Latest NCAA Academic Progress Data

[dave1381]

http://www.uscho.com/news/id,12137/AllWomensHockeyProgramsMeetAPRStandard.html
As many here predicted, UNH moved up well above the treshold in the second year. What's up with Quinnipiac?

And how did Dartmouth get a perfect score after having one of the lower scores in its league a year ago? I can't find the one-year NCAA data online any more, so I'm not sure if that's an NCAA mistake or an USCHO mistake or just some oddity of the data.

[Skate79]

http://www.uscho.com/news/id,12137/AllWomensHockeyProgramsMeetAPRStandard.html
As many here predicted, UNH moved up well above the treshold in the second year. What's up with Quinnipiac?

And how did Dartmouth get a perfect score after having one of the lower scores in its league a year ago? I can't find the one-year NCAA data online any more, so I'm not sure if that's an NCAA mistake or an USCHO mistake or just some oddity of the data.

In addition to Quinnipiac, how about Clarkson? Their score last year of 933 doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence and this year's score wasn't listed.

Also, Mercyhurst saw a drop from 969 to 946. Not exactly the direction you want from a program that is rapidly gaining national attention.

This is like the Wonderlic test they give football players coming out for the pro draft. Everyone wonders how a player got a low score the first time, then jumps some 20 points the next time he takes it.

[HU2K4]

Way too soon to declare trends or clear evidence of a problem. For example, I recall that player departures affect the numbers and explained why UNH treaded close to the line last year. I thought that even if a player left the team in good academic standing, that still had a negative impact on the overall numbers, so Mercyhurst and Clarkson losing Jackie Jarrell and Jill Nolan would hurt even if the existing rosters are still fine. But some of the teams that had players withdraw from school for the Olympics don't seem to have been affected?

I don't think this is an issue for women's hockey, but I found it interesting that for football and basketball, mid-major or losing programs occupied most of the list. Is that because those schools are really pushing the envelope trying to improve their teams? Or is it because the big-name programs have a better "system" of keeping everyone in good standing to protect the scholarship allotment and protect the revenue potential of their most important teams?