If you took a stroll down High Street along the campus of The Ohio State University on a warm, muggy late spring afternoon, like today for instance, and asked 10 different people what “APR” meant, you’d probably hear the same answers.

Most would probably think you are inquiring about a credit card or student loan, with their definition of “APR” being an interest rate.

After educating myself all afternoon, I may have a handle on this “APR” that had Ohio State basketball fans worried yesterday.

In 2004, the NCAA developed an Academic Progress Rate (APR) standard that examines academic success on a more real-time basis. One point is awarded each term to each scholarship student-athlete who meets academic-eligibility standards and an additional point is awarded if they remain with the institution.

A team’s APR is the total points earned by the team at a given time divided by the total points possible. A cutoff score of 925 corresponds to an anticipated graduation-rate of about 50%.

Teams that fall below the cutoff score on a statistically-significant basis are subject to contemporaneous penalties consisting of a loss of scholarships in that sport. These penalties start after two years of data are collected and normally take effect the following academic year.

Teams that habitually fail to meet the cutoff can be subject to historical penalties. Historical penalties may include additional scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, lack of access to postseason competition, and restricted membership.

The NCAA Division I 2005 - 2006 Academic Progress Rate as reported on April 30, 2007, is based on information submitted by member institutions for the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 academic years.

The Ohio State men’s basketball team scored a multiyear APR of 902, but was not subjected to contemporaneous penalties due to the squad-size adjustment. The adjusted total with “upper confidence boundary” was 930.

The “upper confidence boundary” of a team’s APR must be below 925 for that team to be subject to contemporaneous penalties. Squad-size adjustments will be eliminated when the fourth year of APR data is collected, provided the team’s multiyear cohort includes 30 or more student-athletes. The adjustment helps ensure that low-performing teams are accurately identified given the smaller than intended data set.

This marks the third year of the APR (2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06) and the final year of using an upper confidence boundary. When the APR was initially instituted, the upper confidence boundary was established for use in the determination of any institutional penalties until four years of data was available. A margin of error in statistics known as a confidence boundary is a short-term tool used until a larger sample becomes available.

Additionally, just because a team falls below the contemporaneous penalty cut score of 925 does not mean they will lose scholarships. A team below the 925 score would only lose scholarships if the team had a student-athlete depart the institution with eligibility remaining and the student-athlete did not achieve the appropriate academic eligibility requirements.

Got it? Have you been able to follow so far? Confusing, isn’t it?

Now according to information obtained by BanterBanter.com with the help of Bob Baptist of the Columbus Dispatch, this is what I have learned:

a) Oden petitioned and was granted a withdrawal from the University during the week of May 14-18.

b) Oden left The Ohio State University in good academic standing.

c) His withdrawal from spring quarter classes will not help the Ohio State men’s basketball APR score the next time that these results are tabulated, but his early departure won’t hurt, either.

But the bottom line is this: the Ohio State men’s basketball program should not lose a scholarship since Oden left school because even though he had eligibility remaining (three years), he left meeting the academic requirements.

“My understanding is that because he withdrew, it triggers back to his eligibility coming out of winter quarter,” said John Bruno, the OSU athletic department’s faculty representative in the Columbus Dispatch.

“He was making very good progress at the end of winter quarter, and, therefore, according to NCAA parameters, he would professionalize at a time when he was in good academic standing.”

I’m not sure that this plan is the best option for putting the student back in student-athlete as some coaches are already pressuring the NCAA to go back on these aggressive academic reforms put in place three years ago.

Over 300 various teams in the NCAA are headed down the wrong path and will face sanctions next year if they don’t change their ways.

It appears that Ohio State isn’t one of them.

Tags: Buckeye Basketball //