Go to class, you damn knuckleheads.
Earlier this week, the NCAA released its latest Academic Progress Rate (APR) data. While the APR is all sorts of screwy in its design, implementation, and purpose, the NCAA still utilizes it as a method to flush out evildoing institutions that aren't all that interested in graduating its student-athletes.
For the latest cohort identified (academic year 2009-2010), two Division I men's programs -- Detroit and Providence -- failed to meet the threshold scores the APR requires over a multi-year period. As a result, they're receiving the following penalties:
- Detroit -- Immediate Penalty: 1.26 scholarship reduction. Will not be subject to a historic penalty as their APR was built on a two-year cohort.
- Providence -- Immediate Penalty: 0.95 scholarship reduction.
Jacksonville also fell below the APR threshold score of 925 but will not suffer any immediate penalties as its rating is based on a one-year cohort. There is reason to be concerned about Jacksonville's score, however:
- The Dolphins' current head coach -- Matt Kerwick -- was the head man at Hobart before taking over the Jacksonville program.
- Prior to and during Kerwick's tenure at Hobart, the Statesmen committed major NCAA violations with respect to its men's lacrosse program. The following snippet illustrates what was going on in Geneva:
Through the same 14 year period [1994-1995 through 2008], the institution failed to track progress-toward-degree requirements for members of the men's lacrosse team. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that, during the 2005-06 academic year, one student- athlete ("student-athlete") competed even though he failed to meet NCAA satisfactory progress requirements.
The NCAA report said there was a lack of institutional control and that "Neither the director of athletics, the head coach, nor the compliance officer had an understanding of who among them was responsible for ensuring the initial eligibility of men's lacrosse student-athletes."
It is possible that this is simply coincidence. It is also possible that this is how Kerwick operates. This isn't an accusation but merely an illustration of two facts that may or may not be related.