View the Academic Performance Rate associated with a coach. Search the database »
Head coach APR database released: The NCAA released a public database of the Academic Progress Rates for head coaches. Read the article »
Coaches see academic success as "part of the job": Coaches react to the development of the Head Coach APR Portfolio. Read the article »
CAP refines APR: Academic Progress Rate refined by committee. Read the article »
Plan for APR Portfolio: Development of data and public website detailed for APR portfolio of head coaches. Read the article »
Board Moves to Report APR: Creation of public database of APR takes another step forward. Read the article »
Coaches React to APR Concept: After Board of Directors endorsement of APR, coaches react. Read the article »
APR for Coaches is In: APR model continues refinement with strong support. Read the article »
Teams are searchable by sport, conference, institution, state, and penalty type. Search the database »
Why has the NCAA decided to implement this measure at this time?
This iteration of academic reform, highlighted by the creation of the Academic Progress Rate in 2003, is far enough along to be part of today’s intercollegiate athletics culture on all Division I campuses. With the team-based APR in its sixth year, the activation of a Head Coach APR Portfolio is the next step in ensuring accountability and transparency in student-athlete academic performance.
The APR has been around for six years now, but is the Head Coach APR a new rate?
No. The Head Coach APR Portfolio is based on the same APRs that are assessed to the teams. It is, however, the first time that those APRs have been applied to the head coach. The release of the portfolio also marks the first time that single-year rates are used. The team-based APR is based on a four-year rolling average.
Why are coaches being uniquely targeted?
Most people in intercollegiate athletics agree that the head coach is the primary influence on a student-athlete’s success in college – including his or her academic success. Applying the APR to the head coach only enhances that accountability.
Why not tie the APR to athletics directors and presidents?
Because the APR is a team-centered metric, it makes sense to connect the annual rate to the head coach. The Committee on Academic Performance and the Division I Board of Directors have resisted the idea of aggregating an APR for each institution because of the team-centered approach.
Why not assess penalties to the coach in addition to the teams based on APR?
The penalty structure in the Academic Performance Program is team-specific. While there has been some discussion in the Division I governance structure about penalties that are assessed to teams following the coach if he or she leaves the program, that concept has not been endorsed by the Committee on Academic Performance or the Board of Directors to date.
Is it mathematically accurate to add the APR scores of a coach each year to produce an average score for that coach?
The single-year APR is based on the number of student-athletes on that team, so averaging the four years together does not necessarily provide a true average score because of changes in squad sizes. The multi-year APR would provide the most accurate average APR, if a coach has been at an institution for four straight years.
What is the desired outcome?
Among the goals is to provide coaches who are doing well in this arena the recognition they deserve. Because the overwhelming majority of coaches have their student-athletes’ academic success as a primary goal, these data will prove beneficial for coaches as another piece of information (much like graduation rates) that prospective student-athletes and their parents or guardians can use when they are evaluating their college choice.