Two TU stories

[B9j2j6s]

UA has bad grades

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp...sdate=9/29/2006

 

Thrower won't play

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp...sdate=9/29/2006

 

Two stories on the same day and neither is that positive for UA, while both have nice things to say about Siena. I would like to see this report if anyone can find it.

 

BTW we usually have high numbers when it comes to All Academic Teams, we also had a scholor-athlete of the year last year.

[UAalum72]

UA has bad grades

  I would like to see this report if anyone can find it.   

 

 

16607[/snapback]

Link from here

[Dane Pound]

I'm not sure I'll completely get this until I've had some coffee but here goes.

 

According to the that study Albany's scores were based on one class year because we just went to Division I just a few years ago. The other schools scores are based on a four year average. So to put the numbers side by side doesn't really seem fair to me.

[steve_gersztoff]

UA has bad grades

  I would like to see this report if anyone can find it.   

 

 

16607[/snapback]

Link from here

16608[/snapback]

 

Whatever. Foolish to issue. Even dumber to give credence to the silly thing. The Times Useless just couldn't resist.

 

From the article:

 

"McElroy said he considers the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate to be a more current and accurate indicator of where the UAlbany athletic program stands.

 

The APR is an accountability measure instituted by the NCAA to track athlete eligibility and retention. In the latest APR report last February, based on data from 2003-2005, all of UAlbany's teams were above the threshold needed to avoid NCAA penalties."

 

Not only does UA avoid NCAA penalties, but many of the school's teams (though I mainly focused on men's bball) have a higher APR than that of many prestigious public universities-- and even some private schools, as well-- including one very nearby.

 

NCAA APR's

[olddog71]

I personally just don't understand the purpose of the report. All the data is so dated. What is the real purpose of issuing such reports to the public on information that is so old.

 

None of the students sampled is still enrolled. Few of the administrators or coaches are still in place. What is the report supposed to accomplish?

 

With all the money the NCAA has, it certainly has computers powerful enough to digest all the data it is fed from all its member schools on all their athletes and present information that is much more current. We should be able to view data already on students who just graduated last spring.

 

Like some of the others who have already posted on this topic, I question the motives of the Times Union and Mark Singelais for (1) posting the data and (2) putting us and Siena together. I thought the newspaper wasn't supposed to engage in this sibling rivalry garbage.

[Clickclack]

Watch the ‘aints Stony Brook bags run with this as if their ego wasn’t big enough. Instead of worrying about this, perhaps they should be asking why they LOST 1200+ season ticket holders from last year. Inevitably this will turn into a pissing contest of who has the better student athletes, campus, programs what ever. I guess when you see your college basketball monopoly on the local market slip through you fingers like sand you’ll grasp for anything.

[UAalum72]

OD71, the NCAA gives students six years to graduate, so this data goes for students who had until June 2005, I think? Unfortunately, it still hasn't gotten to the basketball players recruited and run off by Scott Beeten and the following events.

[Patch]

Watch the ‘aints Stony Brook bags run with this as if their ego wasn’t big enough. Instead of worrying about this, perhaps they should be asking why they LOST 1200+ season ticket holders from last year. Inevitably this will turn into a pissing contest  - bosiydid

 

That's amusing knowing them they'll wind up peeing into the wind again.