Jump to content

Archie Miller's coaching philosophy...Is this current team smart enough for Archie's standards?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I call BS on the article about APR scores and not telling kids to leave.

In order to be banned for post season play, your 4 year average has to be below 930.  There are also less severe penalties for when teams are performing poor academically.  Our 4 year average which includes Crean's last season and the spring when Archie was hired was 973 (1000, 985, 964, 943).  Our APR would have needed to by 771 in order to be at 930.  The lowest we've ever had was at the end of the Sampson regime at 866.  I looked up a few schools who are banned, and non of them were below 800 for their worst year.  Not a chance we would have been banned for last year, and we probably would have been safe with a bad APR this season too.  Could we have been getting close and maybe had a year or two under 930, sure.  But, the idea that we would have been banned last season is completely false.

Also, Archie did boot a guy that year.  Grant Gelon was told to leave, and then we signed Race Thompson that summer.  We might have said don't boot everybody, but the idea that he couldn't kick anybody off is again, completely false.  The timing might not have worked out to sign Wright, but that article sure seems like it was leaked out by the university or Miller to try to give him an excuse.  Especially with the timing of it.

Great stuff Leathernecks.  I stated earlier in the thread that it sounded like propaganda and your information seems to support that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I call BS on the article about APR scores and not telling kids to leave.

In order to be banned for post season play, your 4 year average has to be below 930.  There are also less severe penalties for when teams are performing poor academically.  Our 4 year average which includes Crean's last season and the spring when Archie was hired was 973 (1000, 985, 964, 943).  Our APR would have needed to by 771 in order to be at 930.  The lowest we've ever had was at the end of the Sampson regime at 866.  I looked up a few schools who are banned, and non of them were below 800 for their worst year.  Not a chance we would have been banned for last year, and we probably would have been safe with a bad APR this season too.  Could we have been getting close and maybe had a year or two under 930, sure.  But, the idea that we would have been banned last season is completely false.

Also, Archie did boot a guy that year.  Grant Gelon was told to leave, and then we signed Race Thompson that summer.  We might have said don't boot everybody, but the idea that he couldn't kick anybody off is again, completely false.  The timing might not have worked out to sign Wright, but that article sure seems like it was leaked out by the university or Miller to try to give him an excuse.  Especially with the timing of it.

Very little of that article made sense logically to me. I would be concerned if it were leaked by Archie to mitigate fan dismay and would probably change some of my stances on Archie. I doubt that is what happened (hope it wasn't)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I call BS on the article about APR scores and not telling kids to leave.

In order to be banned for post season play, your 4 year average has to be below 930.  There are also less severe penalties for when teams are performing poor academically.  Our 4 year average which includes Crean's last season and the spring when Archie was hired was 973 (1000, 985, 964, 943).  Our APR would have needed to by 771 in order to be at 930.  The lowest we've ever had was at the end of the Sampson regime at 866.  I looked up a few schools who are banned, and non of them were below 800 for their worst year.  Not a chance we would have been banned for last year, and we probably would have been safe with a bad APR this season too.  Could we have been getting close and maybe had a year or two under 930, sure.  But, the idea that we would have been banned last season is completely false.

Also, Archie did boot a guy that year.  Grant Gelon was told to leave, and then we signed Race Thompson that summer.  We might have said don't boot everybody, but the idea that he couldn't kick anybody off is again, completely false.  The timing might not have worked out to sign Wright, but that article sure seems like it was leaked out by the university or Miller to try to give him an excuse.  Especially with the timing of it.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers.  I just looked it up, and here are the APR scores by year, per the NCAA website:

2013-14 - 978

2014-15 - 943

2015-16 - 918

2016-17 - 920

That would give us a 4 year average of 940 (939.75) when CAM got here, which is close to the 930 number.  Since basketball has fewer players than other sports, the APR is affected by transfers and ineligibility A LOT more, and can make that number drastically swing.  Assuming all 13 players were eligible, let's assume three were to transfer.  I believe that would have left us with an APR of 842 for the 2016-17 season, which would have brought our four year APR total to 921 (920.25).  That would have put us below the 930 mark.  Now I'm not sure how the NCAA handles the over sign situation, because technically, we had 16 scholarship players signed when CAM got here, before Bryant, JBJ and OG left for the NBA.  If they look at the overall pool as 16 for that year, that number gets even worse.  In regards to "less severe penalties for performing poor academically", we wouldn't have been in the situation due to academics.  We would have been in the situation for players leaving the program while being eligible.  I don't think you can totally write off the information that came out yesterday as propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, StLHoosier said:

Not sure where you're getting your numbers.  I just looked it up, and here are the APR scores by year, per the NCAA website:

