Question for the UConn fans

[orangecuse]

Call me crazy but i think dion leaves in good standing

If he's a man of his word, then quite possible. He was quoted in the paper this past week saying something to the effect that he'll make sure his school work is all in order.

 

[suthrills]

Wiggins' issues were not basketball related. Kid was unfortunately a kid who got into a lot of trouble. Pot and alcohol were the main issues. He was booted from UConn for the former and then booted from UMass for the later.

The kid was about 7, 3, 3 in 19 minutes on relatively decent percentages of 41%, 36%, 95%.

EDIT: Calhoun "stole" Wiggins as much as DePaul "stole" Melvin last year and SJU "stole" Harkless this past year. Harkless is actually a very similar case. Wiggins verballed to SJU early, but was from Hartford and dreamed of going to UConn. Harkless verballed to UConn early but was from NYC area and wanted to stay closer to home.

None of them were signed recruits and none had contact initiated by the school they signed with, they just reneged on their verbals. It happens a ton.

I understand that Wiggins got in trouble.
What I find interesting is when the good players get in trouble (dyson, price) somehow they find themselves back on the roster. When the players who are expendable get in trouble they end up elsewhere.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I love that the UCONN thought police has a convenient explanation that everything Calhoun does,

I don't think there's a more delusional fan base in sports.

 

[jdubs30]

Austrie's from my hometown, his coach is my neighbor back in Stamford. Where'd you play jdubs?

Crosby.

Where'd you go to HS?

 

[caw]

Wiggins was #1 for UConn, then f*cked up, period.

You guys can question who I talk to or whatever; I don't have a source with Syracuse, but I know people at UConn, everything I said here tonight was accurate, no doubt. All the aforementioned players have serious issues at UConn and are not academically legit.

The APR issue is 100% because of people like Wiggins, Trice, Smith, etc. AO is obviously leaving, but he's not going to Duke or UNC.

EDIT: The UConn "stole" Harkless from St. John's is hilarious. He was in their backpocket; they freaked about possible violations (and Roscoe Smith, someone with less baggage came along) and pulled their offer, then he committed to St.John's. The reason he was never in Storrs was 100% on UConn.

I personally know Craig Austrie and beat him for a state title, he was obviously clean.

Not sure what "Wiggins was #1 for UConn" means? Do you mean he was the PG? Do you mean he was the best player? Do you mean he was the #1 priority? What the heck does that mean?

Yes, I'm sure you know people at UConn, so do I. I won't bother getting into a pissing match on who knows more people or has better contacts.

The APR is about 50% because of people like the ones you listed. The other 50% is due to kids like Edwards, Robinson, etc. who all were at UConn 4 years but left without finishing up to go pursue pro aspirations.

Umm, I wrote SJU "stole" Harkless. I put the word stole in quotes as a way of trying to relay the fact neither player was stolen. Harkless decided to pull his verbal with the help of his people. Same thing Wiggins did. The only difference was the reason why they pulled their verbal. Wiggins was a CT kid who wanted UConn all along. Harkless did freak out about Giffey, Roscoe was a verbal before Harkless was.

Where would I have implied Austrie wasn't a good kid? I just said he was probably told his PT wasn't going to be much and he decided to stay instead of transferring. Not every transfer on you list was a bad kid. Trice was probably as nice a kid as Austrie and also a good student (for example).

 

[caw]

I understand that Wiggins got in trouble.
What I find interesting is when the good players get in trouble (dyson, price) somehow they find themselves back on the roster. When the players who are expendable get in trouble they end up elsewhere.

Wiggins was a bad apple that wasn't going to change. He had multiple chances not only at UConn but at UMass. He was also very talented and if on the 2009 team could have been the difference between a final four and NC once Dyson went down with injury. He was very good.

