Wow....Stans at 901...penalties start at 900 I believe

[JR]

doesnt seem like he has a lot of room for mistakes.

 

[MissStFan87]

[No message]

 

[jakldawg]

The APR breakdowns for football and basketball.
and this.

Athletes can earn two points per term. One point is for being academically eligible for the next term or graduating. The other point is for returning to school the next term or graduating.
The APR is a percentage score multiplied by 10. So if a team gets 95 percent of its possible points, its score would be 950 out of a possible 1,000.
The NCAA set a base limit of 925, under which teams can be penalized, including loss of scholarships. The scores released this year cover four academic years, 2003-04 through '06-07.

this is where our troubling history of transfers can really bite us in the ***.

 

[Dawgbreeze]

If Stans lost a scholly, it would be no big deal. He will still recruit the good ones and succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[JacksonDevilDog]

I totally agree with Dawgbreeze. It would suck losing the schollie, but Stans would find a way. To compete in this conference basically year in and year out at MSU like Stansbury has is big time. We have nearly zero resources like most of the teams we compete against and the AD hates him and won't even give him money to buy a microwave for the coaches office. Seriously, Stansbury said this at the 120 Club meeting in Jackson. It must be tough to suceed at a job where your boss doesn't like you and tries to stick it to you and you just keep on winning.

 

[mstateglfr]

If Stans lost a scholly, it would be no big deal. He will still recruit the good ones and succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble.

ok, but wouldnt it be kinda nice to not be on this side of the rule? just for the fact that we wouldnt have to be penalized? even if the penalty doesnt effectively hurt us, that isnt a good enough reason to say its 'no big deal'.
</p>

perception is everything. perception by the media and other coaches is what helps or hurts in recruiting...and to get the 'good ones' you talk about, dont ya think its better to not be on the wrong side of this?
</p>

 

[graddawg]

money quote:

</p>

The scores released this year cover four academic years, 2003-04 through '06-07

We're right on the edge without even factoring in Ben or Jamont. I feel pretty confident in saying we will lose a scholly next year.

 

[bullysleftnut]

We're right on the edge without even factoring in Ben or Jamont. I feel pretty confident in saying we will lose a scholly next year.

According to ESPN , you only get penalized for 3 consecutive years of below 900. We haven't been below 900 yet. Also, this recent report covers 03-04 through 06-07, so the only thing dinging us for next year will be Hansbrough leaving. Since he's still in good academic standing we won't get hit for anything other than his transferring. He should still graduate on time.

We're fine.

EDITED: I misread the ESPN article. Three consecutive < 900 scores leads to a postseason ban. I'm assuming you don't get penalized unless you have more than one consecutive < 900 score. However, my point still stands. We haven't been below 900 yet, and the score reflects the massive transfers we've had over the last few years. We only lost Ben this past season so we're fine.

 

[TilloDawg]

We have nearly zero resources like most of the teams we compete against and the AD hates him and won't even give him money to buy a microwave for the coaches office. Seriously, Stansbury said this at the 120 Club meeting in Jackson.

Stans is a millionaire.........seriously, couldn't he just flip a manager a benjamin and go down to the store for a 17'n microwave ?

 

[KurtRambis4]

.

 

[DerHntr]

what is unfortunate is that it appears as a whole that college basketball is doing better this year over previous years....state, not so much. see graphic below from NCAA official website today.

</p>