Decision on Tourney Eligibility within 10 days

[caw]

I'm not ignoring anything...there were over 300 that did make the grade. And you keep arguing that everyone else "perverts the educational process'" which you know is totally bogus as well. A few schools do I'm sure, but over 300? Serioulsy? If that's the case than we really need to close this entire college basketball enterpise down as quickly as possible. Look, I'm not saying the APR is a good measure or a bad measure. I've heard arguments on both sides. I've spoken to Walter Harris about it and heard him speak about it at a couple of functions, and he defends it as a reasonable measure, so clearly, upstater, not everyone agrees with you that it is either bogus or anti-educational. But that is beside the point in a way. It is that it is the measure the NCAA agreed to use. As such it is incumbent on UCONN to make a major effort to comply. I do not believe that the athletic department did that for the men's basketball team. And blaming the measuring device or the NCAA does not change that simple fact.

I'll say it, the APR sucks donkey C@ck. However, it is the fairest measure out there.

Fun fact, if the new rule were fully in effect this year there would be 101 schools below the 930 4 year mark in basketball. There are about 360 D1 basketball programs; that means there would be 28% of all D1 basketball programs would be ineligible by the fully implemented rule (to be fully in place by 2015)

There are 33 schools below the 900 four year mark or about 10% of all D1 basketball schools.

 

[caw]

Come on. So the Oriakhi's are the typical family all of a sudden?

I'm not arguing that Calhoun and others should have reached out to the parents. I'm arguing that they probably did reach out, and it probably didn't have any impact.

Considering there wasn't a compliance department who knows. Perhaps you are right. I was responding to the nice polite phone call.

 

[upstater]

Bilas is full of it. He doesn't want any NCAA admission standards either. And he argues that there is nothing that can be done about 1-and-done. And that players should be paid. And that only major programs should get NCAA bids. He is nothing but a shill for the big programs. The fact that he has a law degree does nothing to make him less of a shill. Look, I would favor much higher academic standards for admission, and I favor ending 1-and-done by making scholarships unavailable until the recipeint's class graduates, and I favor requiring admission of athletes to reasonably track with the overall student body such that someone with an SAT score of 800 wouldn't get into Gampel without buying a ticket. And for that matter, reorganizing the NCAA tournament such that an eastern team never plays in Phoenix on a Thursday night and a team from California would't ever play in Boston unless one of those cities was hosting th efinal four. In a perfect world, universities wouldn't pervert the educational system by accepting students they know have zero intention of staying to actually graduate, and wouldn't line them up in phony courses and give them phony grades. But since we've seen universities do all these things it became necessary for the NCAA to step in. Now at least there is some standard. You have made very clear that you think it is a bad standard, but I'm not sure it is any worse than what went on before. Guys a tsome schools getting degrees without taking classes or having grades changed by adminsitrators to keep players eligilble, for example.

You remember Robert Smith at OSU? He was taking chemistry and physics courses. John Cooper puts his foot down and told him to drop down to an easy major that wouldn't interfere with football.

This is what the new NCAA rules are all about. To prevent some kids (like Gavin) from leaving before finishing (in good standing, whatever the hell that means) they'll screw things up for every kid.

 

[upstater]

I'll say it, the APR sucks donkey C@ck. However, it is the fairest measure out there.

Fun fact, if the new rule were fully in effect this year there would be 101 schools below the 930 4 year mark in basketball. There are about 360 D1 basketball programs; that means there would be 28% of all D1 basketball programs would be ineligible by the fully implemented rule (to be fully in place by 2015)

There are 33 schools below the 900 four year mark or about 10% of all D1 basketball schools.

It's not the fairest measure. I could do better in 30 seconds.

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't have to ask nicely. Repeated phone calls, calls to the parents, etc.

If the player is over 18, it would be a violation of federal law to contact the parents about his studies. I get it, you need someone to blame, but some of this is childish. Once a player is done playing, there is in fact nothing the school can do to make him keep studying. The school can try, and make sure the support is there if the player wants it, but if the players doesn't want to go to class you are powerless.

