According to this article, Cal scored 939 beating out only WSU by one measly point to escape the P12 cellar. Do we have to improve to 941 next year to avoid a postseason ban? How embarrassing would that be?

"Programs must now clear a four-year APR average of 930 -- or a two-year average of 940 -- to be eligible for postseason play. This is a rise from the 900 floor that the NCAA used for most of the past decade (since APR protocol has been in effect). Schools with limited resources are given leniency on a case-by-case basis."

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymensbasketball/2014/05/14/uw-ranks-fourth-in-ncaas-apr-scores/

If this is football it will be easy to avoid because we'll be dropping a really bad score

"Cal in danger of postseason ban? "

Yes.....if they go 0-12....(PSU was a loss too)...once again.

Am I reading this wrong? The article seems to be about Husky (and other Pac-12) basketball programs, not football. Of course APR is critical for both our BB and FB teams. But perhaps this post should be on the men's basketball board?

Once there, we can continue the proud pattern on that board of ripping other teams' players as dumbazzs.

tenplay;842316370 said:

---

According to this article, Cal scored 939 beating out only WSU by one measly point to escape the P12 cellar. Do we have to improve to 941 next year to avoid a postseason ban? How embarrassing would that be?

"Programs must now clear a four-year APR average of 930 -- or a two-year average of 940 -- to be eligible for postseason play. This is a rise from the 900 floor that the NCAA used for most of the past decade (since APR protocol has been in effect). Schools with limited resources are given leniency on a case-by-case basis."

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymensbasketball/2014/05/14/uw-ranks-fourth-in-ncaas-apr-scores/

---

The article states to be eligible for postseason, you either need a multi year score of 930 OR two year average of 940. Since we're already at 930, I think we're good.

tenplay;842316370 said:

---

"Programs must now clear a four-year APR average of 930 -- or a two-year average of 940 -- to be eligible for postseason play. This is a rise from the 900 floor that the NCAA used for most of the past decade (since APR protocol has been in effect). Schools with limited resources are given leniency on a case-by-case basis."

---

we are not technically out of the woods, but the '940 two year average' isn't applicable to us because we are above a 930 on the 4 year average. It was added as a transitional 'out' for teams with sub 930 APRs when the NCAA moved the requirements from 900 to 930. The idea being that it gave schools a chance to score a better 940 in the last two years and leave out scores in years 3 and 4. I believe the 940 two year threshold goes away next year and the rule is simply 930 for 4 years.

Also, because Cal has a 969 this year, we would make both the 930 four year cut and 940 two year cut.

ColoradoBear1;842316387 said:

---

we are not technically out of the woods, but the '940 two year average' isn't applicable to us because we are above a 930 on the 4 year average. It was added as a transitional 'out' for teams with sub 930 APRs when the NCAA moved the requirements from 900 to 930. The idea being that it gave schools a chance to score a better 940 in the last two years and leave out scores in years 3 and 4. I believe the 940 two year threshold goes away next year and the rule is simply 930 for 4 years.

Also, because Cal has a 969 this year, we would make both the 930 four year cut and 940 two year cut.

---

Agreed on all except the 969 being relevant to this article. 969 is (I think?) our football one year APR score.

The article is about Men's Basketball. Or did we also happen to get a one-year 969 score in hoops too?

1947;842316377 said:

---

"Cal in danger of postseason ban? "

Yes.....if they go 0-12....(PSU was a loss too)...once again.

---

Weird, at the end of the game Cal had more points than PSU. I hate when losses like that happen.

Davidson;842316373 said:

---

If this is football it will be easy to avoid because we'll be dropping a really bad score

---

It's not football, it's men's basketball. At least that's what the article said.

Of course, for all I know, our 4-year football APR average may well 939 as well (969 was a 1year score in FB).

OneKeg;842316396 said:

---

It's not football, it's men's basketball. At least that's what the article said.

Of course, for all I know, our 4-year football APR average may well 939 as well (969 was a 1year score in FB).

---

LOL ok I used the APR database linked in the linked article to actually look up our Cal's 4-year APR average in football and it is almost the same by coincidence: 938, not 939.

So never mind. Carry on. Though the 939 in basketball probably deserves it's own thread on the hoops board.

OneKeg;842316389 said:

---

Agreed on all except the 969 being relevant to this article. 969 is (I think?) our football one year APR score.

The article is about Men's Basketball. Or did we also happen to get a one-year 969 score in hoops too?

---

It's the football board though? But yes I didn't see the article was about basketball. However, our football scores and basketball scores are essentially the same now (938 to 939), so the question could apply to both.

Last 4 years in basketball are: 938, 961, 977, and 877 (2010). The 877 will fall off the records next year, so we will see a huge increase in the NCAA reported APR nest year regardless. Basketball is nowhere near any real danger of falling below the 930 level.

You have to win six games to be bowl eligible. When do you think that's going to happen? Right now we are bowel eligible however.

tenplay;842316370 said:

---

According to this article, Cal scored 939 beating out only WSU by one measly point to escape the P12 cellar. Do we have to improve to 941 next year to avoid a postseason ban? How embarrassing would that be?

