2013 APR decision today possibly?

[husky91]

See tweet link

https://twitter.com/andyglockner/status/171609839150174209

 

[Yonick]

They meet today, but knowing how this group, and the NCAA works the final decision will probably get put off till April. What this does is allow recruiters to tell kids that UConn won't be in the 2013 tourney for at least another 2 months.

 

[husky91]

Yes, but maybe they can get an immediate resolution. They have to know or else their 2012 recruiting is futile. Also, it's an appeal so the details of the case are well understood already.

They meet today, but knowing how this group, and the NCAA works the final decision will probably get put off till April. What this does is allow recruiters to tell kids that UConn won't be in the 2013 tourney for at least another 2 months.

 

[husky99]

I thought the ncaa said we where out.... what has changed

 

[Yonick]

Two things, first UConn has an appeal. That probably won't work.
Second, the Committee meets today to determine which years should be figured into consideration for tournament ban. Also they will determine if 2013 would be too much of short notice for schools to get their act together. If they change the criterion years, and/or the 2013 date to 2014 or beyond, than UConn is OK. This the more likely case for UConn to get a favorable ruling rather than the appeal.
But, if the final decision is put off to April, it hurts recruiting no matter what the final decision is.

 

[CTFIRERETIRED]

I still can't see Uconn being gonged. Call me naive, but the NCAA has been on our case for some time. How much longer is this going to continue. Time for the NCAA to go after some other program. I am starting to feel like UNLV in the 80's and 90's.

 

[zls44]

The double-jeopardy thing is bogus, but none of this is an issue if UConn just played by the APR rules. Almost every other school in the country was able to do it. UConn had an entire class of kids who did not give a damn about going to class, and worse yet, an administration/basketball staff that did not care about them graduating. It was a massive institutional failure.

That is not the fault of the NCAA.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I still can't see Uconn being gonged. Call me naive, but the NCAA has been on our case for some time. How much longer is this going to continue. Time for the NCAA to go after some other program. I am starting to feel like UNLV in the 80's and 90's.

You're naive.

The NCAA is salivating at the opportunity to hammer a major program to show that their APR system has teeth.

 

[djct1999]

Couldnt disagree more. UConn was already penalized for the existing APR rule. What is bogus is not that the NCAA wants to institute a postseason ban going fwd, but moreso going back 4 years retroactively. That is completely unfair and unjust, especially with the major improvement UConn has shown since then.

 

[UofCT]

I still can't see Uconn being gonged. Call me naive, but the NCAA has been on our case for some time. How much longer is this going to continue. Time for the NCAA to go after some other program. I am starting to feel like UNLV in the 80's and 90's.

What happened to UNLV in the 80's and 90's?

 

[businesslawyer]

The double-jeopardy thing is bogus, but none of this is an issue if UConn just played by the APR rules. Almost every other school in the country was able to do it. UConn had an entire class of kids who did not give a damn about going to class, and worse yet, an administration/basketball staff that did not care about them graduating. It was a massive institutional failure.

That is not the fault of the NCAA.

But the "double jeopardy" argument is the only thing that anyone is fighting about. We didn't make numbers, and we're serving our punishment. That was our fault. But why are you raising that when it's history?

 

[zls44]

But the "double jeopardy" argument is the only thing that anyone is fighting about. We didn't make numbers, and we're serving our punishment. That was our fault. But why are you raising that when it's history?

It's just hard for me to see people complaining about this when, at the end of the day, if they just made sure the kids flipping went to class, this never happens. They never have a case or a problem.

 

[mets1090]

It's just hard for me to see people complaining about this when, at the end of the day, if they just made sure the kids flipping went to class, this never happens. They never have a case or a problem.

If you got pulled over for going 81 in a 65 and you had to pay a ticket, you would probably say "This sucks, but those are the rules when you get caught."

Then next year they change the rule and say everyone that gets a ticket for going more than 15 mph over the speed limit will have their license revoked for a month, including anyone that has been caught in the last 2 years. I'm sure you wouldn't be thinking "If I hadn't been speeding, I wouldn't be in this situation." While this is obviously the case, it doesn't mean it's fair to punish people for crimes committed under a set of rules that wasn't in place when they committed the crime.

 

[Vuce]

If you got pulled over for going 81 in a 65 and you had to pay a ticket, you would probably say "This sucks, but those are the rules when you get caught."

Then next year they change the rule and say everyone that gets a ticket for going more than 15 mph over the speed limit will have their license revoked for a month, including anyone that has been caught in the last 2 years. I'm sure you wouldn't be thinking "If I hadn't been speeding, I wouldn't be in this situation." While this is obviously the case, it doesn't mean it's fair to punish people for crimes committed under a set of rules that wasn't in place when they committed the crime.

