Isn't this the week the NCAA GIVES IT'S FINAL OPINION

[Yonick]

Last I heard this committee was meeting this week and would decide if they were to change their years for deciding on tourney eligibility.
They've waffled on this for so long I doubt they'll change the years. They were to decide in Feb., then in April. Now it's July.

 

[SubbaBub]

Well, they are letting Boise off the hook so we should expect the same.



......riiiiigggghhhhht.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[specialisthusky]

Save yourself the disappointment and forget about this bs. I doubt we even hear anything regarding a "final decision."

 

[HuskyHawk]

It seems obvious enough that the entire rule change only had one purpose, to punish UConn for having the balls to win a National Championship while down scholarships for both the APR and for recruiting violations. I think the NCAA was apoplectic about that. The resulting APR rule change was their tantrum. If they could have just beaten JC with a bamboo stick, they probably would have. So I'm not expecting any last minute mercy, especially since Calhoun is still at the helm.

 

[Gregory Koch]

It's too late to change the rules for this year, IMO. It would be good for us, but not for the schools who thought they wouldn't be banned for another year. Or for the players at those schools, who can't transfer at such a late date. As much as I'd like to see it happen for our sake, it shouldn't at this point.

 

[champs99and04]

It's too late to change the rules for this year, IMO. It would be good for us, but not for the schools who thought they wouldn't be banned for another year. Or for the players at those schools, who can't transfer at such a late date. As much as I'd like to see it happen for our sake, it shouldn't at this point.

I agree. What a reasonable organization would do, would be to delay the enforcements of such harsh penalties a year to give programs time to adjust to the stricter guidelines.

On another note, UConn's failue to sue the NCAA over this debacle dating back to November is absolutely inexcuseable. This was a heartless kick in the nuts to a program that was on the right track and in the clear regarding the APR, having come off a season where they had posted an APR score in the 976 range. At this point, it's hard to imagine the retroactive enforcement of such a rule was anything less than revenge for UConn finding a loophole in the scholarship restrictions to sign Drummond.

 

[Huskymaniac]

It would be fascinating if the team had a great season. Imagine the headlines! UConn players earn right to be in tournament, are all on track tograduate with a great APR score, but won't be allowed to play due to academic standing of players no longer on the team!

 

[Chin Diesel]

""I think if a (BCS school) didn't make it, it would look really bad," Ohio University professor David Ridpath said last week. Ridpath is also past president of NCAA watchdog The Drake Group."

This is all you need to know about what the post season ban is all about. They needed one "name" school and Uconn served it's own head on a platter. It was always about making headlines.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...nnecticut-huskies-9-others-sit-postseason-apr

 

[Gregory Koch]

I agree. What a reasonable organization would do, would be to delay the enforcements of such harsh penalties a year to give programs time to adjust to the stricter guidelines.

On another note, UConn's failue to sue the NCAA over this debacle dating back to November is absolutely inexcuseable. This was a heartless kick in the nuts to a program that was on the right track and in the clear regarding the APR, having come off a season where they had posted an APR score in the 976 range. At this point, it's hard to imagine the retroactive enforcement of such a rule was anything less than revenge for UConn finding a loophole in the scholarship restrictions to sign Drummond.

We have no grounds to sue. The NCAA is a private organization and can set whatever ridiculous restrictions it wants on its members. If it wants to say that effective tomorrow all schools nicknamed the Huskies are banned from the postseason for 200 years then that's legal.

 

[CL82]

It's too late to change the rules for this year, IMO. It would be good for us, but not for the schools who thought they wouldn't be banned for another year. Or for the players at those schools, who can't transfer at such a late date. As much as I'd like to see it happen for our sake, it shouldn't at this point.

That's just silly. It's a brand new rule. Give schools the option of using the most current period if using old data results in disqualification. That means that no one else is adversely affected and UConn isn't punished because the NCAA's inablility to timely process information. The put out an announcement that given the short transition period they aren't going to punish schools who have show substantial progress. Make UConn the success story about how the NCAA brought a "rogue institution" back into the fold.

Done.

 

[CL82]

We have no grounds to sue. The NCAA is a private organization and can set whatever ridiculous restrictions it wants on its members. If it wants to say that effective tomorrow all schools nicknamed the Huskies are banned from the postseason for 200 years then that's legal.

I'm not so sure that we have no grounds to sue. They laid out rules and the arbitrarily and retroactively changed them. NCAA member is voluntary in name only, that's and easy case to make. Now whether we would prevail isn't quite so clear.

 

[Gregory Koch]

I'm not so sure that we have no grounds to sue. They laid out rules and the arbitrarily and retroactively changed them. NCAA member is voluntary in name only, that's and easy case to make. Now whether we would prevail isn't quite so clear.

