Tech does mostly well in APR

Georgia Tech’s men’s basketball team improved its single-year Academic Progress Rate score from 953 to 960, but its multi-year average of 915 still failed to meet the minimum score of 925 required by the NCAA. Scores were released today. As a result, Tech penalized itself with the loss of a scholarship during the 2010-11 season. Its average was the lowest among the ACC’s 12 teams.

The APR is used to measure how athletes are progressing through school. The scores released today are based on a multi-year rate that averages scores dating back to the 2006-07  academic year. Teams that fail to average 925 are subject to penalties including loss of scholarships.

Because the penalty has been served, new coach Brian Gregory will have a full allotment of 13 scholarships for the 2011-12 season.

Tech’s average is hampered by a single-year score of 840 posted in 2007-08. It also suffered the loss of two scholarships during the 2008-09 season.

The men’s basketball team wasn’t the only one to improve its average score. Nine of the 17 teams improved or stayed the same. Football posted a 966, compared to last year’s 967. It finished sixth among the ACC’s teams.

Three teams – golf and men’s and women’s cross country – posted perfect multi-year scores of 1,000.

Here are the men’s basketball scores:

Sport School State Academic Year Multi-Year Rate
Men’s Basketball Georgia Institute of Technology GA 2009 – 2010 915
Men’s Basketball Florida State University FL 2009 – 2010 926
Men’s Basketball University of Virginia VA 2009 – 2010 940
Men’s Basketball University of Maryland, College Park MD 2009 – 2010 945
Men’s Basketball Wake Forest University NC 2009 – 2010 953
Men’s Basketball Clemson University SC 2009 – 2010 964
Men’s Basketball Boston College MA 2009 – 2010 972
Men’s Basketball University of Miami (Florida) FL 2009 – 2010 975
Men’s Basketball North Carolina State University NC 2009 – 2010 985
Men’s Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2009 – 2010 985
Men’s Basketball Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University VA 2009 – 2010 985
Men’s Basketball Duke University NC 2009 – 2010 990

Here are the football scores:

Sport School State Academic Year Multi-Year Rate
Football University of Maryland, College Park MD 2009 – 2010 922*
Football North Carolina State University NC 2009 – 2010 929
Football Florida State University FL 2009 – 2010 932
Football University of Virginia VA 2009 – 2010 947
Football University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2009 – 2010 955
Football Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University VA 2009 – 2010 955
Football Georgia Institute of Technology GA 2009 – 2010 966
Football Boston College MA 2009 – 2010 971
Football Wake Forest University NC 2009 – 2010 971
Football Clemson University SC 2009 – 2010 977
Football University of Miami (Florida) FL 2009 – 2010 979
Football Duke University NC 2009 – 2010 986

* Loss of three scholarships

– Doug Roberson, AJC

91 comments Add your comment

juvenal

May 24th, 2011
3:25 pm

shame we didn’t dump cph when we had the chance…..

goldwreck

May 24th, 2011
3:27 pm

The way these scores are calculated does not tell the whole story.On the other hand,improvement is improvement.Go Jackets!

juvenal

May 24th, 2011
3:32 pm

how about some lists, a la Doug…ACC, SEC…….hard to dig this out of the ncaa site, they still have last years…

Ramblin Man

May 24th, 2011
3:35 pm

I need some clarification on this. I read on one site that early departures hurt a school in the APR and on another it says it does not. Anybody know the answer here?

Improvement is encouraging...

May 24th, 2011
3:44 pm

…yet to be behind FSU, NC State and MD is not a good sign, especially since Duke and Wake are considerably more academic than Tech, yet have no problem keepiong their score appropriate…

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
3:54 pm

Ramblin Man

Earluy departures do hurt a school and their APR. There are a multitude of ways non-freshman SAs hurt a programs APR. See http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2005/Division+I/sample%2Bapr%2Bcalculation%2B-%2B2-14-05%2Bncaa%2Bnews.html for an example. The 2007-08 year is killing Tech because of the points lost from 2006-07 roster losses giving us lower rentention point for Fall 2007 and the losses of Clinch (who incidentally is really hurting Tech’s APR because he left the program TWICE and both are still be counted in one way or another) as well as the Senior who did not graduate (Morrow and Dickey). It’ll be fun watching Tech’s multi-year APR average jump from 915 to 940+ next Spring once the 2007-08 roster is no longer counted.

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
3:59 pm

Improvement is encouraging…

Put the crack pipe down. Nearly everyone on Duke’s roster is majoring in Sociology and on Wake’s is Communications. Both programs at each school have a math requirement of College Algebra and Finite Math with remedial math course being offered at each and counting towards APR progress. And each has a science requirement of only two lab sciences (Bio I and Bio II being the most prominently taken) and one non-lab science.