 

[johnhuskies95]

The only thing I blame Calhoun/the school on is that Calhoun has created a culture where transferring is not only accepted, it is encouraged.

The school and Calhoun should've recognized that lots of transfers would lead to APR problems down the road.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Freescooter doesn't look at specifics. He's no different than Pat Forde, Dana O'Neil, or Mike Decourcy. He just looks at the big headline and directs blame, assuming the whole system is fundamentally sound.

Anyone who reads about the APR for a second would recognize what a farce it is.

 

[businesslawyer]

The only thing I blame Calhoun/the school on is that Calhoun has created a culture where transferring is not only accepted, it is encouraged.

The school and Calhoun should've recognized that lots of transfers would lead to APR problems down the road.

This.

 

[caw]

I am going to have to disagree with that. In 2009 UConn recruited four kids, all of whom are now gone for reasons that are purely basketball related. When you consider that transfers are, inexplicably, held to a higher standard than other early departures, it makes it easy to lose points based on those four kids alone. As of now, it doesn't appear that AO will cost us any points, but I'm pretty sure Trice and Smith lost us at least one point, and unless they were not meeting the requirements that a normal student athlete would have to meet, that's pretty much bull . I forget what kind of standing Coombs was in, but he might have lost us a point as well.

The 08 class included two transfers as well in Scottie Haralson and Nate Miles, so in total that's five transfers over the past five years, all of whom transferred because they were unhappy with playing time. Assuming they were meeting the requirements, it appears absolutely absurd that the NCAA is using this as evidence that our basketball players do not take class seriously. On a football team, you can certainly overcome these transfers, but in basketball you are working with a much smaller sample size. While there is no doubt UConn could have done a better job with the APR, I'm pretty sure would be safe if it wasn't for these transfers.

Secondly, I agree with you that UConn knew the rules and should have complied, however, I don't think that is the heart of the issue. What I have a big problem with is NCAA having a rule with consequence X, then keeping that same rule and changing it to consequence Y without giving anybody a heads up. That's not UConn breaking the rules, that's the NCAA dropping a nuclear bomb to try to prove a point without thinking it through.

If the rules were cut and dry, and UConn broke them, then they made their own bed. However, that wasn't the case at all, and UConn was one of the few schools willing to take a poor APR score at the expense of two scholarships. If the NCAA wants to change the rules, fine, but you have to grandfather it in.

Players that left early for non-pro reasons:

2007-2008
Stanley left for the first semester of 2008-2009 so was probably a -1 or -2 for the second semester this year. (-2)
Kelley I think transferred in good standing?

2008-2009
Miles was a fluke that any normal school should have been able to withstand. (-2)
Harralson didn't drop any points because he transferred with good grades (I believe), to a D1 program (0)

2009-2010
Smith lost a point (or two?) for leaving with low grades. (-2)
Trice left for a non-D1 program in good standing (lost 1 point for going to a JC). (-1)

2010-2011
Jamal Coombs-McDaniel lost a point for low grades. (-1)

2011-2012
Alex should be fine.

So those 6 players left over 4 years (or 7 in 5). They account for at most 8 lost points. In the four years currently being used that is about 182 possible points. If those were the only points lost UConn would have an APR of 956.

I think I have those number correct. So to get to the 888 estimate you are talking about 12 other lost points. Transfers certainly didn't help but those who left to go pro or "graduated" hurt more over that time span.

Price/Thabeet/Adrien/Austrie/Majok/Edwards/Robinson/Beverly/Okuandu/Walker/Dyson are the players who left to go pro or left due to exhausted eligibility.

There is also the albatross known as Mandledove. He could have been a 2/4 every year for all 5 years for all I know. If he was counted as a scholarship player all four years and was never on pace to graduate any semester, he could have seriously been a -8 over the currently used four year period. I have no clue if Calhoun kept him on scholarship all four years or not. Seriously, UConn could have kept retaining Mandeldove and kept losing points while getting nothing from him on the court.

