I've got a 30 year IT career (technical side, not managerial side) to back up my assertion. Aren't you a teacher, 72CalBear? Did you really need to major in something 'hard' to teach? No slam on teachers but I'll bet your attitude toward learning and continuing to explore your field have more to do with being a great teacher than what you learned in a major at Cal.

---

Huh?
Yeah, well, I majored in history and teach history. Not the point. I am just growing tired of the whole "student-athlete" notion that some schools (like Cal) throw around these days. College football players today are not degree motivated - and therefore they take what they can to stay eligibile - not to plot out a career in most cases. There are of course those that do but I think football comes first. Very few college majors direct ANYONE into a specific field these days - that is one of the fallacies in the liberal arts college factory that we have created. Nothing really applies anymore unless maybe you choose a vocational school or do mech engineering, pre-med, or even forestry for god's sake. We have inflated the college degree so much that our universities have become another gateway to unemployment. How many college grads are working waiting tables and lifeguarding? (I have plenty working for my summer aquatics company). Our football players have it even harder since many of their majors also lead them nowhere. This has little to do with the APR improvement, but it's my rant for the day..:rollinglaugh:

82gradDLSdad;842309776 said:

---

I guess I'm a bit sensitive about this type of post because I was in a 'soft' major: philosophy. BFD! I actually hope Cal starts guiding athletes toward any type of degree program that allows the players to play at a high level and graduate. If some want to become doctors or lawyers or engineers great. But for all the others get some sort of degree and play your sport at the highest level. You will be fine. I've got a 30 year IT career (technical side, not managerial side) to back up my assertion. Aren't you a teacher, 72CalBear? Did you really need to major in something 'hard' to teach? No slam on teachers but I'll bet your attitude toward learning and continuing to explore your field have more to do with being a great teacher than what you learned in a major at Cal.

---

I spent a couple of years meandering in search of a major and happy I did so.
Philosophy, soft? Ha. Symbolic logic was one of the toughest and most useful courses I took.
History? Besides the knowledge, getting through the reading lists and writing papers under pressure has been very useful; same with English.
Settled into Social Psychology for a bit which proved very useful in management.
Statistics/Finance/Accounting - vital for my career of 40+ years in IT including being able to keep up with and master the constant shifts in paradigms as well as working in various, different businesses.

The discipline required to get through Cal was intense and constant, not just understanding the subject matter but also the competition in class.
In addition to an eclectic, real education, Cal taught me how to Work.
I can't imagine that it's any less rigorous today.

SonOfCalVa;842309991 said:

---

I spent a couple of years meandering in search of a major and happy I did so.
Philosophy, soft? Ha. Symbolic logic was one of the toughest and most useful courses I took.
History? Besides the knowledge, getting through the reading lists and writing papers under pressure has been very useful; same with English.
Settled into Social Psychology for a bit which proved very useful in management.
Statistics/Finance/Accounting - vital for my career of 40+ years in IT including being able to keep up with and master the constant shifts in paradigms as well as working in various, different businesses.

The discipline required to get through Cal was intense and constant, not just understanding the subject matter but also the competition in class.
In addition to an eclectic, real education, Cal taught me how to Work.
I can't imagine that it's any less rigorous today.

---

Yes, logic was tough. I think I got a B and C in the two quarters I had to take. The rest of the major involved reading and writing papers. There were very few written tests to take, ie. no final exams. I guess out of most of the classes I took that weren't 'gimme' electives the philosophy classes were the easiest for me. And that is precisely why I took them. I didn't have any grand career plan as a 20 year old.
Here is my main point (after playing one sport at Cal for one year): if you can manage ANY degree at Cal while you are playing football YOU HAVE THE QUALITIES NEEDED TO PERFORM 90% (made up percentage but it's a high number) OF THE JOBS IN OUR SOCIETY. AND THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY "YOU WILL BE FINE".
And yes, 72CalBear, I realize this is a bastardization of college's original mission. It's purpose has gotten convoluted but this is the game at hand and I'd rather Cal football play it rather than take a stand and field an Ivy league quality team.

