from the uconn board, appeal denied

[dasher]

even though most uconn fans are both phony and dumb, I take no joy in this. The rule as it is, is unfair.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

even though most uconn fans are both phony and dumb, I take no joy in this. The rule as it is, is unfair.

I think the way that the NCAA changed this, then enforced it, is questionable (as I understand it. ) An injunction could be a possiblilty.

 

[rrlbees]

even though most uconn fans are both phony and dumb, I take no joy in this. The rule as it is, is unfair.

in what way is it unfair?

 

[orangenirvana]

in what way is it unfair?

Because it's a rule that is biased against schools who recruit future NBA players, for one.

Second, it includes data before the rule was implemented and gave schools no warning or time to adjust.

 

[rrlbees]

Because it's a rule that is biased against schools who recruit future NBA players, for one.

Second, it includes data before the rule was implemented and gave schools no warning or time to adjust.

how is it biased against schools that recruit nba players? there is a waiver process for kids that transfer and kids that leave to play professionally.

 

[Orangeman]

No offense, but I'm not sure you're capturing the very fair question of the first post. Double-jeopardy...selective application of "rules"...these are un-American concepts, generally illegal and will/should be over-turned in favor of UConn by any non-liberal court

 

[orangenirvana]

how is it biased against schools that recruit nba players? there is a waiver process for kids that transfer and kids that leave to play professionally.

Okay that's great then why is Waiters promising to finish the semester and what was Boeheim whining about in one of the tourney press conferences with regard to schools being punished for NBA prospects not finishing their school work?

 

[fairfaxcuse]

in what way is it unfair?

There are two ways to look at it:

1) It's fair in the sense that the NCAA established the rule and schools understand it.

2) It's unfair because the NCAA is a cartel making money off of athletes and enforces rules that in no way can be consistently enforced across all campus with the same standards. Passing a class on campus A may not be as hard as passing a class on campus b.

Given that I find any economic argument for the NCAA's existence specious, I'm more compelled by point 2 and thus, for one of the few times in my life, am empathetic to Uconn.

 

[caw]

in what way is it unfair?

The rule itself isn't necessarily unfair, from a UConn fan. The rule is perfectly fine. The APR in many ways is a severely distorted measure, in that in no way, shape or form calculates how well a school is doing to educate student athletes, but that's neither here nor there when discussing the fairness of this ruling.

Now, if you want to discuss the timing of the implementation of the rule, then yes, that is unfair.

UConn is in a position where not a single APR score (2 year rolling average or 4 year rolling average) used to decide NCAAT eligibility is not being influenced by a score set in stone prior to the implementation of the new sanctions/bans.

The new rule was put in place in the fall of 2011. Currently, a ban from 2013 is subject to the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 scores (for the 2 year rolling average) or the prior two plus the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 scores (four year rolling average). UConn could not go back and retroactively change said scores, so the timing of the implementation of the ruling is unfair.

Even if put into play next year, the rule would still use data set in stone to calculate the scores. This really should be implemented in 2014 or in 2013 with uptodate scores. Then at least it is based on data that schools are aware will be used.

 

[billsin01]

It's an absurd rule in the sense that most of the kids at big schools are there only to play basketball. So you can pretend they are there to be students despite the fact that many had awful origins to their educations and the fact that they clearly have zero interest in school. Or you can simply face up to the reality and try to help them at least make as much progress as possible through positive interventions.

 

[zeekay]

a) Not all school are equal.

There is a huge separation between mid majors and BCS level schools. They live in different worlds and not in NCAA fairy land. Just by the virtue of big time athletics, schools like UCONN and Syracuse will have more students leave early than someone like Siena. Seriously how many bball players will leave Siena before their senior year? This makes it a lot more likely that they finish their work and thus less likely that they get punished compared to BCS schools.

b) Punishment is out of proportions.

Schools like Siena who see the tournament once every 10 years will not be impacted if their APR is somehow screwed up. The year they get banned they probably weren't making the tourney anyway. UCONN and Syracuse are in the tourney every year so a ban can easily mean millions of dollars in damages to the school. Completely uneven punishment scale.

APR sucks.

 

[orangehomer]

for the love of god, can we please get over the idea that the apr is only affected by guys leaving early for the NBA? that's not why yukon is being punished. they have had what, like 2 guys leave early in the last 5 years? and kemba graduated so he obviously didn't hurt the apr. the reasons yukon is getting killed is 1) four year guys that didn't fufill academic requirements (ie gavin edwards) and 2) transfers. when you look at the list of transfers it is insane. we knew that what calhoun was doing wasn't right at the time, and it came back to bite him.