I'm going off of memory, so feel free to correct.

 

[caw]

It's not the fairest measure. I could do better in 30 seconds.

OK, you are on the clock

If the player is over 18, it would be a violation of federal law to contact the parents about his studies. I get it, you need someone to blame, but some of this is childish. Once a player is done playing, there is in fact nothing the school can do to make him keep studying. The school can try, and make sure the support is there if the player wants it, but if the players doesn't want to go to class you are powerless.

Right, you can't call and say certain things. There are ways to make it perfectly clear what you need without saying it.

There may not be a way to force kids after they leave, but you certainly can make things simpler while they are on campus. After freshman year I believe student-athletes only need to have 24 credits to be on pace to graduate, after sophomore year 48, 72, 96. That is 12 credits per semester. Push kids to take 2 summer courses a summer (6 credits).

 

[upstater]

OK, you are on the clock

What outcome are you looking for?

By the way, we do these assessments all the time. I've personally designed programs and gone through state level accreditation. The question is: what outcome are you looking for?

Herbst agrees with me that this is poor, poor work.

Let's get real here. These kids are put through the ringer during the Spring semester. The idea that they are regular students during that semester is preposterous. They are under the gun. What the NCAA should allow is longer scholarships to let students fulfill their academic requirements without insisting that they are like regular students. They are not like regular students. But you don't want to drop standards for them either and cheapen the degree or unfairly foist players who want an education into the pool with players who are only there to play basketball. The kids that don't care about academics at all--you're never going to solve that problem unless you raise admission standards, and even then there will be many that just don't care. In my experience, this is not the majority of players. Yet what's going on here is that the NCAA, realizing that players are a major disadvantage in the spring, has concocted a system which takes emphasis off of spring classes. That's well and good. But if you're going to do that, do not expect players to graduate within 4 years as though they were regular students (never mind the fact that the national average for graduation in 4 years for other students is now 30%). Instead, fully fund players so that they can get their degrees after their athletic eligibility expires. This new system is the worst of all worlds because it forces schools into contortions which aren't befitting of an academic institution.

Above freescooter asked me how I know that all schools are doing this. The answer is simple. I don't care who you are: if you're missing half the spring semester in every class, you're going to struggle. Every basketball school does this. It doesn't happen for football or many other sports, just bball. Having dealt with this situation personally, there's only one real solution, and that's to allow maximum flexibility for players in terms of support and scheduling. Instead we have the reverse, where students are mandated into faux courses that keep them eligible under a crazy "in good standing" criteria that means absolutely nothing.

If you wanted to insist on academic rigor, you'd do the exact opposite. You would force players to follow the degree requirements (which APR makes impossible) but at a slower pace. This requirements commitments to players and to education which the NCAA is unwilling to give. But they could fund the extension in scholarships simply by cutting coaches' pay.

 

[Gurleyman]

I believe Austrie, Dyson, Beverly and Okwandu graduated, and Kemba was obviously fine, even if he didn't officially graduate yet. Thabeet/Majok left early. Edwards (and maybe Adrien) didn't finish to take best shot at pros. Robinson (7) and Price (6) exhausted eligibility without being in school for eight semesters due to leaves of absence (partially in Price's case). That doesn't seem to be all that unusual a record for a basketball program (but now mix in the 0-for-2 for Miles, the 0-2 for Darius Smith, the 0-for-2 for Mandeldove, and a few transfers and you have a two-year train wreck).

The culture of transferring has been the most correctable problem. But when you think about it, our worst APR years really all started with the mass exodus of 2006. We had to replenish an entire roster and quickly - and we missed out on some of our top targets in the process. We basically didn't know what we had, and all 9 new players thought there was playing time available. They all came in, and some got weeded out (whoops - bad word choice). However, the transferring issue has been going on for some time - we've never just taken the happy bench guy with the 12th or 13th schollie (with a couple exceptions) - those have always been players who we figured we can take a chance on and then let go if they aren't good enough. Then you don't give yourself the margin of error for when you run into complications with your rotation guys.