At Tech the Business Mgmt majors must take Calc I and either Survey of Calc or Calc II. Finite Math can also be used to fullfill an elective or substituted as fullfilling a math but if that route is taken the one of the 3 Calcs MUST be taken to fullfill an elective. The science requirement at Tech for business mgmt majors? 3 lab sciences one of which mush be Physics I and one non-lab science of which MOST athletes take Environmental (or Earth) Science.

So don’t even try an put Duke and Wake players in the same academic rigor class as what Tech’s go through…..they’re not even close.

Joe

May 24th, 2011
4:02 pm

Doug Roberson, why are you back? Please tell me this is just a one time thing and we won’t have to put up with your terrible writing again. Please tell us Ken is on a short vacation.

Jacket Backer

May 24th, 2011
4:03 pm

The Paul Hewitt legacy continues! Thank goodness he’s gone.

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
4:04 pm

Improvement is encouraging…

Oh and I forgot….there is no remedial math offered at Tech.

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
4:23 pm

For those wondering Clinch alone is costing Tech 4 points; academically ineligible Fall 2008 (1 point), did not enroll Fall 2009 (1 point), did not graduate in 5 years (2 pts). Even once the 2007-08 season is no longer counted after this year he’ll still cost Tech 3 points next year and 2 points until after 2013 calculation unless he comes back and graduates before then and is removed from the listed SAs being included in the calculation.

404

May 24th, 2011
4:26 pm

Be serious.

The NCAA’s APR score/scale is a…TOTAL…FREAKIN…JOKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Folks, here’s an estbalished FACT: UGA has the 2nd highest APR score behnd only Vanderbilt.

Does that mena that UGA’s quality of education for athletes really so good
that their 2nd to only Vandy ??

No.

What that REALLY means is the UGA has profoundly dumb-downed
their programs that they route athletes thru so that this hilly-billy state’s dumbest
student-athletes can get on the field in Athens. Majors like Housing, and Recreation & Leisure Studies.

UGA has “invented” a laundry list of of “idiot-proof” majors so that their illiterate athletes
can pass “remedial” edcuation.

The very fact that UGA promotes their APR as some shining example of stellar student-athlete academics is not just a bad joke. Its a really big fradulent lie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doug Roberson

May 24th, 2011
4:29 pm

Thanks Joe. Glad to be back for this post.

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
4:32 pm

I’ll add that Crittendon and Young are currently costing Tech 3 points each; 1 for not enrolling Fall 2007 and 2 for not graduating in 5 years. Tech will get 2 of those points back after this current calculation, but because those two would have graduated this current Spring 2011 semester (5th year) and they did not the other 4 points will be felt for the next 3 years via the multi-year average….unless of course they comes back and somehow graduate before 2014 getting themselves taken off the list.

So Clinch, Young, and Crittendon alone are responsible for 10 lost points right now.

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
4:33 pm

404

EXCELLENTLY said.

RAMBLE ON!!!

May 24th, 2011
4:44 pm

Doug, don’t let Joe bother you.

I understand how hard it must be to be positive when you have the likes of Joe.

I wish Paul Phewitt had worked as hard as you do, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now.

Tech Fan Since 1950

May 24th, 2011
5:01 pm

Doug, welcome back, even though Ken has been doing a good job too.

Today’s news is not good, but at least there is something more about Tech in the web paper. Some of us live away from Big A and can’t really get the paper version each day. While I commend you and Ken I think I am getting more upset each day with what appears to be a growing imbalance (at least visually) on the sports web page. Did some one say UGA recruiting? Did someone say UGA depth chart? Yes, you have to cover those things and we Tech fans have to understand, but really things are getting out of whack. We are not that outnumbered, despite what those other mathematicians might say.

Doug Roberson

May 24th, 2011
5:09 pm

Tech Fan Since 1950: If I could suggest a way of helping you: Google alerts will notify you every time we write something about Georgia Tech
You can sign up for Ken Sugiura or Georgia Tech and every time something posts, you’ll get a note with a link to the story.

It’s one way of keeping up to date. Ken has written a lot. I just wrote something about Tech’s baseball team that just posted, for example.

wow

May 24th, 2011
5:24 pm

Look at Duke. They win on the court and in the classroom. Sure GT has been hurt by one and dones, but thats not an excuse. I hope coach Gregory can make things improve on and off the court.

Tech Fan Since 1950

May 24th, 2011
5:26 pm

Doug:

Thank you for your response. I understand. My complaint, and it has nothing to do with you two, is that the visuals on the main web sports page have really been tilting a bit one sided lately, as well as some overall coverage. Maybe the Tech recruiting folks just need to make some more news, but it is not just that. I’ll take your advice. Thanks again!

Team Dream

May 24th, 2011
5:28 pm

Well said ‘Tech Forever’ and ‘404′.

