GamecockSeven
01-04-2008, 09:51 AM
PHILADELPHIA — When South Carolina's Ray Tanner and Clemson's Jack Leggett passionately oppose parts of the Academic Progress Rate and much of the new NCAA legislation, you know something is wrong.
Both are highly respected by their peers in the coaching community, and Leggett took charge in criticizing the NCAA for parts of the APR and new legislation in Thursday night's Division I meeting. Tanner also posed some tough questions.
Since coming to the forefront at the College World Series last June, the APR, Academic Enhancement Group recommendations and new legislation have garnered headlines for various reasons.
The supposed goal of the sweeping changes is to help student-athletes graduate, but some coaches feel the rules will make that more difficult because of timing and other hours-related issues.
That's why Leggett took center stage.
"With our sport the way it already is, we have to be selective with limited scholarships," he said. "If we want to do what is best for the student-athletes, we need more flexibility."
This debate begins and ends with scholarship totals and the use of scholarships.
Most programs have 11.7 scholarships at their disposal, but coaches would like to see this number climb to 14. In addition to increasing the money that goes to ballplayers, a rise in scholarships could improve APR scores.
When the APR study began a few years ago, the two-year score for baseball was 931, which was third lowest of all NCAA sports behind football (929) and basketball (927). After three years, baseball's APR score was 935. Though improved, the score still ranks third lowest among NCAA sports.
The baseball APR score of 935 is measured on a 1,000 point scale. This means 925 points is equivalent to a 60% Graduation Success Rate. Meanwhile, 900 points is equivalent to a 45% GSR.
A steady improvement in overall APR score could increase the likelihood of the NCAA granting more scholarships to baseball.
Tough as it may be to get passed, many coaches are committed to the fight for more financial support.
"Football and basketball players have summer school paid for, while baseball players are limited," North Florida assistant Bob Shepherd said. "Our student-athletes need help doing what no other sport is expected to do. We need help paying for summer school."
Not only would more summer support lead to better APR scores, it would also allow student-athletes to accrue more hours — a noticeable problem, according to officials.
ABCA Executive Director Dave Keilitz displayed these statistics at Thursday's meeting: The latest numbers indicate that 40% of lost APR points are as a result of eligibility issues, mainly dealing with total classroom hours, not grade-point averages. Additionally, 60% of the reason APR points were lost dealt with retention and transfers.
Though much attention has been placed on quelling the numbers of transfers during the past year, more emphasis must be placed on getting players in position to complete more hours.
"In general, I think college baseball players are pretty good students," South Carolina coach Ray Tanner said. "Our team recently had a 3.0 (GPA), but were unable to accumulate a lot of hours because of summer baseball."
"Given the unique nature of our sport, you'd think the role of summer baseball would be understood."
Even with substantial support, there is some resistance from the 50% of Division I schools who have yet to get 11.7 scholarships from their respective institutions.
Disagree or not, coaches should want the best for their players.
"If you have to tell a player he can't go to your school or you have to cut a current player, it's not helping the kid," Leggett said. "With much of the APR and new legislation, I'm failing to see how these changes help student-athletes. If anything, they hurt."
Kendall Rogers is the college baseball editor for Rivals.com. He can be reached at rogersk@yahoo-inc.com (rogersk@yahoo-inc.com).
http://collegebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=757784
Both are highly respected by their peers in the coaching community, and Leggett took charge in criticizing the NCAA for parts of the APR and new legislation in Thursday night's Division I meeting. Tanner also posed some tough questions.
Since coming to the forefront at the College World Series last June, the APR, Academic Enhancement Group recommendations and new legislation have garnered headlines for various reasons.
The supposed goal of the sweeping changes is to help student-athletes graduate, but some coaches feel the rules will make that more difficult because of timing and other hours-related issues.
That's why Leggett took center stage.
"With our sport the way it already is, we have to be selective with limited scholarships," he said. "If we want to do what is best for the student-athletes, we need more flexibility."
This debate begins and ends with scholarship totals and the use of scholarships.
Most programs have 11.7 scholarships at their disposal, but coaches would like to see this number climb to 14. In addition to increasing the money that goes to ballplayers, a rise in scholarships could improve APR scores.
When the APR study began a few years ago, the two-year score for baseball was 931, which was third lowest of all NCAA sports behind football (929) and basketball (927). After three years, baseball's APR score was 935. Though improved, the score still ranks third lowest among NCAA sports.
The baseball APR score of 935 is measured on a 1,000 point scale. This means 925 points is equivalent to a 60% Graduation Success Rate. Meanwhile, 900 points is equivalent to a 45% GSR.
A steady improvement in overall APR score could increase the likelihood of the NCAA granting more scholarships to baseball.
Tough as it may be to get passed, many coaches are committed to the fight for more financial support.
"Football and basketball players have summer school paid for, while baseball players are limited," North Florida assistant Bob Shepherd said. "Our student-athletes need help doing what no other sport is expected to do. We need help paying for summer school."
Not only would more summer support lead to better APR scores, it would also allow student-athletes to accrue more hours — a noticeable problem, according to officials.
ABCA Executive Director Dave Keilitz displayed these statistics at Thursday's meeting: The latest numbers indicate that 40% of lost APR points are as a result of eligibility issues, mainly dealing with total classroom hours, not grade-point averages. Additionally, 60% of the reason APR points were lost dealt with retention and transfers.
Though much attention has been placed on quelling the numbers of transfers during the past year, more emphasis must be placed on getting players in position to complete more hours.
"In general, I think college baseball players are pretty good students," South Carolina coach Ray Tanner said. "Our team recently had a 3.0 (GPA), but were unable to accumulate a lot of hours because of summer baseball."
"Given the unique nature of our sport, you'd think the role of summer baseball would be understood."
Even with substantial support, there is some resistance from the 50% of Division I schools who have yet to get 11.7 scholarships from their respective institutions.
Disagree or not, coaches should want the best for their players.
"If you have to tell a player he can't go to your school or you have to cut a current player, it's not helping the kid," Leggett said. "With much of the APR and new legislation, I'm failing to see how these changes help student-athletes. If anything, they hurt."
Kendall Rogers is the college baseball editor for Rivals.com. He can be reached at rogersk@yahoo-inc.com (rogersk@yahoo-inc.com).
http://collegebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=757784