82gradDLSdad;842310015 said:

---

Yes, logic was tough. I think I got a B and C in the two quarters I had to take. The rest of the major involved reading and writing papers. There were very few written tests to take, ie. no final exams. I guess out of most of the classes I took that weren't 'gimme' electives the philosophy classes were the easiest for me. And that is precisely why I took them. I didn't have any grand career plan as a 20 year old.
Here is my main point (after playing one sport at Cal for one year): if you can manage ANY degree at Cal while you are playing football YOU HAVE THE QUALITIES NEEDED TO PERFORM 90% (made up percentage but it's a high number) OF THE JOBS IN OUR SOCIETY. AND THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY "YOU WILL BE FINE".
And yes, 72CalBear, I realize this is a bastardization of college's original mission. It's purpose has gotten convoluted but this is the game at hand and I'd rather Cal football play it rather than take a stand and field an Ivy league quality team.

---

Your point is not only valid, it has support from faculty vignettes.
The videos from the Haas instructors were clear as to the intangibles that playing football brings to success in business, along with the academics.

I walked-on for freshman football (when frosh couldn't play varsity, yeah, outdated names) and am happy I did but it almost ended my Cal academic career.
Time management is tough, studying is tough when your body is hurting and practices, etc are time-consuming ... and the reading lists and papers required are long and the deadlines are non-negotiable.

How nice now to be getting players who are students, and that they have support to assist them.
Technology is a huge help ... I had the walk to library stacks and pencil and paper, no computer in the room, just a typewriter.

82gradDLSdad;842310015 said:

---

Yes, logic was tough. I think I got a B and C in the two quarters I had to take. The rest of the major involved reading and writing papers. There were very few written tests to take, ie. no final exams. I guess out of most of the classes I took that weren't 'gimme' electives the philosophy classes were the easiest for me. And that is precisely why I took them. I didn't have any grand career plan as a 20 year old.
Here is my main point (after playing one sport at Cal for one year): if you can manage ANY degree at Cal while you are playing football YOU HAVE THE QUALITIES NEEDED TO PERFORM 90% (made up percentage but it's a high number) OF THE JOBS IN OUR SOCIETY. AND THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY "YOU WILL BE FINE".
And yes, 72CalBear, I realize this is a bastardization of college's original mission. It's purpose has gotten convoluted but this is the game at hand and I'd rather Cal football play it rather than take a stand and field an Ivy league quality team.

---

You would be shocked at the number of former collegiate athletes on Wall Street and in business school.

slider643;842310064 said:

---

You would be shocked at the number of former collegiate athletes on Wall Street and in business school.

---

No I wouldn't.

slider643;842310064 said:

---

You would be shocked at the number of former collegiate athletes on Wall Street and in business school.

---

Does making money equate to being smarter or more learned?

NYCGOBEARS;842310231 said:

---

Does making money equate to being smarter or more learned?

---

NOPE lol

NYCGOBEARS;842310231 said:

---

Does making money equate to being smarter or more learned?

---

On more than one occasion, I have appropriately asked "if you're so rich, why aren't you smart". Rude but damned appropriate considering the circumstances. Living among millionaires (but not one of them), it's a target rich field for that comment, but used it rarely.
Common sense and intestinal fortitude are NOT requirements for becoming wealthy.

SonOfCalVa;842310253 said:

---

On more than one occasion, I have appropriately asked "if you're so rich, why aren't you smart". Rude but damned appropriate considering the circumstances. Living among millionaires (but not one of them), it's a target rich field for that comment, but used it rarely.
Common sense and intestinal fortitude are NOT requirements for becoming wealthy.

---

Does having a million dollar + net worth make you rich? Hmmm. I can tell you first hand that being a millionaire does not require one to be smart. Lucky, frugal, patient, does the trick too. Boy, has this thread gotten off track.

NYCGOBEARS;842310231 said:

---

Does making money equate to being smarter or more learned?

---

Liberal.

:facepalm

College football players had another reason to study and stay eligible when I played = [U]Vietnam[/U]..I recall that about a dozen didn't get grades my freshmen year and ended up swapping football helmets for US military helmets...I just wonder if we still had the draft??..hmmmm..:blush

Bobodeluxe;842310289 said:

---

Liberal.

:facepalm

---

Thanks?