 

[johnhuskies95]

For those better at calculating the APR than I am: is it true that if Mandeldove had just left the team/school before school started in 09/10 we would be fine for postseason eligibility next year?

 

[champs99and04]

Players that left early for non-pro reasons:

2007-2008
Stanley left for the first semester of 2008-2009 so was probably a -1 or -2 for the second semester this year. (-2)
Kelley I think transferred in good standing?

2008-2009
Miles was a fluke that any normal school should have been able to withstand. (-2)
Harralson didn't drop any points because he transferred with good grades (I believe), to a D1 program (0)

2009-2010
Smith lost a point (or two?) for leaving with low grades. (-2)
Trice left for a non-D1 program in good standing (lost 1 point for going to a JC). (-1)

2010-2011
Jamal Coombs-McDaniel lost a point for low grades. (-1)

2011-2012
Alex should be fine.

So those 6 players left over 4 years (or 7 in 5). They account for at most 8 lost points. In the four years currently being used that is about 182 possible points. If those were the only points lost UConn would have an APR of 956.

I think I have those number correct. So to get to the 888 estimate you are talking about 12 other lost points. Transfers certainly didn't help but those who left to go pro or "graduated" hurt more over that time span.

Price/Thabeet/Adrien/Austrie/Majok/Edwards/Robinson/Beverly/Okuandu/Walker/Dyson are the players who left to go pro or left due to exhausted eligibility.

There is also the albatross known as Mandledove. He could have been a 2/4 every year for all 5 years for all I know. If he was counted as a scholarship player all four years and was never on pace to graduate any semester, he could have seriously been a -8 over the currently used four year period. I have no clue if Calhoun kept him on scholarship all four years or not. Seriously, UConn could have kept retaining Mandeldove and kept losing points while getting nothing from him on the court.

I'm going off of memory, so feel free to correct.

Soo..I can't tell, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? It helps to see it laid out like that, but I think you have a better understanding of how the APR is calculated than I do. I'm under the impression that you receive a certain amount of points per year if you fulfill your requirements as a student athlete, but if you decide to transfer, you may lose points even if you are fulfilling your obligations. Do you have a list of the kids who stayed at UConn for four or more years but did not graduate? I'm just trying to better my understanding on what percentage of our poor APR score can be attributed to transfers/unusual circumstances and what percentage can be attributed to kids not giving a damn about academics. It would seem to me that the poor score is due more in part to the former, but I haven't broke down the numbers because I don't have all the information.

Would you agree despite the poor APR score that the NCAA is completely out of bounds in enforcing a consequence that nobody knew about until recently? That's the part that bothers me. I don't want to make it sound like complying with the APR is an option, but that's certainly the way certain teams treated it, including UConn. In their minds, the punishment for not complying did not outweigh the benefits of working around it.

 

[caw]

What outcome are you looking for?

By the way, we do these assessments all the time. I've personally designed programs and gone through state level accreditation. The question is: what outcome are you looking for?

Herbst agrees with me that this is poor, poor work.

Let's get real here. These kids are put through the ringer during the Spring semester. The idea that they are regular students during that semester is preposterous. They are under the gun. What the NCAA should allow is longer scholarships to let students fulfill their academic requirements without insisting that they are like regular students. They are not like regular students. But you don't want to drop standards for them either and cheapen the degree or unfairly foist players who want an education into the pool with players who are only there to play basketball. The kids that don't care about academics at all--you're never going to solve that problem unless you raise admission standards, and even then there will be many that just don't care. In my experience, this is not the majority of players. Yet what's going on here is that the NCAA, realizing that players are a major disadvantage in the spring, has concocted a system which takes emphasis off of spring classes. That's well and good. But if you're going to do that, do not expect players to graduate within 4 years as though they were regular students (never mind the fact that the national average for graduation in 4 years for other students is now 30%). Instead, fully fund players so that they can get their degrees after their athletic eligibility expires. This new system is the worst of all worlds because it forces schools into contortions which aren't befitting of an academic institution.