Miles was also extremely talented. Same as Wiggins, had he not been booted he could have been the difference between a NC and merely a final four in 2009. He was the best shooter on the team and probably the most talented player on the team (IMO). He broke a restraining order, which is why he was let go. School policy. Of course if he hadn't broken the restraining order UConn may have ended up vacating the 2009 NC.

Another kid with troubles was Doug Wrenn. Also extremely very talented, ended up at UW. I think in jail for murder right now. I think UConn cutting him was the right idea.

Price was dealt with the same as other UConn students had been. Perhaps that is lax, but can't make the punishment higher simply because it was a BBall player.

Dyson was buddies with Wiggins and got caught with him, but not nearly as many times.

I liked and knew both Dyson and Wiggins and both were good guys. Wiggins never stopped partying.

 

[BlackKnight76]

Crosby.

Where'd you go to HS?

Stamford High. No basketball for me though, just football.

 

[Carmelohnoudidnt]

UConn runs A LOT of players in and out. Calhoun geninuely runs it like an NBA team. If he's not impressed with you after 1 or 2 years, he'll call you into his office and basically be like "You won't play much here; you should go somewhere else if you want more playing time"; essentially a politically correct way of saying "I don't want you here anymore but I don't want to make it seem like I forced you out. Like you said, you've never heard of those guys, so that's why it doesn't get much media attention, but UConn has an insane number of players leaving. Also 2 other guys I forgot, Rob Garrison and Scotty Haralson

Even if this is true, and I don't really doubt that it is... This strategy was used before these rules were implemented... If uconn had known they would miss the tourney for doing so, then I think it's fair to guess that they wouldn't have... The APR is flawed but it is getting schools to at least pay attention (for example Uconn's apr is really high now), but implementing it retroactively is unfair, can't make the rules after the fact. I know uconn is a great crash test dummy because everyone hates them, but this really should not stand.

They just randomly made a baseline, and cuse is barely above it...

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I didn't want to post on the boneyard, but I know there are Uconn fans who post here.

I was reading over there that some of you feel you are being punished twice for the APR thing, since they lost the scholarships a few years back.

Is it really being punished twice though? They had one year with a really poor score; but that year is counting to count in a rolling 4 year period for 4 years. So it contributed to the bad score that gave them the lost scholarships, but it's also contributing to the poor score that is meaning they are out of the tournament.

So setting aside the fairness of the APR, and the wisdom of a score from 4 or 5 years ago or whatever putting them out of the tournament, what am I missing here? (I probably am missing something, to be fair).

Uconn had a really bad score in 2010, for which they were punished with a loss of 2 scholarships (since those were the rules at the time...bad APR = loss of scholarships).

In October of 2011, the NCAA changed the rules and said that now bad APR = no postseason. The only problem is they applied this new rule retroactively to old scores. As soon as they changed this rule, Uconn had a 0% chance of qualifying since the 2010 score was still being used, so even a perfect score in 2011 wouldn't have brought them over the new threshold.

The biggest Uconn complaint is if you're going to change the punishment structure, at least do it on a "go forward" basis. You can't change the rules and apply them retroactively. The law doesn't even work that way, but the NCAA is allowed to do it?

 

[Knicks411]

Ok, I made this post and then like 10 minutes later left for New Orleans, so I didn't get to see the responses until now.

The way they changed the rules in mid-stream is a little weird, but it's the NCAA. But the fact is, as you say, the 2010 score was so bad that nothing else would overcome that; that doesn't necessarily mean you get punished twice, it just means that's a really bad score.

As for Dion, I hope he finishes with his schoolwork in order. But bornforevercuse or whatever, you keep seemingly not understanding how the APR score is calculated; the majority of our players of course are in good standing. But you need a 930 4 year score to be eligible; if Dion doesn't leave in good standing this could be an issue for us.

 

[caw]

Ok, I made this post and then like 10 minutes later left for New Orleans, so I didn't get to see the responses until now.

