Herbst better lobby that the APR doesn't get passed retroactively. | The Boneyard

Herbst better lobby that the APR doesn't get passed retroactively.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
302
Reaction Score
54
I'm all for the change to get a higher standard, but you can't punish the players currently on the team for transgressions of former players. UConn and Big East will lose alot of money if this rule gets passed and UConn is held out of the NCAAs. I'm sure the other 300+ teams would love to see UConn get banned, but this is about fairness and money. This would be something CT's attorney general SHOULD GO AFTER.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction Score
0
Making this rule retroactive makes no sense whatsoever. One has to believe that a huge lawsuit would ensue, the whole situation would become very messy, and this would be the first nail in the coffin for the NCAA.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction Score
1,306
From her comments to the Courant, it appears that Emmert went rogue and brought the "immediate implementation" up on his own, or at the behest of some school at the meeting in DC. It sounds like Pres. Herbst was blindsided a bit. Not the way the NCAA is supposed to conduct business.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,459
Reaction Score
12,234
It won't pass. It just doesn't make sense and I can assure you, the NCAA absolutely wants UCONN in the tournament. The spectacle that would be made of banning us would be damaging to the tourney. You lose a huge draw from the field, the champ gets an asterick because they didn't beat UCONN and the whole APR thing gets picked apart for the farce it is for the next 6 months. No worries.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
4,012
Reaction Score
2,904
Let us not forget for the 100th time Mark Emmert/President of the NCAA and former chief academic officer at UConn (1995-1999).
 

fleudslipcon

We are UConn!! 4>>>1
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,889
Reaction Score
16,885
If and when they implement the new ruling I would wager that the scoring begins from that date and all prior scoring would be eliminated. No basis for my certainty, but any other implementation would not make it through the courts.

So let them implement the new system and UConn can get rid of that disaster 09-10 season.

UConn will be fine as long as they correct the good standing student problem going forward.
 

prankster

Twister Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
3,808
Reaction Score
3,070
1: Retroactive is not proactive. It is punitive. (Even an academic should be able to wrap his brain around that one.)

2: Applying a standard, retroactively, especially one that impacts one and only one school (for practical purposes) is "capricious", and as there is $ involved, it is also actionable under tort law.

3: Attempting to apply such a standard would, undoubtedly, result in a lawsuit and the discovery process would be....eye opening.... as the variations among the reporting institutions methodologies would make the APR number, itself, arbitrary.

The resulting lawsuit is a great big LOSER for the NCAA and even an academic should be able to wrap his brain around that. And, if not, then it is very likely that his attorney will be able to spell it out for him....in that dollars and cents kind of way that only an attorney can spell out such things....

Finally: As people have already discussed, this whole thing is a cluster fuc&, already....the NCAA needs to standardize its reporting methods, before it does another damned thing on this issue....then it needs to improve its auditing of the reporting.

Once that is in place, it can derive the appropriate "mandatory compliance level".

Once those things are in place, you start the "compliance clock" and give the institutions their "three years or else" (or whatever timeframe it is) mandate.

Absent the establishment of this groundwork, they would punishing (only some) institutions for "normal" behaviors.....and they will be, correspondingly, losing expensive and embarrassing lawsuits, as a direct result.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
79
Reaction Score
27
Let us not forget for the 100th time Mark Emmert/President of the NCAA and former chief academic officer at UConn (1995-1999).

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? (Honest question, I didn't know that until you mentioned it. Interesting indeed.)
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
4,012
Reaction Score
2,904
1: Retroactive is not proactive. It is punitive. (Even an academic should be able to wrap his brain around that one.)

2: Applying a standard, retroactively, especially one that impacts one and only one school (for practical purposes) is "capricious", and as there is $ involved, it is also actionable under tort law.

3: Attempting to apply such a standard would, undoubtedly, result in a lawsuit and the discovery process would be....eye opening.... as the variations among the reporting institutions methodologies would make the APR number, itself, arbitrary.

The resulting lawsuit is a great big LOSER for the NCAA and even an academic should be able to wrap his brain around that. And, if not, then it is very likely that his attorney will be able to spell it out for him....in that dollars and cents kind of way that only an attorney can spell out such things....

Finally: As people have already discussed, this whole thing is a cluster fuc&, already....the NCAA needs to standardize its reporting methods, before it does another damned thing on this issue....then it needs to improve its auditing of the reporting.

Once that is in place, it can derive the appropriate "mandatory compliance level".

Once those things are in place, you start the "compliance clock" and give the institutions their "three years or else" (or whatever timeframe it is) mandate.

Absent the establishment of this groundwork, they would punishing (only some) institutions for "normal" behaviors.....and they will be, correspondingly, losing expensive and embarrassing lawsuits, as a direct result.
I agree and will go even further by stating this response represents a declaration of a foreseeable verdict on these issues pronounced beyond all doubt or in tort law meeting the burden of "clear and convincing evidence". The provable facts necessary to support claims against the NCAA are clearly present. Thanks for such a detailed and well thought out response. I appreciate you taking the time. Have a good 1...
 

fleudslipcon

We are UConn!! 4>>>1
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
14,889
Reaction Score
16,885
1: Retroactive is not proactive. It is punitive. (Even an academic should be able to wrap his brain around that one.)

2: Applying a standard, retroactively, especially one that impacts one and only one school (for practical purposes) is "capricious", and as there is $ involved, it is also actionable under tort law.

3: Attempting to apply such a standard would, undoubtedly, result in a lawsuit and the discovery process would be....eye opening.... as the variations among the reporting institutions methodologies would make the APR number, itself, arbitrary.

The resulting lawsuit is a great big LOSER for the NCAA and even an academic should be able to wrap his brain around that. And, if not, then it is very likely that his attorney will be able to spell it out for him....in that dollars and cents kind of way that only an attorney can spell out such things....

Finally: As people have already discussed, this whole thing is a cluster fuc&, already....the NCAA needs to standardize its reporting methods, before it does another damned thing on this issue....then it needs to improve its auditing of the reporting.

Once that is in place, it can derive the appropriate "mandatory compliance level".

Once those things are in place, you start the "compliance clock" and give the institutions their "three years or else" (or whatever timeframe it is) mandate.

Absent the establishment of this groundwork, they would punishing (only some) institutions for "normal" behaviors.....and they will be, correspondingly, losing expensive and embarrassing lawsuits, as a direct result.

Great post. Knowing you, I had to read through it twice to see if you were serious. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
471
Guests online
1,294
Total visitors
1,765

Forum statistics

Threads
165,296
Messages
4,010,435
Members
8,801
Latest member
ArizonaHsky


Top Bottom