Hoops 100% GSR

Yes, and we'll get a severe comeuppance when our ex-players time comes up

There are two different metrics that track graduation rates.   The federal one counts transfers against a school, i.e. it measures how successful a school is in enrolling students who stay and graduate.  The calculation for athletes is directly comparable to the federal graduation rate for a school in total.    In contrast, the one used by HC in the press release -  the NCAA Graduation Success Rate (GSR) - largely doesn't penalize schools for transfers.   IF a transfer leaves in good academic standing, then that athlete does not factor into the calculation.  Note that it only measures student-athletes getting athletic-related aid, so presumably Powers would not be factored into the calculation.   There is no comparable metric for a school's overall student body.

Although the GSR is OK for schools such as you find in the Patriot League. it was created at least partly for NCAA public relations and doesn't really track graduation success well. The reason is that the majority of athletes who leave in good academic standing do not re-enroll in another school, instead becoming drop-outs.  Yet the NCAA model assumes they all go on to another college.   When you see NCAA videos bragging about the graduation rate of student-athletes, the percentages they cite are always incorrect.

Correct, no effect on the NCAA graduation metric if they left in good standing.   Definite effect on the federal graduation rate.

Then there is the Academic Progress Rate (APR), which really is the most significant measure - which views transfers differently.   It was put into place because the Graduation Rate reports require seven years before a metric can be produced for a given entering cohort.  The APR, in contrast, measures progress or lack thereof, one year at a time, albeit with a one-year lag.   An athlete gets a point for each semester that he/she stays eligible and another point for returning for the next semester (or for graduating).   In this metric, transfers are treated a bit differently.   If an athlete transfers out, he/she still gets a point IF he/she had a cumulative GPA over 2.6 at the time of transfer AND if he immediately enrolls in a new school.   (The NCAA chose that 2.6 figure because it was found that the majority of transfers with worse GPA's than that never ended up earning a degree.)     So, for a team of 13 scholarship athletes, there would be a maximum of 52 points (13 x 4).    If one player left at year-end and had a sub-par GPA, then the APR would be 51/52 = .981,    Ultimately the APR is calculated as a four-year rolling average, with penalties applied for low scores (below 930) - especially if they are chronic.

HC's APR has fallen the past two years, from 1000 to 995 to 986, presumably due to some fallout from the three who departed the team.   Not a big deal and nowhere close to earning any penalties.

Probably just me but I find these stats on graduation rates, academic honor rolls and the like pretty worthless.

Tie in the discussions of grade inflation; what the major is; the degree of difficulty that varies from school to school and there are just too many variables for any kind of "objective" discussion of academic success of athletes.