APR by Year/Coach

[The Great 8]

I don't know that this is some novel observation, OP. It's been theorized that we're not even going after certain kids because we don't think they'd make the grades. CJL would've found a way.

 

That said, I'm friends with several players on my FB, there's a clear... delineation ... between CJL guys and non in many cases. I won't name names, but one former player essentially called out football scholarships as a scam and that college is BS. A number of his former teammates agreed. It was disappointing to read.

[The Great 8]

FWIW - I think we should lower our (academic) standards and recruit more on the edge again. It gives some folks opportunities that wouldn't otherwise get them, and it increases our profile for "real" student/athletes who want to win.

Edited November 20, 2014 by The Great 8

[Mama_Bull]

FWIW - I think we should lower our (academic) standards and recruit more on the edge again. It gives some folks opportunities that wouldn't otherwise get them, and it increases our profile for "real" student/athletes who want to win.

I remember looking at the recruits Holtz was bringing in and couldn't believe how many had offers from Duke. Of course, at the time, he was under the constraints of the academic committee, and no doubt those players would certainly help our APR in the coming years. How they would do on the field was a different story.

Under Leavitt, (before the academic committee), we had many more players who failed to qualify. However, Leavitt was able to place a number of them at Pearl River CC and other JUCOS, and some of them eventually made it back to USF and had successful careers.

After the committee was formed, Leavitt started to see that some of his recruits were not going to be accepted by them and that created a number awkward and embarassing situations in recruiting. As a result, his hands were somewhat tied and that eventually started to show itself by the product on the field.

I still feel badly for the way that committe undermined Stan Heath for several years. A number of his signees who were denied admission were able to sign with major basketball schools.

If the NCAA clears a player, we should not override them. It might make us feel good to have higher standards than our competition, but it creates a distinct disadvantage in recruiting. I know that UL accepted a number of players we rejected and they are now in the ACC, but we can happily say that we have the better APR. LOL

[charsibb]

FWIW - I think we should lower our (academic) standards and recruit more on the edge again. It gives some folks opportunities that wouldn't otherwise get them, and it increases our profile for "real" student/athletes who want to win.

 

You can reduce the ENTRY standards all you want, but you can't reduce the EXIT standards, because that degrades the value of all of our diplomas.

 

The only way your plan will work is if:

 

a. you are prepared to give each of them enough individual and remedial tutoring to make sure they graduate, or

 

b. you don't care if they graduate and expect to kick them to the curb after their eligibility is up.

 

I believe that if you commit to a player, and they commit to you, then option A is the only moral choice

[Dogma]

 

FWIW - I think we should lower our (academic) standards and recruit more on the edge again. It gives some folks opportunities that wouldn't otherwise get them, and it increases our profile for "real" student/athletes who want to win.

I remember looking at the recruits Holtz was bringing in and couldn't believe how many had offers from Duke. Of course, at the time, he was under the constraints of the academic committee, and no doubt those players would certainly help our APR in the coming years. How they would do on the field was a different story.

Under Leavitt, (before the academic committee), we had many more players who failed to qualify. However, Leavitt was able to place a number of them at Pearl River CC and other JUCOS, and some of them eventually made it back to USF and had successful careers.

After the committee was formed, Leavitt started to see that some of his recruits were not going to be accepted by them and that created a number awkward and embarassing situations in recruiting. As a result, his hands were somewhat tied and that eventually started to show itself by the product on the field.

I still feel badly for the way that committe undermined Stan Heath for several years. A number of his signees who were denied admission were able to sign with major basketball schools.

If the NCAA clears a player, we should not override them. It might make us feel good to have higher standards than our competition, but it creates a distinct disadvantage in recruiting. I know that UL accepted a number of players we rejected and they are now in the ACC, but we can happily say that we have the better APR. LOL

 

 

SPOT ON.

 

 

I think the Academic Committee really hurt USF in both basketball and football, recruiting-wise... which in turn really hurt in on field/court performance.

I do understand what USF was attempting to do.. but I think they did a poor job of implementing it.

 

I do think if the committee had never existed, USF Athletics would be in a whole different situation right now... and some ex-coaches would still be around.

[fla331boy]

 

 

FWIW - I think we should lower our (academic) standards and recruit more on the edge again. It gives some folks opportunities that wouldn't otherwise get them, and it increases our profile for "real" student/athletes who want to win.

I remember looking at the recruits Holtz was bringing in and couldn't believe how many had offers from Duke. Of course, at the time, he was under the constraints of the academic committee, and no doubt those players would certainly help our APR in the coming years. How they would do on the field was a different story.

Under Leavitt, (before the academic committee), we had many more players who failed to qualify. However, Leavitt was able to place a number of them at Pearl River CC and other JUCOS, and some of them eventually made it back to USF and had successful careers.