Above freescooter asked me how I know that all schools are doing this. The answer is simple. I don't care who you are: if you're missing half the spring semester in every class, you're going to struggle. Every basketball school does this. It doesn't happen for football or many other sports, just bball. Having dealt with this situation personally, there's only one real solution, and that's to allow maximum flexibility for players in terms of support and scheduling. Instead we have the reverse, where students are mandated into faux courses that keep them eligible under a crazy "in good standing" criteria that means absolutely nothing.

If you wanted to insist on academic rigor, you'd do the exact opposite. You would force players to follow the degree requirements (which APR makes impossible) but at a slower pace. This requirements commitments to players and to education which the NCAA is unwilling to give. But they could fund the extension in scholarships simply by cutting coaches' pay.

I fully agree the APR is a horrid system, or at least it's a horrid system to be used the way it is used. The insane idea that it somehow is a measure of graduation rates or academic success of student athletes is repugnant. I'm sure a better (more accurate design) could be instituted, I don't believe it could be done in 30 seconds (thus the smiley).

Ohh, I want a fully workable system that will fairly assess and punish all member institutions for the success and or failure of their student-athletes based on GPA and grad rates, but of course it must be accepted by said institutions so the big boys don't decide to leave and go start their own member institution. Good luck.

 

[caw]

Soo..I can't tell, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? It helps to see it laid out like that, but I think you have a better understanding of how the APR is calculated than I do. I'm under the impression that you receive a certain amount of points per year if you fulfill your requirements as a student athlete, but if you decide to transfer, you may lose points even if you are fulfilling your obligations. Do you have a list of the kids who stayed at UConn for four or more years but did not graduate? I'm just trying to better my understanding on what percentage of our poor APR score can be attributed to transfers/unusual circumstances and what percentage can be attributed to kids not giving a damn about academics. It would seem to me that the poor score is due more in part to the former, but I haven't broke down the numbers because I don't have all the information.

Would you agree despite the poor APR score that the NCAA is completely out of bounds in enforcing a consequence that nobody knew about until recently? That's the part that bothers me. I don't want to make it sound like complying with the APR is an option, but that's certainly the way certain teams treated it, including UConn. In their minds, the punishment for not complying did not outweigh the benefits of working around it.

I am agreeing to a point. There are some things out of UConn's control, there is just as much in UConn's control.

 

[upstater]

I fully agree the APR is a horrid system, or at least it's a horrid system to be used the way it is used. The insane idea that it somehow is a measure of graduation rates or academic success of student athletes is repugnant. I'm sure a better (more accurate design) could be instituted, I don't believe it could be done in 30 seconds (thus the smiley).

Ohh, I want a fully workable system that will fairly assess and punish all member institutions for the success and or failure of their student-athletes based on GPA and grad rates, but of course it must be accepted by said institutions so the big boys don't decide to leave and go start their own member institution. Good luck.

Assess and punish? UConn is being punished. It didn't take long for me to write what I wrote. Your last point is a good one. A real system would be rejected instantly. It's the reason why they've never gone to high admission standards. Derrick Rose never plays college ball if they did. Brandon Jennings couldn't find a place to play because of those very low standards he couldn't clear. Raise them a bit and you get many more like him.

The outcome you want, if I'm reading you correctly, is exactly what the APR does. Measure GPA and grad rates. Now, grad rates are meaningful but GPA isn't necessarily since you could have a high GPA in tiddlywinks. So, if that's the outcome, it would seem the APR suits fine.

A better outcome would be to ensure that students are proceeding toward their degrees. That is better measure.

 

[Chief00]

So are folks saying that Emmert , who if we are to believe many posters has no input or influence on these things, states this matter will be resolved in 10 days.

