2010 might set our program back 20 years

[Yonick]

Calhoun missed 2 summer recruiting seasons. One, when he underwent chemo for skin cancer. The second when he broke 8 ribs in a bike event. As a result several kids were recruited who shouldn't have been recruited.
That reason is probably the real reason Sellers & LaFleur no longer coach here.
Only unless his health prohibits him from continuing, JC will stay on until the program is completely righted.

 

[Cheddie]

You aren't making money if you are in the D league, unless you are real lucky

I think it depends how you're in the D league. If you're drafted and get a guaranteed contract, only to be sent down, you still earn your NBA $ - see Thabeet. If you're trying to make the league, like Adrien, than there probably isn't much money there.

 

[EricLA]

Way too many assumtions. If a player leaves Spring semester without finishing classes, guess what? He's not in good standing. Has nothing to do with progress. He could have an A average before leaving. The question is, what has UConn put in place to prevent that? Intersession courses to pump up credits? Compulsory summer courses? This is perverse.

perverse? seriously? the team is not only facing lowered scholarships but also a post season ban. it makes me ill as a fan, but if these kids aren't doing what they are supposed to, it's up to the people in charge to set them straight. and you are right in that i don't know what went on there - obviously i'm not a coach, player, or even on campus. and i'm not really assuming anything. i've yet to read an article where JC is quoted as saying "we are in constant touch with the professors and knew that some kids were skipping classes and on the verge of not getting credit for the courses, but these were kids who left the program after the semester and we were unable to get them to come back and finish the courses"...

how many other universities are facing a post season ban due to the APR? how is it that almost every other school in the nation was able to figure out how to avoid this problem but UCONN wasn't? what are they doing differently? i fully believe some schools don't give a crap and do whatever it takes to manipulate and cheat so they don't appear to break the rules. is that what UCONN should have done?

 

[GavinEdreamy]

They're making more than if they're in college for a team that won't make the tourney.

I guess technically their income is more, but really, what good is it? They get a meager income and have to scrape by every day, or stay in college on a full scholarship, all expenses paid plus spending money every month...which would you take?

 

[jorge34]

I think a wait and see approach is in order for this situation. Retroactively applied penalties on a school that already was penalized and serving out their penalty is really going to be a hard sell.

 

[tykurez]

I think a wait and see approach is in order for this situation. Retroactively applied penalties on a school that already was penalized and serving out their penalty is really going to be a hard sell.

Doesn't seem like it. Pending an appeal it seems a likely scenario. And no one in the media is really in disagreement.

 

[jorge34]

Doesn't seem like it. Pending an appeal it seems a likely scenario. And no one in the media is really in disagreement.

I don't worry much about dopes in the media, most of whom don't realize further penalizing Uconn would be double jeopardy. We will know more the 20th. See what happens.

 

[EricLA]

i found this over on the women's board. is this a correct synopsis of the issue? because if so, then i was wrong and the NCAA is being ridiculous in this.

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

There's two things worth noting:
1) The current players haven't had any issues academically.
2) Nate Miles, who was expelled before the 2008-09 season, is still receiving a score of 0 for the team. Yes, a player that was expelled MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO is still counting.

So to sum: the NCAA has decided to enforce these rules retroactively against UConn, despite the fact that they have already been punished once (loss of schollies) under the entirely separate set of rules that was in place.

 

[jorge34]

i found this over on the women's board. is this a correct synopsis of the issue? because if so, then i was wrong and the NCAA is being ridiculous in this.

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

There's two things worth noting:
1) The current players haven't had any issues academically.
2) Nate Miles, who was expelled before the 2008-09 season, is still receiving a score of 0 for the team. Yes, a player that was expelled MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO is still counting.

So to sum: the NCAA has decided to enforce these rules retroactively against UConn, despite the fact that they have already been punished once (loss of schollies) under the entirely separate set of rules that was in place.

Yep, that is accurate

 

[tzznandrew]

i found this over on the women's board. is this a correct synopsis of the issue? because if so, then i was wrong and the NCAA is being ridiculous in this.

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

There's two things worth noting:
1) The current players haven't had any issues academically.
2) Nate Miles, who was expelled before the 2008-09 season, is still receiving a score of 0 for the team. Yes, a player that was expelled MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO is still counting.

So to sum: the NCAA has decided to enforce these rules retroactively against UConn, despite the fact that they have already been punished once (loss of schollies) under the entirely separate set of rules that was in place.

One correction I would make is a technicality, the other is a common inaccuracy (which I myself have frequently made).

The NCAA may enforce the new rules immediately. This is different than retroactively, but because APR is a rolling average it has the effect of punishing the team for seasons where there was a different set of rules/punishments. It also means that the team would have lost scholarships for two bad years, and then missed the tournament also for those two bad years.

As for the Nate Miles issue, I'm pretty sure that if he was counted at all (and he may not have been--that's how disastrous Dove, Edwards, Stanley, Trice, and Smith were), it was only for that first year.

 

[tykurez]

I don't worry much about dopes in the media, most of whom don't realize further penalizing Uconn would be double jeopardy. We will know more the 20th. See what happens.

Nor do I ... but my point is, outside of officials at UConn (who are rightfully defending their university), it doesn't seem like there's much of an uproar on the whole double jeopardy thing. Perhaps that will change. You're right though ... we'll know a lot more (hopefully) in the next couple weeks.