The way they changed the rules in mid-stream is a little weird, but it's the NCAA. But the fact is, as you say, the 2010 score was so bad that nothing else would overcome that; that doesn't necessarily mean you get punished twice, it just means that's a really bad score.

As for Dion, I hope he finishes with his schoolwork in order. But bornforevercuse or whatever, you keep seemingly not understanding how the APR score is calculated; the majority of our players of course are in good standing. But you need a 930 4 year score to be eligible; if Dion doesn't leave in good standing this could be an issue for us.

That is true, never know what they will do. Heck they could come out and say the 2010 scores are going to be used every year going forward and "it's just the NCAA." I am not bashing your comment, just the NCAA's.

The randomness of the NCAA is pretty mind-boggling. If UConn were not a big name, UConn might have had the waiver granted, similar to ULM.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-grants-postseason-eligibility/1#.T3mw6PBrOf4

There were some differences between ULM and UConn but they are fairly similar situations.

I believe every school that would have had a ban was giving a waiver or immunity aside from UConn, thus far for next year. Some (mostly HBC's) were significantly lower than UConn (which was pretty bad).

I would have no problem with the ban if the NCAA's had made the rule known prior to the years used took place. The change, mid-stream is just a clusterf@ck.

 

[Knicks411]

That is true, never know what they will do. Heck they could come out and say the 2010 scores are going to be used every year going forward and "it's just the NCAA." I am not bashing your comment, just the NCAA's.

Understood. My comment was bashing the NCAA as well, fwiw.

 

[caw]

I didn't want to post on the boneyard, but I know there are Uconn fans who post here.

I was reading over there that some of you feel you are being punished twice for the APR thing, since they lost the scholarships a few years back.

Is it really being punished twice though? They had one year with a really poor score; but that year is counting to count in a rolling 4 year period for 4 years. So it contributed to the bad score that gave them the lost scholarships, but it's also contributing to the poor score that is meaning they are out of the tournament.

So setting aside the fairness of the APR, and the wisdom of a score from 4 or 5 years ago or whatever putting them out of the tournament, what am I missing here? (I probably am missing something, to be fair).

I think I finally get the answer to the initial question.

So by the old rules the only way to receive a tournament ban was to have an APR (rolling 4 year) below 900 for 3 years in a row, without a waiver.

So last year UConn would have been in year 1, which only results in being put on notice. Year two would be this year which would result in scholarship reduction. Year three would have been next year. However, by year three, if the unofficial scores are true then UConn would be well above the 900 and likely well above the 930 as well during that third year.

Now under the old rules you could also receive and immediate scholarship reduction if the score was below 925 and a player left in bad standing. UConn received this penalty in addition to the warning (noted above). This year under the old rules UConn should have only received the "historic" penalty of automatic 2 scholarship penalty. Subsequently, they would get both scholarships back the next year.

So they would still be punished twice for the bad scores, regardless. The ban exacerbates the punishment though.

Oddly, Calhoun has said UConn is getting back the two scholarships. I don't know if this is based on a waiver, the idea UConn has increasing APR scores or what.

 

[netman99]

OK so why are Syracuse fans freaking out?

We have MAYBE two guys who leave in poor standing. UCONN literally has an army of guys who JC forced out because they didn't fill his needs and represented an inconvenience to him to keep around (douchebag). ITs no wonder that UCONN is the only school who seems to be legitimately faced with a postseason ban.

If 2 players did not finish their last semester and you have 10 scholarship players, your score is 36/40 or 900 which does not make grade. 930 is required per year. You are then subject to penalty. Even with 13 scholarship players, your score is 45/49 which still falls short a bit. The rule is ridiculous.

 

[Knicks411]

If 2 players did not finish their last semester and you have 10 scholarship players, your score is 36/40 or 900 which does not make grade. 930 is required per year. You are then subject to penalty. Even with 13 scholarship players, your score is 45/49 which still falls short a bit. The rule is ridiculous.

You don't need 930 every year. Just an average of 930.