"Programs must now clear a four-year APR average of 930 -- or a two-year average of 940 -- to be eligible for postseason play. This is a rise from the 900 floor that the NCAA used for most of the past decade (since APR protocol has been in effect). Schools with limited resources are given leniency on a case-by-case basis."

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymensbasketball/2014/05/14/uw-ranks-fourth-in-ncaas-apr-scores/

---

The article itself is not entirely accurate. Oklahoma State missed the 930 and 940 hurdle but are not banned from bowl games.

slider643;842316426 said:

---

The article itself is not entirely accurate. Oklahoma State missed the 930 and 940 hurdle but are not banned from bowl games.

---

OK St had a 943.54 two year APR.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/14/ncaa-academic-progress-rate-postseason-bans/9082853/

This article confirms that the 940 escape route is done after this year. But there will now be a 950 two year average out for a team facing it's 2nd straight postseason ban.

I read where Coach Ron Gould and the Aggies are number 1 in the Big Sky ... he joined a program that does it right, and he's kept it up.

i am also concerned about our de facto postseason ban of playing like sh!t

tenplay;842316370 said:

---

According to this article, Cal scored 939 beating out only WSU by one measly point to escape the P12 cellar. Do we have to improve to 941 next year to avoid a postseason ban? How embarrassing would that be?

"Programs must now clear a four-year APR average of 930 -- or a two-year average of 940 -- to be eligible for postseason play. This is a rise from the 900 floor that the NCAA used for most of the past decade (since APR protocol has been in effect). Schools with limited resources are given leniency on a case-by-case basis."

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/huskymensbasketball/2014/05/14/uw-ranks-fourth-in-ncaas-apr-scores/

---

As been said... We are fine because we are above the 930 bowl ban, but we were in danger before Sonny took over because we had scores of 960 (or something close), 934, 926 and 923 the previous 4 years. Because the oldest one we dropped was 960 if we posted a lower score than what we did, we may have been subject to a bowl ban. So there is no worries this year at all.

Then for next year we lose a 934 which means if we post a 934 we will have the same score as this year... Anything higher or lower will move the score up or down. The year after that we remove a 926, and then finally we remove the horrible 923... If we continue to improve and post a 960+ we will have a big improvement next year.

It's obvious that the Bowl ban thing is self-imposed.

no worries. It's like an anorexic being banned from the all you can eat buffet.

Big C_Cal;842316496 said:

---

i am also concerned about our de facto postseason ban of playing like sh!t

---

Yeah pretty much. But doesn't a potential APR failure entail lost scholarships on top of the ban? That would be good to avoid even if any bowl ban is moot.

OneKeg;842316695 said:

---

Yeah pretty much. But doesn't a potential APR failure entail lost scholarships on top of the ban? That would be good to avoid even if any bowl ban is moot.

---

Well, if you are not going to Bowl games, you might as well save cost by cutting scholarships.

OneKeg;842316695 said:

---

Yeah pretty much. But doesn't a potential APR failure entail lost scholarships on top of the ban? That would be good to avoid even if any bowl ban is moot.

---

If you are way below that can happen... Again though as I laid out before. We are not be below and went up... Next year we only have to be around 934 and the two years after that we only have to be around 920's. This was the year we had to worry about because we were dropping a score that was in the 960's so we had to replace it with one at least that high. We scored a 969 which is very good. We are in much much better shape and there really are no concerns in football.

jamonit;842316913 said:

---

If you are way below that can happen... Again though as I laid out before. We are not be below and went up... Next year we only have to be around 934 and the two years after that we only have to be around 920's. This was the year we had to worry about because we were dropping a score that was in the 960's so we had to replace it with one at least that high. We scored a 969 which is very good.

---

Yep, hopefully we have steered clear for the moment. Though it's interesting that the 969 was for the 2012-2013 year, and JT (who I wanted gone) was responsible for half of it in theory. But hopefully 969 or better is truly representative of what we can expect going forward with Sonny or whoever takes his place.

jamonit;842316913 said:

---

We are in much much better shape and there really are no concerns in football.

---

Well, not many concerns APR-wise anyways.

OneKeg;842316924 said:

---

Yep, hopefully we have steered clear for the moment. Though it's interesting that the 969 was for the 2012-2013 year, and JT (who I wanted gone) was responsible for half of it in theory.

---

I'd guess the spring scores were much higher than fall for 2012-13.

Just read where Avery Sebastian earned his degree from Cal.

Congratulations, Avery.

Big C_Cal;842316496 said:

---

i am also concerned about our de facto postseason ban of playing like sh!t

---

Seriously. Until we score 6 wins our APR is academic.

biely medved;842317315 said:

---

Until we score 6 wins our APR is academic.

---

Pun intended?

manus;842317314 said:

---

Just read where Avery Sebastian earned his degree from Cal.

Congratulations, Avery.

---

great for him .. so does that mean he has no class load during season ?
if so hope that bodes well for the team

i expect big things out of him in life !!!!

NYCGOBEARS;842317317 said:

---

Pun intended?

---

Si.