It's even lower than football and barely above men's track.

Why is men's track so even worse?

I would assume most of the kids in track (and football) probably come from the lower end of the economic spectrum. That usually goes hand-in-hand with lower grades. Swimming not so much. Even stranger since our women's team seems to have the highest GPA in the dept. every year.

quote:

---

Men's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2005 - 2006 938
Men's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2006 - 2007 934
Men's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2007 - 2008 917 Immediate Penalty - Scholarship Reduction = 0.99
Men's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2008 - 2009 925
Men's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 934

---

other than the 1 year, why do you think these are low? Are you comparing them to other sports or just feel they are low in and of themselves?

[This message has been edited by Dumpster Fire (edited 5/25/2011 3:38p).]

My guess now is foreign athletes.

For comparison, UT men's swimming APR is 985. Their men's track is 988. I don't see how their men's basketball is 1,000 considering how many leave school early.

In my experiences, the foreign athletes have generally had higher GPA's than the Americans. Sad to say but true.

'For comparison, UT men's swimming APR is 985. Their men's track is 988. I don't see how their men's basketball is 1,000 considering how many leave school early.'

Excellent point. Would love to see someone check into that.

quote:

---

I don't see how their men's basketball is 1,000 considering how many leave school early.'

---

As long as a student-athlete signs with a professional team AND IS ELIGIBLE WHEN THEY LEAVE THE SCHOOL, they do not take a hit against the team's APR

let me know if you have more questions. This stuff is my job.

Here is a good article on it...

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/05/24/052411-sports-wolken-1-3/

Dumpster - these are interesting figures. Men's swimming at A&M has had weak APR figures for some time. In my view, it is crazy that swimmers have a lower APR score than sports with notoriously weak academic performance.

Swimming is a sport with radically different demographics than sports like mens basketball. I have never seen a Div 1 swimmer from Dallas Carter.

Dumpster - do you think these are good scores?

I think they are acceptable. At my institution these scores would have their respective academic contact and sport administrator looking at the closer so that they do not dip below 925. but to call them low or 'failing' is not fair.

teams can lose points (you only get 2 per semester, total of 4) for any number of reasons. I don't work for A&M but I would venture that the reason these teams are low is because they have smaller numbers so 2 people going 2-4 hurts swimming worse than say 5 kids on football going 2-4.

Academically, football is a lower performing sport in terms of GPA and graduation and APR points but they also have the benefit of numbers and since this is a percentage system you can take those hits more-so than a basketball or swimming team can.

quote:

---

but to call them low or 'failing' is not fair.

---

Perhaps "failing" would be unfair since it breaks the 925 level, but 934 doesn't break the 10th percentile of the nation's swimming programs, or all division I sports for that matter.

Perhaps its unavoidable here and there for the reasons you spoke of, but that program scrapes by every year.

Our peers in the Big 12 (Mizzou and UT-Austin) both just posted APRs approaching 990, and have improved their marks by 27 and 44 points, respectively, since 2005. A&M's APR has decreased by 4 points.

They hold the distinction of being just one of four swimming programs to recieve an immediate scholarship reduction since they started the APR, and as you can see, nearly did it again last year.

I think it's fair to say its low.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 5/25/2011 8:45p).]

I never said "failing." I think they are weak since they are not much above the NCAA's threshold of 925 for penalties. And as pointed out, our Big12 peers are doing much better. And our scores have been "weak" for many years.

I don't get it.

[This message has been edited by SpicewoodAg (edited 5/26/2011 9:23a).]

I agree that it's not a score that we want to see on any of our athletics programs.

Here's the thing -- remember a few years ago when A&M men's swimming was in danger of being cut? (We can deny it all we want, but I think we all know that it was being discussed, even if they were not truly on the brink). But every swimming program that has been threatened with cuts over the past few years has fallen back on their swimmers being huge members of the community (service, etc.) and great students.

Some might think that so long as a program is passing and not losing scholarships, then it's acceptable. In a sport where no program should ever feel safe (heck, even Cal isn't too far removed from the potential of losing their program!) it gets magnified.

DumpsterFire - I know you can't tell us where you work, but can you give us an idea about the size of the school? Is it D-1? Big 6? Just curious.

[This message has been edited by AGBlastoff (edited 5/26/2011 9:08a).]

D-1, mid-major conference.