After the committee was formed, Leavitt started to see that some of his recruits were not going to be accepted by them and that created a number awkward and embarassing situations in recruiting. As a result, his hands were somewhat tied and that eventually started to show itself by the product on the field.

I still feel badly for the way that committe undermined Stan Heath for several years. A number of his signees who were denied admission were able to sign with major basketball schools.

If the NCAA clears a player, we should not override them. It might make us feel good to have higher standards than our competition, but it creates a distinct disadvantage in recruiting. I know that UL accepted a number of players we rejected and they are now in the ACC, but we can happily say that we have the better APR. LOL

 

 

SPOT ON.

 

 

I think the Academic Committee really hurt USF in both basketball and football, recruiting-wise... which in turn really hurt in on field/court performance.

I do understand what USF was attempting to do.. but I think they did a poor job of implementing it.

 

I do think if the committee had never existed, USF Athletics would be in a whole different situation right now... and some ex-coaches would still be around.

 

 

 

So if that's the case, who should really get the blame (Doug)? Somehwere someone did a very poor job at making sure we stayed in thr running for certain recruits with the changes that were made.

 

My intention for the post was to show that with the change in standard, it seemed to affect us much more than the other colleges/universities when it came to recruiting. Basketball and old Coach Stan saw much of it as well.

[fla331boy]

 

What do you think is interesting ? 

 

How we landed on the moon.

 

Comparing the APR of our three coaches and how the GPA and graduation rate is much better than previous teams. I'm sure we could be much better if we went after kids that were great athletes but no idea where the library is on campus.

 

Look at Leon Allen at WKU for instance. He missed his whole junior year due to grades and then was a beast and helped earn a class 7A State Championship while at Manatee.

 

Yes, we want wins but we need to be able to make sure these kids learn a thing or two as well. When CJL started, he didn't have the smartest kids on the block but he sure did put some wins together. So, with everyone complaining about CWT and how he should be fired, why don't we lower our academic standard and start to recruit athletes that are "gamers?"

 

 

 

Leon Allen Article

[Who'sYourData?]

 

FWIW - I think we should lower our (academic) standards and recruit more on the edge again. It gives some folks opportunities that wouldn't otherwise get them, and it increases our profile for "real" student/athletes who want to win.

I remember looking at the recruits Holtz was bringing in and couldn't believe how many had offers from Duke. Of course, at the time, he was under the constraints of the academic committee, and no doubt those players would certainly help our APR in the coming years. How they would do on the field was a different story.

Under Leavitt, (before the academic committee), we had many more players who failed to qualify. However, Leavitt was able to place a number of them at Pearl River CC and other JUCOS, and some of them eventually made it back to USF and had successful careers.

After the committee was formed, Leavitt started to see that some of his recruits were not going to be accepted by them and that created a number awkward and embarassing situations in recruiting. As a result, his hands were somewhat tied and that eventually started to show itself by the product on the field.

I still feel badly for the way that committe undermined Stan Heath for several years. A number of his signees who were denied admission were able to sign with major basketball schools.

If the NCAA clears a player, we should not override them. It might make us feel good to have higher standards than our competition, but it creates a distinct disadvantage in recruiting. I know that UL accepted a number of players we rejected and they are now in the ACC, but we can happily say that we have the better APR. LOL

 

 

Notre Dame has far higher standards than USF, and they manage to win games.  Ditto Stanford, not to mention how well Duke has been playing. 

 

There really are no excuses, especially in an athlete rich state such as Florida.

[Mama_Bull]

USF is not in a G5 conference, unlike those schools. That is a real drawback in recruiting. Even when we were in the Big East, which was considered the worst of the BCS conferences, we had difficulty in recruiting.

As for Florida, not only does UF, FSU and Miami recruit here, but so does just about every other G5 school.

They get the majority of top athletes who are also decent students.

If we want to be "competitive" with them, then the reality is that we have to take more risks.

[slick1ru2]

I don't know that this is some novel observation, OP. It's been theorized that we're not even going after certain kids because we don't think they'd make the grades. CJL would've found a way.

 

That said, I'm friends with several players on my FB, there's a clear... delineation ... between CJL guys and non in many cases. I won't name names, but one former player essentially called out football scholarships as a scam and that college is BS. A number of his former teammates agreed. It was disappointing to read.

This has been in the news in forms of books (The System), documentaries (Schooled), and the scandal at UNC.

http://www.amazon.com/The-System-Scandal-Big-Time-Football/dp/0385536615

http://youtu.be/Eud02vzuzOU

http://nypost.com/2014/11/16/unc-scandal-isnt-about-athletics-its-about-empty-degrees/