I swear to JC I was just going to bring up the SAME example. Let's say zls was hit with a $500 speeding ticket and he paid it. Then a year later they change the law and say he owes another $1000. I am positive the reaction would not be "hey I was speeding so I put myself in this situation."

 

[businesslawyer]

It's just hard for me to see people complaining about this when, at the end of the day, if they just made sure the kids flipping went to class, this never happens. They never have a case or a problem.

So you wouldn't complain if you got punished a second time for something that you could have prevented, but didn't, and then got punished for? You wouldn't be made if you chose to drink and drive, had your license suspended for 90 days and then you were told a year later they had decided on an additional penalty and you were going to jail for thirty days?

You really think anyone believes you'd be o.k. with that because it was in your power to not drink and drive in the first place?

 

[caw]

So you wouldn't complain if you got punished a second time for something that you could have prevented, but didn't, and then got punished for? You wouldn't be made if you chose to drink and drive, had your license suspended for 90 days and then you were told a year later they had decided on an additional penalty and you were going to jail for thirty days?

You really think anyone believes you'd be o.k. with that because it was in your power to not drink and drive in the first place?

I get where he is coming from, it's embarrassing that the NCAA even has the option of penalizing UConn at all. That said, the retroactive punishment is insane.

 

[cohenzone]

It's just hard for me to see people complaining about this when, at the end of the day, if they just made sure the kids flipping went to class, this never happens. They never have a case or a problem.

Nobody except people with Husky colored glasses thinks that the UConn program doesn't deserve sanctions for failure to meet known standards, even if the standards are flawed. But I'd wonder if you'd think it okay if you had been convicted of first degree murder in a state that had no death penalty and been sentenced to life without parole, and the state adopted the death penalty a year after your incarceration and made it applicable to all prisoners who had sentences like yours? After all, you were the one who bloodied the knife, so what the hey, happens to people who do bad things. Make sure your lawyers don't bother to appeal.

No, this isn't the death penalty, but for a basketball program. it certainly has a pretty tough result. Is it possible, that had this penalty been in place at the time the UConn failures were occurring that the violations would have happened anyway and that UConn would have no obvious recourse? Of course. But that isn't the way it happened. I love the show "The Good Wife". There was a line in this past week's show to the effect that when the people who enforce the rules have you, don't expect them to be reasonable.

 

[zls44]

The double jeopardy aspect is BS. Doesn't mean it wasn't totally avoidable in the first place.

To use the speeding ticket example, me being upset doesn't change the basic fact that if I observed the speed limit, I wouldn't have gotten a ticket. It's like when people talk about court cases and use the "how would YOU feel if YOU were the victim?"

Doesn't matter. At all.

The penalty isn't up to me. This is why we have jury trials. To create, as best we can, fair, unbiased judgments. The way a victim feels is irrelevent to the judgement of guilty/not guilty.

 

[businesslawyer]

The double jeopardy aspect is BS. Doesn't mean it wasn't totally avoidable in the first place.

To use the speeding ticket example, me being upset doesn't change the basic fact that if I observed the speed limit, I wouldn't have gotten a ticket. It's like when people talk about court cases and use the "how would YOU feel if YOU were the victim?"

Doesn't matter. At all.

The penalty isn't up to me. This is why we have jury trials. To create, as best we can, fair, unbiased judgments. The way a victim feels is irrelevent to the judgement of guilty/not guilty.

I've got it. You don't want to let what you plainly acknowledge as "BS" interfere with your right to blame people for an event for which blame was already allocated more than a year ago and the punishment meted out and partially served. Even though the only "new" matter to discuss is how the acknowledge BS can actually happen.

 

[UCHuskies08]

The more appropriate analogy, since the kids who didn't go to class were all eligible for the tournament when they were here, and kids who by all accounts are doing fine academically won't be; would be when you're 16 and just getting ready to get your license, your older brother got a bad speeding ticket a year ago, paid the fine, then you got a notice saying you need to wait another year before you get your license because it's been shown people in your family have a penchant for speeding.

 

[businesslawyer]

The more appropriate analogy, since the kids who didn't go to class were all eligible for the tournament when they were here, and kids who by all accounts are doing fine academically won't be; would be when you're 16 and just getting ready to get your license, your older brother got a bad speeding ticket a year ago, paid the fine, then you got a notice saying you need to wait another year before you get your license because it's been shown people in your family have a penchant for speeding.

