Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="caw, post: 260690, member: 1764"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?