UConn Might Be Disqualified from Playing in the 2013 NCAA Tournament

[ConnectiCuse]

if this rule change goes into effect.

There's a possibility of missing 2012 too.

 

[rstone7727]

We were only at 912 during last years tournament (not sure where we are now) which is pretty low compared to other schools across the country.

UCF Study

 

[NKR1978]

If this happens then it is time for the major schools to break away from the NCAA.

 

[Madbiker]

If they implement this for 2012 the article claims that as many as 33 schools would not be eligible. My guess is that all of them are probably in the 6 BCS conferences. So when the university presidents realize what the financial blow to their conference is and then to their individual school, we'll see if they really want to implement this or phase it in over a period of years. They are such hypocrites.

All this will accomplish is:

More minority athletes will be denied a chance to go to school since schools will avoid academically risky kids.

All of these kids will not be allowed to take any course more challenging than basket weaving.

There will be even more pressure applied to faculty to pass borderline kids because big $$$$ to the school are at stake.

Realize that these types of rules are voted on by all 328 division 1 schools where the bottom 228 schools have a very different perspective than the top 100 schools who make big $$$ on athletics.
This is just going to hasten the day that the BCS conferences withdraw from the NCAA and institute rules that make more sense for them compared to say Colgate.

 

[Alcuse01]

what makes up the apr? I thought this is the score that gets effected by graduations. Which if that's the case is bs, b/c so many of the good schools (like uconn/cuse/etc) have players leave early for the pros or a shot at the pros. How is that fair to hurt the university?

 

[zeekay]

And magically Kentucky will be unaffected.

 

[rstone7727]

what makes up the apr? I thought this is the score that gets effected by graduations. Which if that's the case is bs, b/c so many of the good schools (like uconn/cuse/etc) have players leave early for the pros or a shot at the pros. How is that fair to hurt the university?

I think it's not so much that they leave early but is more about their scholastic standing when they leave.

 

[zeekay]

I think it's not so much that they leave early but is more about their scholastic standing when they leave.

Isn't that unfair to private schools with harder classes (Duke, Syracuse, etc.) and benefits large state schools where you can get a B by just having a pulse? Still not very clear on how that's calculated.

 

[OttoMets]

Isn't that unfair to private schools with harder classes (Duke, Syracuse, etc.) and benefits large state schools where you can get a B by just having a pulse? Still not very clear on how that's calculated.

Yeah, as rstone said, it just has to do with academic standing. If you're up to date on coursework when you leave, no penalty. If you've been blowing off class for 6 weeks (ahem, three Syracuse players in 2009), haven't submitted previously-due assignments, or have missed exams when you were still playing and enrolled, penalty.

It's pretty easy to avoid the penalties if the players care to. Unfortunately, they don't always care and their teammates and university are left holding the bag.

 

[armory]

Such a stupid measurement tool. Some schools are much tougher than others.

 

[sutomcat]

If this happens then it is time for the major schools to break away from the NCAA.

I am not against the change, but it has to take into account and make allowances for players who left school early to play professionally. I think it should also not ding schools automatically for players who transferred, at least not if they were in good academic standing when they left.

The goal for many players at top programs is not to get a degree, but to play professionally. Players who achieve their goal and leave school early to play in the pros should, IMHO, be treated the same as players who graduate.

At the least, players who leave early for the pros should be ignored, or their status considered only up to the semester when they decided to leave.

Does the APR take these factors into consideration? If SU has really only has a 912 score, I would think not.

 

[maceo511]

multi year, which I think they look at is 928 for the 2009-2010 year

https://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/apr2010/688_2010_apr.pdf

 

[OttoMets]

Such a stupid measurement tool. Some schools are much tougher than others.

Some schools are tougher than others, sure, but at some point just about every player has completed coursework at his school, so it's no terrible hardship to expect him to keep attending class and completing his coursework while he's still enrolled in school. The APR doesn't even require students to finish out a year or semester (even though kids with some sense of responsibility, like Wes Johnson, have been known to do so).

It really is low-hanging fruit.

 

[Dick_in_MI]

Isn't that unfair to private schools with harder classes (Duke, Syracuse, etc.) and benefits large state schools where you can get a B by just having a pulse? Still not very clear on how that's calculated.

There are any number of large state schools whose academic standing is the equal of ours. In some cases, they exceed ours. And I say that as an SU grad.

Also, don't confuse the academics of the general student body with those enrolled in by the athletes. It isn't like Melo was a Rhodes Scholar. There are many athletes at SU and everywhere else who would be hard pressed to qualify for admission to their respective schools if they had to meet the same criteria as the general student body.

As for "harder classes" and "getting a B by having a pulse", take a gander at some of the majors that SU players are enrolled in sometime.

 

[pfister1]

I am not against the change, but it has to take into account and make allowances for players who left school early to play professionally. I think it should also not ding schools automatically for players who transferred, at least not if they were in good academic standing when they left.

The goal for many players at top programs is not to get a degree, but to play professionally. Players who achieve their goal and leave school early to play in the pros should, IMHO, be treated the same as players who graduate.

At the least, players who leave early for the pros should be ignored, or their status considered only up to the semester when they decided to leave.