That I don't agree with. The NCAA can't punish the athletes once they're gone -- all they can do is punish the school. I have no issue with that. And I didn't see people here complaining when USC football took a bullet for what Reggie Bush had done a few years earlier.

The unfairness at the moment is entirely a double jeopardy issue.

 

[Gregory Koch]

Nobody except people with Husky colored glasses thinks that the UConn program doesn't deserve sanctions for failure to meet known standards, even if the standards are flawed. But I'd wonder if you'd think it okay if you had been convicted of first degree murder in a state that had no death penalty and been sentenced to life without parole, and the state adopted the death penalty a year after your incarceration and made it applicable to all prisoners who had sentences like yours? After all, you were the one who bloodied the knife, so what the hey, happens to people who do bad things. Make sure your lawyers don't bother to appeal.

No, this isn't the death penalty, but for a basketball program. it certainly has a pretty tough result. Is it possible, that had this penalty been in place at the time the UConn failures were occurring that the violations would have happened anyway and that UConn would have no obvious recourse? Of course. But that isn't the way it happened. I love the show "The Good Wife". There was a line in this past week's show to the effect that when the people who enforce the rules have you, don't expect them to be reasonable.

No, you should get life in prison. Legally, in this country, if I commit a murder when there is no death penalty, only a life sentence, I can't get the death penalty, even if the legislature legalizes it the next day. But I can (and should) still get life imprisonment.

Now, suppose I'm driving to the victim's house and the governor signs a bill to legalize the death penalty effective immediately (which in politics never happens, but all this proves is that the NCAA is less bureaucratic than the government, which frankly is like saying ants are smarter than coconuts). I had no way of knowing I could get the death penalty when I set out to commit the murder. But I can still get the death penalty for it. Of course, this is a slightly different situation because it wouldn't take me two years to get to his house and commit the murder, but nevertheless, the fact that there was no death penalty when I decided to commit the murder is irrelevant. The legal definition of when a murder takes place is when the victim dies. If something weird happened and first I shot him, then they legalized the death penalty, and then he died, I might be able to make a case out of it if I took the government to the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, there is no legal precedent one way or the other. But this isn't like that. And, I would still get punished. At best, I would get life imprisonment.
Oh, and one more thing - the Constitution applies to the federal government, and via the 14th Amendment, also applies to state and local governments. However, it does not apply to the NCAA, who is a private agency, not a government one. As long as it doesn't violate any commerce laws, the NCAA can do whatever it wants. You want to apply the 5th Amendment to the NCAA, should we cite the First Amendment and say technical fouls for trash talk are Unconstitutional? Or cite the Second Amendment and let players bring guns to games? Obviously this would be ridiculous. Why? Because the NCAA is not a government institution. You can't talk about "double jeopardy" with them and think it means anything.

 

[DogMania]

The whole time table on the APR-2013 Tourney issue has been completely confusing to me. My whole take on this is that they weren't going to decide till around this time. Add to that, it sure seemed that those at UConn failed Negotiations 101 and were offering things up prematurely. Maybe the NCAA gave them some definitive decision and they were responding to that, but based on time lines we had seen, it didn't seem that was the case. Maybe someone at UConn figured that if they offered an olive branch...seemed like the whole grove to me...the NCAA would either accept it or if they didn't would decide in their favor as a result of their efforts. Unless they received a definitive, you're out, I think the whole thing was a huge mistake and brought more bad press than anything else. I would think that most of the recruits that might be considering UConn would have had major reservations about our program when all those reports and articles came out after the programs offer was disclosed and soon after unceremoniously rejected.

If in fact, some within the NCAA have it out for UConn, even if they plan on eventually including the Huskies they drag this out as long as possible to kick our program and their recruiting efforts in the ass. This whole situation sickens me and is so unfair to the current players who are kicking butt in the classroom the past couple years. Really!!! When you look close at this whole situation, there are no seniors on this team and just one junior, Alex, who's really done well in the classroom. The NCAA is punishing a team that is made up by 90%...well really 100% of a roster who's APR contribution is flawless over the past 2 years and had absolutely no impact on the bad prior numbers. What a complete fricken joke!!!!

 

[NOTaDIME]

Two wrongs dont make a right. We should have been more responsible and followed the rules and the NCAA shouldn't retroactively punish schools in this manner.

 

[zls44]

I've got it. You don't want to let what you plainly acknowledge as "BS" interfere with your right to blame people for an event for which blame was already allocated more than a year ago and the punishment meted out and partially served. Even though the only "new" matter to discuss is how the acknowledge BS can actually happen.

True or false: if the school made sure the players went to class, this is never an issue.

True. Irrefutably.