 

[freescooter]

Assess and punish? UConn is being punished. It didn't take long for me to write what I wrote. Your last point is a good one. A real system would be rejected instantly. It's the reason why they've never gone to high admission standards. Derrick Rose never plays college ball if they did. Brandon Jennings couldn't find a place to play because of those very low standards he couldn't clear. Raise them a bit and you get many more like him.

The outcome you want, if I'm reading you correctly, is exactly what the APR does. Measure GPA and grad rates. Now, grad rates are meaningful but GPA isn't necessarily since you could have a high GPA in tiddlywinks. So, if that's the outcome, it would seem the APR suits fine.

A better outcome would be to ensure that students are proceeding toward their degrees. That is better measure.

I don't disagree with you really, but unless you reform the system that allows, indeed encourages guys to come for one and 2 years rather than really coming to get an education as well as play basketball, what difference does it make whether you measure whether guys are proceeding toward their degree? If you have a system where a player, lets use Charlie Villanueva rather than a current player, made absolutley no bones about the fact that he was merely buying time until he got drafted,who was at UCONN for basketball purposes only, and under almost no circumstances short of a career ending injury was he staying at UCONN for 4 years, what the heck difference does it make whether you measure "progress toward a degree" for big time basketball players? I mean, the whole freaking Kentucky team has zero intention of getting a degree. If 1 of their freshmen is still in college next season, never mind making progress toward a degree, it will be a shock so what difference does it make if he is making progress toward a degree or not? In some ways the APR recognizes this reality and merely tries to make sure that guys at least stay in school for the semester after the basketball season ends. It trys to avoid the situation where a guy finishes th ebasketball season and then just leaves. the situation I remeber that best illustrates this was the SEton Hall kid, Glazer I think his name was, from Austrailia. After the Hall got beaten by Michigan he pretty much left he Kingdome and got on a plane back to Australia.

 

[djct1999]

per espn college hoops blog Q&A with Mark Emmert.

One thing I think most people have supported is the idea of making the APR more punitive -- that if the grades aren't there, you shouldn't be in the NCAA tournament. The first real high-profile school to be affected by that is Connecticut. It's been public about its desire for an appeals process. Should that be a possibility?

Emmert: There is an appeals process. They've made one appeal, and they're going to submit their second and final appeal on this coming Monday. Monday, I assume, they will file another appeal. That will go to the Committee on Academic Performance -- CAP, as the acronym is called -- and then they'll make a final ruling on their eligibility.

What are the different things that would affect an appeal like that? The APR seems sort of cut and dry -- your APR was bad, that's the rule, deal with it.

Emmert: Well, this is a new rule. This will be one of the first rulings on it. The committee will have to consider what things can or not be considered as mitigating factors in that performance. So this is completely different than an infractions case, because this is about qualification. What the board and the CAP said last fall was going forward, teams have to qualify two ways -- they have to qualify on the court or the field and they have to qualify in the classroom. One is not sufficient. You have to do both. So the committee will consider Connecticut or anyone else's appeals and whether there are any mitigating factors or whether their score should be considered differently for some reason.

 

[Chief00]

What the board and the CAP said last fall was going forward, teams have to qualify two ways -- they have to qualify on the court or the field and they have to qualify in the classroom. One is not sufficient.

Like many Political Science Professors Emmert is really not very bright. He said what the board and the CAP said "last fall was going forward teams have to qualify two ways'" . Yet the genius goes back 4 years to extract revenge on Calhoun. Not exactly last fall and going forward.