NCAA membership is indeed voluntary. We could join the NAIA, not have athletics teams, or defect along with other top schools who don't care about academics (Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida State, USC, North Carolina, etc.) and start a new organization that doesn't care as much about academics and cares more about athletics. Something tells me that within 20 years, the latter will happen.

 

[CL82]

NCAA membership is indeed voluntary. We could join the NAIA, not have athletics teams, or defect along with other top schools who don't care about academics (Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida State, USC, North Carolina, etc.) and start a new organization that doesn't care as much about academics and cares more about athletics. Something tells me that within 20 years, the latter will happen.

First, I cannot disagree strongly enough with your premise that the University of Connecticut does not care about academics. Simply a rediculous statement.

Organizations can change their rules, but to using old data such that UConn's compliance with the target goals was mathematically impossible from the moment the new rules come into effect is problematic for the NCAA. The notion that UConn could form it's own organization in order to avoid the 2013 sanction is silly. They have a massive investment in athletics and the lack of phase in period makes the NCAA is the only show in town. The university could certainly file suit but having "grounds to sue" and prevailing aren't the same thing.

 

[Gregory Koch]

First, I cannot disagree strongly enough with your premise that the University of Connecticut does not care about academics. Simply a rediculous statement.

Organizations can change their rules, but to using old data such that UConn's compliance with the target goals was mathematically impossible from the moment the new rules come into effect is problematic for the NCAA. The notion that UConn could form it's own organization in order to avoid the 2013 sanction is silly. They have a massive investment in athletics and the lack of phase in period makes the NCAA is the only show in town. The university could certainly file suit but having "grounds to sue" and prevailing aren't the same thing.

The University cares about academics for its real students. Not so much for it's athletes. With the exception of Bradley, all our basketball players took incredibly easy courses and we still couldn't meet the NCAA standards.

I don't think UConn will form a new organization this year to avoid the sanctions. But onc me Syracuse and Kentucky get banned too (which they will at some point) then I could definitely see us and a bunch of other schools who don't care too much about academics defecting to a new organization. The ncAA WOULD be
Left with the schools who actually treat their student athletes like regular students, including the ivy league, patriot league, service academies, and a bunch of other smaller conferences. I'm not the first one to speculate on this and there have been whole books written on the topic. This new academic policy makes it even more likely.

You don't have to convince me it was stupid to apply this policy retroactively. But we were discussing whether it was illegal and that's another issue. The NCAA is a private organization with voluntary membership (plus one competing
Organizatoon in the naia) and can apply whatever restrictions it wants, retroactively or not. That doesn't make it right, but there is no doubt in my mind it's legal.

 

[phillionaire]

The University cares about academics for its real students. Not so much for it's athletes. With the exception of Bradley, all our basketball players took incredibly easy courses and we still couldn't meet the NCAA standards.

I don't think UConn will form a new organization this year to avoid the sanctions. But onc me Syracuse and Kentucky get banned too (which they will at some point) then I could definitely see us and a bunch of other schools who don't care too much about academics defecting to a new organization. The ncAA WOULD be
Left with the schools who actually treat their student athletes like regular students, including the ivy league, patriot league, service academies, and a bunch of other smaller conferences. I'm not the first one to speculate on this and there have been whole books written on the topic. This new academic policy makes it even more likely.

You don't have to convince me it was stupid to apply this policy retroactively. But we were discussing whether it was illegal and that's another issue. The NCAA is a private organization with voluntary membership (plus one competing
Organizatoon in the naia) and can apply whatever restrictions it wants, retroactively or not. That doesn't make it right, but there is no doubt in my mind it's legal.

This is so ignorant that it's not even funny. I hope you're not being serious.

 

[specialisthusky]

The University cares about academics for its real students. Not so much for it's athletes. With the exception of Bradley, all our basketball players took incredibly easy courses and we still couldn't meet the NCAA standards.

As a polysci grad, I took many courses with basketball players during my 4 years. Some were easy some were not. Your talking out of your backside and making large generalizations.

 

[Huskymaniac]

This is so ignorant that it's not even funny. I hope you're not being serious.

Which part? I can personally attest to the fact that many of the players on the team take real courses. My wife was a graduate student on a teaching assistantship and she had players from the team in her economics class. As an engineer I could say that econ was easy but that isn't true for most students.

 

[Huskymaniac]

As a polysci grad, I took many courses with basketball players during my 4 years. Some were easy some were not. Your talking out of your backside and making large generalizations.

Exactly and this is why we got into trouble. UConn, unlike UK, did not create bogus courses for athletes nor did it allow the basketball team to define bogus requirements to keep players academically eligible and "on track".