2013-14 - 978

2014-15 - 943

2015-16 - 918

2016-17 - 920

That would give us a 4 year average of 940 (939.75) when CAM got here, which is close to the 930 number.  Since basketball has fewer players than other sports, the APR is affected by transfers and ineligibility A LOT more, and can make that number drastically swing.  Assuming all 13 players were eligible, let's assume three were to transfer.  I believe that would have left us with an APR of 842 for the 2016-17 season, which would have brought our four year APR total to 921 (920.25).  That would have put us below the 930 mark.  Now I'm not sure how the NCAA handles the over sign situation, because technically, we had 16 scholarship players signed when CAM got here, before Bryant, JBJ and OG left for the NBA.  If they look at the overall pool as 16 for that year, that number gets even worse.  In regards to "less severe penalties for performing poor academically", we wouldn't have been in the situation due to academics.  We would have been in the situation for players leaving the program while being eligible.  I don't think you can totally write off the information that came out yesterday as propaganda.

I am on the NCAA site as I type and the numbers I see match those that Leathernecks posted.  I'll link it when I get home.  Not sure where yours are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leathernecks said:

@StLHoosier Do you have a link for where you got your numbers from?  I thought I got mine from the NCAA website too, so I don't know what's going on.  If mine are wrong and you can link me to different ones, I'll definitely change some of the things I had written.  Thanks!

I included a screenshot of where I had my numbers from.

image.thumb.png.b82bb4c89d54ff63b9c2d1572680a4d3.png

This is exactly what I see.  NCAA.org would/should be official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

@StLHoosier Do you have a link for where you got your numbers from?  I thought I got mine from the NCAA website too, so I don't know what's going on.  If mine are wrong and you can link me to different ones, I'll definitely change some of the things I had written.  Thanks!

I included a screenshot of where I had my numbers from.

image.thumb.png.b82bb4c89d54ff63b9c2d1572680a4d3.png

 

4 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

This is exactly what I see.  NCAA.org would/should be official.

Those are the four year rolling averages, not the actual APR score for that given year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArchieBall13 said:

Very little of that article made sense logically to me. I would be concerned if it were leaked by Archie to mitigate fan dismay and would probably change some of my stances on Archie. I doubt that is what happened (hope it wasn't)...

I would guess that it was either the IU public relations department or just things the writer has picked up over the last year and a half.  I would be really surprised and extremely disappointed if it was something Archie intentionally leaked.  It could have just been comments the writer has heard over the last year and a half and he thought now was the right time to come out with it.  Who knows.  I can only read the screenshots posted here, so I don't know if there's anything in the article I'm missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mjeze106 said:

So there are honestly people out there that believe this is a fluff piece indirectly sent out by Archie Miller to appease the fanbase critics?

What's next... the earth is flat? 😎

Nobody has said they think Miller sent it out.  I threw it out as a possibility, but I also said that I highly doubt he had anything to do with it.  The timing doesn't sound suspicious at all to you?  Maybe you think we didn't land on the moon :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Then explain to me how there are 6 schools with a number below 930 for '16-"17 and only one has been penalized?  

5, I'm not sure what the exact penalties are the NCAA lays out.  IT's THE NCAA.  Their website states:

While the APR is intended as an incentive-based approach, it does come with a progression of penalties for teams that under-perform academically over time.

I'm assuming that the one that was penalized either wasn't due to academic reasons or they fell below the threshold multiple times.  I'm not the APR guru, I'm just going off of what I read and the numbers they post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I will ask the APR experts again.  How can 3 early NBA entrants, presumably in good academic standing, destroy IU's APR when UK has received a perfect score for 3 straight years?

I dont know but assume that the guys on the end of the bench that never get in carry close to a 4.0 our guys were far less stellar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billingsley99 said:

I dont know but assume that the guys on the end of the bench that never get in carry close to a 4.0 our guys were far less stellar.

From what I see, GPA does not matter.  It is solely based on Academic standing (eligible or not) at the end of the term.  And you get partial credit for players that leave but are still good academically.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

The whole premise of the article was that losing OG, Bryant, and JBJ early helped push us to the brink, yet UK lost Fox, Adabayo, and Monk the exact same year and received a perfect score.  The facts do not support the narrative.

Ask one of the Purdue nerds they have that kind of stuff memorized 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I am seeing  Idon't think a team gets penalized for early entry if they do not re-use the scholly.  Referencing my rant in the other thread, those 3 UK guys still shown on the Cats scholarship grid.  If true, that is another negative impact of using all 13 schollies, or worse yet, oversigning.  

Is losing Romeo early going to do further damage? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...