I was the one who interjected the term failing. And not so much as a term that meant not being successful but more-so falling behind or not measuring up to some standard.

that's why I asked what measuring stick we were all looking at. If we are looking at the fundamental bottom of 925, then they are ok. If we are looking at teams within A&M, we are ok. If we are looking at competitors, then we are behind, obviously.

Now, I don't know of any of my coaches that sue the APR in part of their recruiting so one can argue if it is wise to weigh the APRs against other programs. but as an AD (not me yet) I would definitely hold the APR score against other top programs. My current program I work with is struggling with APR. It is a direct reflection on the type of recruit my coach goes after AS WELL AS the lack of importance my coach puts on academic success. In this situation, all we are worried about this year is getting to 925. next year it will be to continue to raise the APR.

My first question was perspective based. In my situation and perspective, anything 925+ is good and acceptable. Next year our expectations will be higher so a 934 would not be as good to see as a 970.

[This message has been edited by Dumpster Fire (edited 5/26/2011 10:38a).]

quote:

---

If we are looking at teams within A&M, we are ok.

---

How is that?

quote:

---

My first question was perspective based. In my situation and perspective, anything 925+ is good and acceptable. Next year our expectations will be higher so a 934 would not be as good to see as a 970.

---

That's kind of the issue. They're not improving.

I don't work for an AD, but my father's a head coach of a D-1 program. Their attitude has always been that if you're not improving, but rather scraping by just looking to hit 50% graduation rates, it's going to bite you eventually. I agree that 925 is the immediate goal, but again, you really want to see improvement.

It's already happened to this particular program and they were one kid with a bad test or two from losing a scholarship for a second straight year. That's what rubs me the wrong way.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 5/26/2011 1:24p).]

quote:

---

quote:
If we are looking at teams within A&M, we are ok.


How is that?

---

Here are all of the APRs for 2009-2010 for A&M:

Year Multi-Year Rate Penalties
Baseball Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 983
Football Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 940
Men's Basketball Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 952
Men's Cross Country Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 969
Men's Golf Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 962
Men's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 934
Men's Tennis Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 944
Men's Track, Indoor Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 932
Men's Track, Outdoor Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 944
Softball Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 973
Women's Basketball Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 961
Women's Cross Country Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 995
Women's Golf Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 974
Women's Soccer Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 988
Women's Swimming Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 987
Women's Tennis Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 992
Women's Track, Indoor Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 958
Women's Track, Outdoor Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 958
Women's Volleyball Texas A&M University, College Station TX 2009 - 2010 965


MSwimming isn't the lowest but they aren't good. They are ok, to me.

quote:

---

That's kind of the issue. They're not improving.

I don't work for an AD, but my father's a head coach of a D-1 program. Their attitude has always been that if you're not improving, but rather scraping by just looking to hit 50% graduation rates, it's going to bite you eventually. I agree that 925 is the immediate goal, but again, you really want to see improvement.

It's already happened to this particular program and they were one kid with a bad test or two from losing a scholarship for a second straight year.

---

I understand and agree that if you're not improving then something is wrong. A program needs to have two views on the APR issue:

1. Get a 925+ now and you're safe. This is obviously the immediate issue for a school year. One or two kids not returning or not passing 6/18 hours, etc can be huge for a small team. So, let's worry about this year and get that 925+.

2. We need to improve (recruiting, academic services, academic support and philosophy) so that if we do happen to hit a year where we take some hits, our 4-yr average is still acceptable.

It's a fine line with many different issues.

Also, if the current coaches wanted to, they need to contact any of their teams former students (from ANY YEAR) that did not graduate to either finish their degree, or if they did elsewhere, let the coach know so they can get bonus points.

We have two men's BBall players who left in the early 90s that have since finished their degree and we are getting their bonus points this year.

So, you get bonus points in the year that they report that they finish their degree? Even if it's not in the 4 year average period? Does that really make sense?

[This message has been edited by AGBlastoff (edited 5/26/2011 1:33p).]

2 points above men's indoor track (still 10 behind the outdoor measurement) isn't "okay" as far as A&M teams are concerned in my opinion.

Is it not even a tiny bit silly that there's a 12 point gap (which doesn't seem huge, but seems to be significant) between indoor and outdoor track? I mean, are our weight throwers significantly poorer students than our javelin throwers, and they bring down the average that much?? I mean, track is a pretty good sized team, it's gotta be significant numbers to change the average that much, no?

[This message has been edited by AGBlastoff (edited 5/26/2011 1:39p).]

quote:

---

So, you get bonus points in the year that they report that they finish their degree? Even if it's not in the 4 year average period? Does that really make sense?

