BeeRBee
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 236
I sometimes feel like I've responded to this point too many times, and should just shrug and let it go. Instead, I'm going to quote a post I made on another board a month ago:One thing to keep in mind is that the academic situation of the team when CBG started was abysmal. If I understand the APR rules correctly, GT would not have been eligible for the NCAA tournament in his first year even if they had qualified on the court. Looking at the history of the numbers, GT should not have been APR eligible for the tournament from 2009-2012. He had to clean up the team. In his first year, the APR increased from 935 to 972. It was well above the minimum standards his entire tenure. Just my impression, but is seems like often when a coach is brought in to clean up a situation, academic or discipline, he doesn't last long after the clean up. CBG, Charlie Strong, etc. I don't know if CBG could have succeeded at GT if he was brought in in more favorable conditions, but I think he did a good job getting the program from the dumpster it was in to a favorable situation for CJP to step into(from an APR and attitude situation).
I totally agree that Gregory's culture and emphasis on academics were a positive. I will gently push back on the "academic mess that was here when he arrived".
GT under Hewitt had a three year stretch from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 which were bad APR-wise, with single year APRs of 935, 913, and 840. Because the APR measurement used to determine penalties is a four year average, this period continued to hit with a 1 year scholarship reduction taken in 2010-2011.
However, the APR in Hewitt's last three years, leading up to Gregory's hiring, were 953, 960, and 1000. (Gregory gets some credit for that last year, although he was hired at the end of the academic year.) The single year APR's in Gregory's first four years were then 1000, 1000, 960, and 981, clearly putting a focus on academic culture.
As far as I know, there were no significant academic risks on the roster Gregory inherited. I do give him credit for getting the returning players to continue their academic focus.
GT under Hewitt had a three year stretch from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 which were bad APR-wise, with single year APRs of 935, 913, and 840. Because the APR measurement used to determine penalties is a four year average, this period continued to hit with a 1 year scholarship reduction taken in 2010-2011.
However, the APR in Hewitt's last three years, leading up to Gregory's hiring, were 953, 960, and 1000. (Gregory gets some credit for that last year, although he was hired at the end of the academic year.) The single year APR's in Gregory's first four years were then 1000, 1000, 960, and 981, clearly putting a focus on academic culture.
As far as I know, there were no significant academic risks on the roster Gregory inherited. I do give him credit for getting the returning players to continue their academic focus.
Here is a table with the APR data I was able to find on the NCAA's site. Note that there are adjustments made, for example for past players who come back and graduate, so for example in 2011 although the Retention rate was not 1.000, the overall APR is still reported as 1000.