 

[businesslawyer]

I don't disagree with you really, but unless you reform the system that allows, indeed encourages guys to come for one and 2 years rather than really coming to get an education as well as play basketball, what difference does it make whether you measure whether guys are proceeding toward their degree? If you have a system where a player, lets use Charlie Villanueva rather than a current player, made absolutley no bones about the fact that he was merely buying time until he got drafted,who was at UCONN for basketball purposes only, and under almost no circumstances short of a career ending injury was he staying at UCONN for 4 years, what the heck difference does it make whether you measure "progress toward a degree" for big time basketball players? I mean, the whole freaking Kentucky team has zero intention of getting a degree. If 1 of their freshmen is still in college next season, never mind making progress toward a degree, it will be a shock so what difference does it make if he is making progress toward a degree or not? In some ways the APR recognizes this reality and merely tries to make sure that guys at least stay in school for the semester after the basketball season ends. It trys to avoid the situation where a guy finishes th ebasketball season and then just leaves. the situation I remeber that best illustrates this was the SEton Hall kid, Glazer I think his name was, from Austrailia. After the Hall got beaten by Michigan he pretty much left he Kingdome and got on a plane back to Australia.

Andrew Gaze. His father was one of the leading basketball coaches in Australia, and he played in a number of Olympics after leaving the Hall.

 

[upstater]

I don't disagree with you really, but unless you reform the system that allows, indeed encourages guys to come for one and 2 years rather than really coming to get an education as well as play basketball, what difference does it make whether you measure whether guys are proceeding toward their degree? If you have a system where a player, lets use Charlie Villanueva rather than a current player, made absolutley no bones about the fact that he was merely buying time until he got drafted,who was at UCONN for basketball purposes only, and under almost no circumstances short of a career ending injury was he staying at UCONN for 4 years, what the heck difference does it make whether you measure "progress toward a degree" for big time basketball players? I mean, the whole freaking Kentucky team has zero intention of getting a degree. If 1 of their freshmen is still in college next season, never mind making progress toward a degree, it will be a shock so what difference does it make if he is making progress toward a degree or not? In some ways the APR recognizes this reality and merely tries to make sure that guys at least stay in school for the semester after the basketball season ends. It trys to avoid the situation where a guy finishes th ebasketball season and then just leaves. the situation I remeber that best illustrates this was the SEton Hall kid, Glazer I think his name was, from Austrailia. After the Hall got beaten by Michigan he pretty much left he Kingdome and got on a plane back to Australia.

Progressing toward a degree means you're taking legitimate classes that will count toward a degree.

 

[freescooter]

Andrew Gaze. His father was one of the leading basketball coaches in Australia, and he played in a number of Olympics after leaving the Hall.

Yep, that's the one. I don't even think he took the team flight back to New Jersey. Went directly back to Austrailia. I actually agree with upstater in theory by the way. But I just think that it is pretty senseless to worry about a guy who has zero intention or zero interest in graduating. I think the larger system needs reforming such that 1-and-done is the exception, that guys who leave early are the rarities, and that guys who come to play college basketball are actually committed to college as well as basketball.

 

[businesslawyer]

I don't disagree with you really, but unless you reform the system that allows, indeed encourages guys to come for one and 2 years rather than really coming to get an education as well as play basketball, what difference does it make whether you measure whether guys are proceeding toward their degree? If you have a system where a player, lets use Charlie Villanueva rather than a current player, made absolutley no bones about the fact that he was merely buying time until he got drafted,who was at UCONN for basketball purposes only, and under almost no circumstances short of a career ending injury was he staying at UCONN for 4 years, what the heck difference does it make whether you measure "progress toward a degree" for big time basketball players? I mean, the whole freaking Kentucky team has zero intention of getting a degree. If 1 of their freshmen is still in college next season, never mind making progress toward a degree, it will be a shock so what difference does it make if he is making progress toward a degree or not? In some ways the APR recognizes this reality and merely tries to make sure that guys at least stay in school for the semester after the basketball season ends. It trys to avoid the situation where a guy finishes th ebasketball season and then just leaves. the situation I remeber that best illustrates this was the SEton Hall kid, Glazer I think his name was, from Austrailia. After the Hall got beaten by Michigan he pretty much left he Kingdome and got on a plane back to Australia.

This is the real issue here. Unless you're willing to stop bringing in players who are using colleges as a minor league, rather than to play basketball while earning a degree, there is no system you can put in place that won't be irrational to a large degree. Because the premise is irrational to start with.