 

[upstater]

perverse? seriously? the team is not only facing lowered scholarships but also a post season ban. it makes me ill as a fan, but if these kids aren't doing what they are supposed to, it's up to the people in charge to set them straight. and you are right in that i don't know what went on there - obviously i'm not a coach, player, or even on campus. and i'm not really assuming anything. i've yet to read an article where JC is quoted as saying "we are in constant touch with the professors and knew that some kids were skipping classes and on the verge of not getting credit for the courses, but these were kids who left the program after the semester and we were unable to get them to come back and finish the courses"...

how many other universities are facing a post season ban due to the APR? how is it that almost every other school in the nation was able to figure out how to avoid this problem but UCONN wasn't? what are they doing differently? i fully believe some schools don't give a crap and do whatever it takes to manipulate and cheat so they don't appear to break the rules. is that what UCONN should have done?

Perverse educationally. That's what I'm referring to. I deal with athletics' departments all the time, not as high up as UConn, so they don't have the problem of players going pro. I have one kid right now who will likely have pro options, he's that good. But if I were ever asked to oversee the kind of protocols being put in place by this APR thing, I could not. Compulsory summer classes? One week intersession courses? That's supposed to keep them eligible? It's perverse.

 

[jorge34]

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...proves+increased+academic+performance+concept

http://www.offtheblockblog.com/2011...requirements-for-postseason-starting-2012-13/

 

[EricLA]

Perverse educationally. That's what I'm referring to. I deal with athletics' departments all the time, not as high up as UConn, so they don't have the problem of players going pro. I have one kid right now who will likely have pro options, he's that good. But if I were ever asked to oversee the kind of protocols being put in place by this APR thing, I could not. Compulsory summer classes? One week intersession courses? That's supposed to keep them eligible? It's perverse.

well anyhoo, if you read my follow up post i was wrong - i had no idea the actual specifics. oh well. just goes to show you what i don't know...

 

[sledog]

Isn't that 8 semesters t o graduate??

And what were those guys doing if not taking classes, and booking??

 

[RuffRuff]

I said this somewhere about 5 years ago, but somewhere after the 2004 NC Calhoun got greedy and started selling his soul to the recruiting devil. No standards on the character/student just for the sake of finding the athlete/future NBA talent. Almost to the point where it was more about athletecism than basketball skill. That mindset has translated to this mess.

This was a very clean program up until then - we had guys like Emeka Okafor representing the university from the student athlete perspective. Boy have things changed. Although this group of kids seems like a solid bunch.

 

[upstater]

I said this somewhere about 5 years ago, but somewhere after the 2004 NC Calhoun got greedy and started selling his soul to the recruiting devil. No standards on the character/student just for the sake of finding the athlete/future NBA talent. Almost to the point where it was more about athletecism than basketball skill. That mindset has translated to this mess.

This was a very clean program up until then - we had guys like Emeka Okafor representing the university from the student athlete perspective. Boy have things changed. Although this group of kids seems like a solid bunch.

?????

Who other than Nate Miles was problematic?

 

[Henry]

i really think that somehow uconn will end up eligible for the tourney next year, based on the improvements in your scores and the reports that they may change the reporting dates in a meeting later this month. i'm thinking this is a stunt for the ncaa to prove publically that they really do care about academics, but they will ultimately back off.

Unfortunately, I think they will use us as an example.

 

[Henry]

?????

Who other than Nate Miles was problematic?

Doug Wrenn

 

[upstater]

Doug Wrenn

Nope, he was pre-2004

 

[ruskin]

Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread (haven't been online since Fri. morning). Is it possible UConn profs are a little tougher on players academically here than, say, Kentucky? The culture there seems a lot more willing to bend to players than in Storrs. JMHO. . . .BTW I agree w/guy who said bring back Taigen

 

[Mr.Phat]

This APR mess is JC's fault to the extent that he seemed completely indifferent to the academic success of the players. This indifference is symptomatic of an impotent, no-show athletic director. The APR problem is of a piece with the Miles mess. They both arise out of the same undisciplined managerial culture.

I truly believe a proactive compliance department would not have let the Miles situation degenerate into what it did. And a strong AD would have taken the APR demands very seriously and told the coaches to start paying attention to the academic progress of the players. Geno, Edsall and Reid didn't have these APR problems, or did they? JC is a great coach but a lousy manager.

 

[magical2]

Some? how about most. yeah the kids are required to attend classes and what not, but were the coaches living on a different planet? did they have no idea what the credit requirements were for each semester and what grades the kids were getting? and if the kids "fell down" academically one year, then they should have been told to go to summer school to make up the classes. and if didn't, they shouldn't see the inside of Gampel until they got their academic house in order.

the players will get away with what they are allowed to get away with. most of them are 18-20 years old. the athletic department has coaches, assistants, trainers, advisers, etc. that none of these people had a clue what was going on is sad. that some fans want to place the blame on the players is a bit of a cop-out and the players are easy targets because they are gone. i'm sure if they did have a clue, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

i don't pretend to know the situation of each player. it's possible that some players took advantage or screwed over the university. but if the coaches had no idea, it's because they buried their heads in the sand and chose not to. Calhoun is apparently in this predicament because he had little control over what was going on - from recruiting to academics. now he is paying the price. and if he walks away before he cleans up his own mess, then he's not doing what's right. if you screw up, you pay the price.

 

[joober jones]

Isn't that 8 semesters t o graduate??

And what were those guys doing if not taking classes, and booking??

I think he was talking about Stanley Robinson. He was gone for one semester.

 

[upstater]

This APR mess is JC's fault to the extent that he seemed completely indifferent to the academic success of the players.

What does the APR have to do with academic success?

People keep saying stuff like this but no one has explained it.