The absence of kids’ pre-college interests in SCIENCE AND MATH are at critical lows nationwide, and it is acutely evident in the state of GA. Why?? I put forth that much of it has to do with fear of being branded a ‘Nerd’ or a ‘Geek’ … a perceived suicide among adolescent social circles. So year after year … generation after generation, the majority of kids (athletes or not) choose to study the Liberal Arts type of curriculums. Or, those that DO choose college majors in Science and Math choose to do so at colleges where there is more variety among the majors and hence more opportunities to socially network with non-scientific and non-mathematical majors (studying Engineering at Vanderbilt, for example).

GT was founded as an Engineering school and has steadily evolved to include heavy emphasis on Science and Technology (both in undergraduate studies and in post-graduate Research). If you attend GT, you cannot hide from the heavy and relatively difficult Science and Math course requirements.

That’s just the way it is … and GT of course should NEVER change … but as long as GT is what it is, it will continue to struggle with academic eligibility of its students (and PARTICULARLY its student-athletes).

Stinger 2

May 24th, 2011
6:11 pm

Can`t wait for the UGA trolls to get on this one. They will convulute this report and have a field day.

Ramblin Man

May 24th, 2011
6:56 pm

Tech Forever,
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it did and was confused when I read differently. Be nice if the NCAA took things like majors into account when schools post some of these really high scores. Take UGA for example. How does a school have such a high special admit rate then fall just behind Vandy? UGA graduates relax I know actual students and some athletes major in well actual relevant majors

O...

May 24th, 2011
7:15 pm

Enter your comments here

gt4ever

May 24th, 2011
7:21 pm

The NCAA’s APR score/scale is a…TOTAL…FREAKIN…JOKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bingo! Couldn’t have said it better….. APR the ultimate in Hypocrisy!

gt4ever

May 24th, 2011
7:25 pm

WOW,

Please compare the curriculum between Duke and GT…… I mean some of you people must have a hard time chewing gum and walking at the same time….

Oh, here we go again...

May 24th, 2011
7:28 pm

…”my school is better than yours” because I say so – blah, blah, blahfriggin’ blah.

You are absolutely correct, Tech Forever, Tech is a VERY GOOD engineering school, but no where near MIT or Cal Tech. And, please, never try to compare an education at Tech to an education at Duke, whether it be rocket scientist vs MD or athlete vs athlete – you lose every time!

So, cry me a river and keep recruiting those high scholar basketball recruits with which the school has had so much success both on and off the court…and who continue to haunt the school academically and athletically (lucky you have a new b-ball coach who might now recruit REAL student -athletes).

Oh, here we go again...

May 24th, 2011
7:32 pm

Enter your comments here

Yep...

May 24th, 2011
7:34 pm

Tech is so much better academically than UGA that Tech has 3 Rhodes Scholars to UGA’s 21 (uh, never mind…) Robot roll call, please…

Reality

May 24th, 2011
8:00 pm

Duke has a 3 year degree for athletes. If Tech had that three year degree, I’m sure Tech would be just fine.

CoolBreeze

May 24th, 2011
8:18 pm

Hey, Yep – Sure. That’s why, while working for a Fortune 500 company for 40 years, I have worked with dozens of Tech grads….and One Dawg. Is it a company heavy in technology? Yes. And you don’t get a lot of Rhodes Scholars out of engineering curricula. BTW….where do you get your info? I suspect out of your nether imagination…..

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
8:49 pm

Oh, here we go again…

So you think getting a degree in Sociology with those core requirements is tougher than getting a degree in Business Mgmt degree with basically engineering program core requirements? No wonder you’re a Georgia fan.

Team Dream

May 24th, 2011
8:52 pm

Point taken ‘Yep…’ … I was not aware of the great # of Rhodes Scholars from UGA.

Delbert D.

May 24th, 2011
8:59 pm

Only football matters. Basketball, field hockey, rodeo and the others are just diversions. In football, Georgia and Florida (976) are 2nd behind Vanderbilt (977). Clemson (977), is the highest ranked public institution in the ACC. Georgia Tech (966) is 2nd in that category.

Worm

May 24th, 2011
9:25 pm

Who wrote that headline-Bruce Pearl

gt4ever

May 24th, 2011
10:04 pm

Oh here we go again…….. You must be a UGA fan! Yes GT ranks right up there with both schools, MIT and Cal Tech……

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
10:31 pm

Georgia Tech scored a 907 in 2006-07. So we will be replacing a pretty low score next year with the 2010-11 score. In order to get to 925 for the 4 year average next Spring Tech must score 947 for this current year. The AA already knows if this number is going to be hit as finals are over, grades are in, and the attrition for next fall has already been calculated barring a summertime transfer which is rare but even if that happened it’ll only cost Tech 1 point and I doubt we’re going to lost 13 players to midsummer transfers (960-947 for you Georgia fans). We do get dinged with Shumpert’s early departure in losing 1 point for his not enrolling next fall and if he doesn’t graduate before 2013 he’ll come back to haunt our score with a 2 point non-graduation penalty. we will see 4 points deducted automatically next year for Crittendon and Young not graduating this 2011 Spring Semester too. That’s one of the problems with this formula. Those two leave after their freshman year and we’re hit with a 2 point penalty for Fall 2007 because they didn’t enroll and then we’re hit again in 2011 because their 5 year graduation mark comes due. So whereas they didn’t hurt us again during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 scores they will return with a 4 point “hit” in 2010-11 because they didn’t graduate.

