OT: NCAA denies UConn men's appeal

This is a death sentence. This will impact UConn men's program for years to come. With the players who will likely choose to transfer, and commits who may decide not to come to UConn, in two years it will be like starting from scratch. Wonder if Jim decides to retire? Going to be a really difficult few years.

So glad that the women stay for four years and complete their degrees (or the vast majority of them do!). I think it is unlikely we will ever see this in the women's game.

The men's board is the more appropriate place for this, I know. But had to post it.

Surprise, surprise. It never was going to happen. I really feel for the kids affected by it.

Poor recruiting by JC and even worse monitoring of the students by the athletic department and coaches. During this same time period that caused the ban, there were also some questionable criminal and other activities by some of the male basketball players.

Um a death sentence? Your post is pretty uninformed.

They have 1 commitment for next year and he has stated he will be at UConn next year no what happens with the ban. It will affect adding recruits to this years class, although right now the team does not officially have any open scholarships.

Any player outside of a rising senior, AO is the only one and he already said hes leaving, would have to sit out a year thus not playing in the Tournament regardless, so what would be the point?

Its a one year ban, not sure why you keep saying a "few years." It will have no affect on recruiting for the 2013 class.

It is a 1 year bump in the road, you might want to get some knowledge of the situation before you post.

The NCAA's retroactive application of the APR penalty in UConn's case is completely unjust. UConn deserved to be punished for its low APR scores and it was with the loss of scholarships. The new penalty (postseason ban) should not be applied retroactively to the same year for which the school has already been punished. The NCAA is a travesty.

Things would be okey dokey if only the men's team had students on it as the women's team does. I can name the scholars on the men's team on one hand, Emeka Okafor.

Except that as I understand it UConn did not pass the old standards let alone the new ones. At least that was the report from one media outlet a couple of months ago.

The standards didn't change; the penalty changed. If the new penalty (i.e., postseason ban) were applied prospectively rather than retroactively to years for which UConn was already penalized, it would be fine.

I understood that the standard also changed from 925 to 975 or something similar.

But that's not the issue. The issue raised by UConn is that the NCAA changed the penalty in October 2011 applicable to the 2012-2013 academic year. The NCAA did not, however, include the latest APR scores, i.e., from the 2010-2011 academic year. Had the latest available scores been used, UConn would've met the standard. And, as I understand it, UConn has already been punished based on the same set of scores that are the basis for the postseason ban. UConn's argument was the new penalty should be applied prospectively so as to give schools the opportunity to adjust. This can be accomplished by using the latest known set of scores available, in which case UConn would meet the standard, or delaying application of the new penalty to the 2013-2014 academic year, in which case UConn would also meet the standard.

I agree with everything you are saying but that wasn't what was reported at one point.

Also, not that I've followed this at all, my question is "the NCAA changed" -- the NCAA changes nothing without the input and approval of the member institutions. When and how and by whom were these changes approved -- 'cause it doesn't seem they could single out UConn since it's underachieving schoolS who'd be impacted.

You are clueless. The WHOLE ISSUE is that UConn, while already being punished for poor academic performance by loss of 2 scholarships, is now being RETROACTIVELY punished again by a post season ban. The NCAA made those numbers up last summer to punish 1 school. The OTHER school in the SAME situation was granted a waiver.

Exactly. That's why this is ridiculous.

False... he plays right away due to the ban, no sitting out!

nothing is final til July... this situation just say they rejected what "UConn put on the table".

UConn wants them to take the last 2 seasons, which would not ban them from the tourney. July is the deadline... they could hurt recruiting and if Calhoun stay or retire.

This is one of the reasons I watch WCBB. There are so few instances of corruption, and the ones that do occur are so laughable. Maya and her tour of ESPN? I mean...is that really the worst that has happened with the women's program?

Money...the root of most evil in the men's game. How on earth does a championship program allow its players to get to this point academically? Regardless of the NCAA rules changing, unfair punishment, etc, the program should never have put itself in this position in the first place.

Reread what I said. Do you now understand what I wrote? It is simple reading comprehension. I said anyone who is not a rising senior would have to sit a year. Therefore, AO does not have to sit as he is a rising senior.

Please take the time to read something fully if your going to comment that it is wrong.

relax sonny.... my mistake. (bigger man doesn't need to yell and hurl insults)