---

Yes you get the bonus points in the year they complete the degree. Doesn't matter if they attended school during or after APR was instituted.

You're asking about sense and the NCAA?

It gives an incentive to get guys to graduate.

Ty Warren graduated this spring. Football is going to get a bonus APR point for him.

quote:

---

2 points above men's indoor track (still 10 behind the outdoor measurement) isn't "okay" as far as A&M teams are concerned in my opinion.




Is it not even a tiny bit silly that there's a 12 point gap (which doesn't seem huge, but seems to be significant) between indoor and outdoor track? I mean, are our weight throwers significantly poorer students than our javelin throwers, and they bring down the average that much?? I mean, track is a pretty good sized team, it's gotta be significant numbers to change the average that much, no?

---

it is all about squad lists for these teams. You can compete in both or one and so it depends on what teams you competed for. We have 1 guy here who competed on all three (CC, Indoor and Outdoor) and was a 2-4. Each one of their APRs took a hit because he was on all three lists.

Dumpster - thanks for your posts. But your satisfaction with a score slightly above 925 doesn't mean we should be satisfied with the current and previous five years for men's swimming at Texas A&M.

Our APR for men's swimming has consistently been only slightly above passing. That is at best adequate. If we are building champions as Mr. Byrne says - we should also be building classroom champions.

Most swimmers come from upper middle class backgrounds. Our Texas kids come from Round Rock or Katy, or similar schools. All of these schools are fine schools and their families value education highly.

Men's swimming stands out as a TAMU sport with a weak APR. It isn't a tiny roster either.

I'd be curious to see what the APR is for other men's programs that have a lot of foreign swimmers, like Auburn and USC...

USC's multi year is at 985, while Auburn's is at 927.

Look Out Below - you said foreign athletes have done better academically. Could that be more true for our women's team than the men? Most of our female non-Americans are Canadian.

The men come from all over including eastern Europe, Latin America, and Canada.

Wasn't Israel Duran an adademic mess?

Aggie-matic - If your point is that Canadians (especially Western Canadians) ameliorate to our academic system better than the Eastern Europeans and South Americans, I agree. Though our women's team does have a few Mexican swimmers on it, aside from the language I'd bet they're more familiar with the system in general, too.

We also can't discount that some of the guys are great academically. Casey Strange just got a big post-grad scholarship, for example.

That's what makes the APR tricky. It's sort of like the TAAKS (or whatever it's called these days) test. It doesn't give you credit for those who excel, it simply measures what portion of your program meets minimum (very average) standards. I think it's useful-ish, so long as it's taken for what it's worth. It's not an "average," so outstanding academic performance doesn't make up for a few bad seeds. You could have 8 Rhodes Scholars on your team, and 3 kids drop out with 1.8 GPA's, and all of a sudden you run a "poor academic program." In some ways this is good - it's not in the coach's job description to make sure that all of his athletes are future biochemical cancer researchers. It's his job to make sure that they maintain the academic reputation of the University that they represent.

Agblastoff, I am suggesting that Canadian swimmers, who probably already speak excellent English, and come from families that value academics, are doing better in class at A&M than someone from Europe or Latin America looking for a US college to swim.

I'll be a bit more blunt than what I've said before. US swimming is a sport dominated by educated kids, mostly white, with at least some priority for academics. Basketball, football, and track and field attract many minority athletes without such a background. The roster size issue mentioned above shouldn't matter. Basketball has a small roster. And baseball is about the same as swimming.

It is just a simple unfortunate truth that there are very few Cullen Jones (and maybe the Hill brothers in Austin) out there.

For some reason, our men's swimming program seems to be:

1. recruiting athletes not as likely to do well in class

2. or, not allowing them to do well in school

3. or, allowing them to just get by

There is no trend to be excited about here.

I'm talking about in general and across various different sports over a long period of time. Sure, if their first language is English it's a natural advantage but many of the Europeans, etc. do just fine too. The foreigners generally have to go over a LOT of hurdles just to get into A&M, that many American kids do not. By the time they've run that gauntlet, it's a pretty sure thing they'll be able to hold up.

There are always exceptions though. To be perfectly honest, the lion's share of kids that don't do well (that are educated) is because they are just flat out lazy. It's a lot easier to play XBox than it is to do homework. The kids with actual learning issues are identified early on and given extra assistance so they can be able to compete academically.