Tech Forever

May 24th, 2011
10:42 pm

My point is even considering the 4 points those two are going to cost us I don;t see Tech dropping from 960 in 2009-10 to below 947 in 2010-11.

Interestingly I have a friend at Kentucky who I spoke with. I asked him how in the world is UK posting such high APR scores. He said, “Simple. Once the kids are leaving early the academic advisement office is getting them to file an official transfer out of UK. So whereas we get hit with a one point penalty because they aren’t enrolling the next fall semester, they come off our rolls because of the transfer so if they never graduate we never get dinged again.”

Old Blind Dawg

May 25th, 2011
7:22 am

If GT wishes to keep its haughty “Academic Excellence” status perhaps they need to join the Ivy League. Why does GT insist on requiring Calculus for non engineering majors. Times have changed computers run the world not slide rules. How many people actually use Calculus in their everyday life?

As GT slides into athletic mediocrity the fans constantly remind us – “we have calculus” – WTF. Who cares. You can have high academic standards and athletic success – all GT needs to do is discontinue the BS. I suspect many at GT continue the charade as it allows them to hide behind the “academic shield” when they can’t compete on the athletic field.

reality

May 25th, 2011
7:36 am

GT’s Mission: to academically prepare young men and women to excel in their chosen profession.

UGA’s Mission: to recruit quality athletes to achieve Preseason Number 1 football status.

Old Blind Dawg

May 25th, 2011
7:48 am

Hey reality get off your high horse. GT has recruited and signed more than its fair share of mental midgets. Using academic standards to cover your weak athletics is getting old.

lucky21

May 25th, 2011
7:54 am

What everyone doesnt understand here is how differently Tech works compared to MIT Cal Tech or the Ivy League schools is that while it is a whole lot easier to get into to tech than any of those schools, it is a lot harder to stay in tech than those other schools Techs philosophy is to accept lower admissions standards(which are still higher than UGAs), and then to weed students out for two years before they make things easier gpa wise. I know of a professor who is actually on academic probation for not failing enough students, and having too high a gpa in a weedout course. In all those other schools once they have you they do everything they can to help you stay in.

reality

May 25th, 2011
7:57 am

Blind Dog….I sense a little jealousy.

bulldog steve

May 25th, 2011
8:02 am

Tech Forever. You have way too much time on your hands! Anybody that gets that defensive and tries to explain things away so much, has something to hide.

Dumbo

May 25th, 2011
8:05 am

Tech Forever….”Earluy departures do hurt a school”….now I see understand

icallbs

May 25th, 2011
8:17 am

TECH has students that generally have higher aptitude in math and engineering. That’s great, academically speaking. Sports-wise, not so much so. You are what you are. Yes, Georgia has a lot of easy academic paths because it is not a “trade” school (which in many ways is a very positive thing – we need more people in “trades”). Georgia is better in football and unless TECH changes its charter it always will be. Get over it. There are plenty of really bright, and quite wealthy people that went to Georgia, by the way.

Old Blind Dawg

May 25th, 2011
8:23 am

LMAO @ reality. What’s to be jealous about. I have relatives that have attended GT and UGA. The topic is not about UGA it is about GT and the inability to compete athletically because they are stuck in the 50’s with their haughty mindset.

GT will not win an ACC title in a major sport in the next 20 years but hey they can do calculus with the best of them. Admit it – the GT experience is for nerds.

Georgia

May 25th, 2011
8:33 am

Tech continues to prove their delusional hypocritical fan base stills thinks their athletes are smarter than the other local school who continues to whoop em on the gridiron.
example: “Yeah, but we’re smarter!”.. “Our players have to study more”

DawginLex

May 25th, 2011
9:05 am

reality= Naive person who actually believes all the stereotypes that his buddies say about folks who went to Georgia. Ignores the FACTS that successful bankers, lawyers, landscape contractors, veternarians, doctors, hospital executives, accountants etc graduated from Georgia and are doing well in the business world.

Broaden your horizons son. Leave the house every now and then and talk to someone other than your friends who all went to Tech.

There is a big wide world out there full of people who went to lots of other schools, including Georgia who are doing quite well.

I love CPJ

May 25th, 2011
9:22 am

Yeah, but wait until the Fish Fry!!