Does the APR take these factors into consideration? If SU has really only has a 912 score, I would think not.

Agree with the transfers, not so sure about the guys who leave early to play professionally. Is college athletics really supposed to be about preparing a kid to play professionally??? I don't think it is, although that is a nice by product if it occurs. But if it were the goal, why have them attend classes at all? Since its not the goal why give a kid who fails to make progress towards the goal a pass because he has chosen to abort his progress towards the goal and try to play professionally. Again, it kind of comes down to what is the purpose for giving kids scholarships and having them go to college?? Is it to attend college and get a degree or promote the University's athletic department and make it money.

I think its kind of funny that the NCAA is establishing academic standards and then punishing schools for failing to meet them when it really isn't all that apparent what the NCAA's real goal is. Does it want college kids attending school to have opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics or does it just want to generate as much cash as possible for itself and its member institutions' athletic departments?
Always seems to me that it is the later.

 

[NKR1978]

Is college athletics really supposed to be about preparing a kid to play professionally???

On the flip side, isn't the point of college to prepare you for your career?

I've read in the past that some colleges and universities are offering special courses for their athletes as far as money and business management so they don't blow through their signing bonus on toys. If a school can prepare an elite athlete for their professional career and help to set them on a responsible path so that they can hold on to their money, then I think the school has done a service.

The only way that schools could do that would be to acknowledge that the NCAA really is just a minor league for the NBA and NFL and allow for the fact that some kids don't care to get a degree. Some of those are the best athletes and biggest names the NCAA has to offer and they in turn help to make a lot of money for their schools, conferences and the NCAA in general. The NCAA and schools would be doing these kids a huge favor by dropping the charade of "amateurism" and getting things out in the open.

 

[OttoMets]

On the flip side, isn't the point of college to prepare you for your career?

I've read in the past that some colleges and universities are offering special courses for their athletes as far as money and business management so they don't blow through their signing bonus on toys. If a school can prepare an elite athlete for their professional career and help to set them on a responsible path so that they can hold on to their money, then I think the school has done a service.

The only way that schools could do that would be to acknowledge that the NCAA really is just a minor league for the NBA and NFL and allow for the fact that some kids don't care to get a degree. Some of those are the best athletes and biggest names the NCAA has to offer and they in turn help to make a lot of money for their schools, conferences and the NCAA in general. The NCAA and schools would be doing these kids a huge favor by dropping the charade of "amateurism" and getting things out in the open.

I'm of the school that says the point of college is to get a well-rounded education. Trade school and graduate programs are for honing in on specific career preparation. Unfortunately, many colleges don't achieve either goal with revenue sport athletes.

I've also read about those athlete-prep courses, I don't recall where. It's not a bad idea; they've be of great practical benefit to a ton of students, athletes and non-athletes alike. Financial management, interdisciplinary writing, physiology, basic contracts are all subjects with which we should all be familiar, and they'd be especially relevant to athletes. I'd back such a curriculum plan.

 

[NKR1978]

I'm of the school that says the point of college is to get a well-rounded education. Trade school and graduate programs are for honing in on specific career preparation. Unfortunately, many colleges don't achieve either goal with revenue sport athletes.

I've also read about those athlete-prep courses, I don't recall where. It's not a bad idea; they've be of great practical benefit to a ton of students, athletes and non-athletes alike. Financial management, interdisciplinary writing, physiology, basic contracts are all subjects with which we should all be familiar, and they'd be especially relevant to athletes. I'd back such a curriculum plan.

Ideally I agree with you that college should produce well-rounded individuals who graduate with abilities and knowledge that can help them in most possible endeavors.

In my former life as a UConn fan I read Jim Calhoun's book after his 99 championship. In it he recounted a story where he asked a reporter how many of his kids thought they were going to the NBA. The reporter looked at the stars of that team and responded that he though maybe four members of the 1999 championship team thought they were going to the NBA. Calhoun responded that every one of his players thought they would make it in the NBA.

I assume SU and every other major basketball school is like that. Football may be different because of the volume of kids on a team. When you're operating in a system where a huge percentage of revenue sport athletes think they are going pro, it stands to reason that a good portion of those athletes do not care about their education. In their cases, the schools owe it to them to do something to prepare them for their likely future, and I agree that business/life skills courses would be in their best interests. I could have used some of those in college.

 

[OttoMets]

Ideally I agree with you that college should produce well-rounded individuals who graduate with abilities and knowledge that can help them in most possible endeavors.

In my former life as a UConn fan I read Jim Calhoun's book after his 99 championship. In it he recounted a story where he asked a reporter how many of his kids thought they were going to the NBA. The reporter looked at the stars of that team and responded that he though maybe four members of the 1999 championship team thought they were going to the NBA. Calhoun responded that every one of his players thought they would make it in the NBA.

I assume SU and every other major basketball school is like that. Football may be different because of the volume of kids on a team. When you're operating in a system where a huge percentage of revenue sport athletes think they are going pro, it stands to reason that a good portion of those athletes do not care about their education. In their cases, the schools owe it to them to do something to prepare them for their likely future, and I agree that business/life skills courses would be in their best interests. I could have used some of those in college.

Agree with all of it. I wonder what the educators think about it.