 

[phillionaire]

Which part? I can personally attest to the fact that many of the players on the team take real courses. My wife was a graduate student on a teaching assistantship and she had players from the team in her economics class. As an engineer I could say that econ was easy but that isn't true for most students.

The part where he said that all athletes take easy classes and don't care about learning

 

[Wolferowski]

Which part? I can personally attest to the fact that many of the players on the team take real courses. My wife was a graduate student on a teaching assistantship and she had players from the team in her economics class. As an engineer I could say that econ was easy but that isn't true for most students.

no doubt about it. Ricky Moore was in two of my econ classes.

 

[upstater]

NCAA membership is indeed voluntary. We could join the NAIA, not have athletics teams, or defect along with other top schools who don't care about academics (Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida State, USC, North Carolina, etc.) and start a new organization that doesn't care as much about academics and cares more about athletics. Something tells me that within 20 years, the latter will happen.

The NCAA cares about academics? How did you determine this?

 

[upstater]

The University cares about academics for its real students. Not so much for it's athletes. With the exception of Bradley, all our basketball players took incredibly easy courses and we still couldn't meet the NCAA standards.

I don't think UConn will form a new organization this year to avoid the sanctions. But onc me Syracuse and Kentucky get banned too (which they will at some point) then I could definitely see us and a bunch of other schools who don't care too much about academics defecting to a new organization. The ncAA WOULD be
Left with the schools who actually treat their student athletes like regular students, including the ivy league, patriot league, service academies, and a bunch of other smaller conferences. I'm not the first one to speculate on this and there have been whole books written on the topic. This new academic policy makes it even more likely.

You don't have to convince me it was stupid to apply this policy retroactively. But we were discussing whether it was illegal and that's another issue. The NCAA is a private organization with voluntary membership (plus one competing
Organizatoon in the naia) and can apply whatever restrictions it wants, retroactively or not. That doesn't make it right, but there is no doubt in my mind it's legal.

NCAA standards? What does leaving school after amassing 3 1/2 years of credits have to do with classroom standards? Nothing. It doesn't matter whether the classes were easy or hard. If you drop out mid-semester, you get dinged. On the other hand, if the classes are totally bogus, as they are at North Carolina, it's easy to meet NCAA standards. You don't have to do anything.

As for schools that treat their athletes like real students, I'm assuming Harvard fits your profile, right? Did you know that Harvard's APR score was below the NCAA's required average last year? A couple more seasons like that and Harvard ill be banned from the NCAA's. Because why? Because Harvard is a joke school, apparently. Kentucky is a real school.

I'd also like to know how many of you would continue watching "so-called college" basketball if the players were mercenaries and didn't even attend class. If such a conference or league ever happens, I would honestly have more interest in watching the NBDL, and then we'd see pretty quickly how much market attraction these 18 and 19 year olds actually have. I'm guessing it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as the current NCAA.

 

[Gregory Koch]

NCAA standards? What does leaving school after amassing 3 1/2 years of credits have to do with classroom standards? Nothing. It doesn't matter whether the classes were easy or hard. If you drop out mid-semester, you get dinged. On the other hand, if the classes are totally bogus, as they are at North Carolina, it's easy to meet NCAA standards. You don't have to do anything.

As for schools that treat their athletes like real students, I'm assuming Harvard fits your profile, right? Did you know that Harvard's APR score was below the NCAA's required average last year? A couple more seasons like that and Harvard ill be banned from the NCAA's. Because why? Because Harvard is a joke school, apparently. Kentucky is a real school.

I'd also like to know how many of you would continue watching "so-called college" basketball if the players were mercenaries and didn't even attend class. If such a conference or league ever happens, I would honestly have more interest in watching the NBDL, and then we'd see pretty quickly how much market attraction these 18 and 19 year olds actually have. I'm guessing it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as the current NCAA.

Harvard's APR was 974, the lowest it has been ever but still well above the minimum. So you're wrong.
And it's only a matter of time before Kentucky gets banned and you know it.
And most men's basketball players don't attend class anyway at UConn. What difference does it make if they're enrolled or if we eliminate the lies and disguises?

 

[CL82]

You don't have to convince me it was stupid to apply this policy retroactively. But we were discussing whether it was illegal and that's another issue. The NCAA is a private organization with voluntary membership (plus one competing
Organizatoon in the naia) and can apply whatever restrictions it wants, retroactively or not. That doesn't make it right, but there is no doubt in my mind it's legal.

So you are discussing whether it was a crime? The answer is no, it isn't. If you are asking, as you were originally, whether the University would have "grounds to sue", the answer is yes.

Really, what's with the bug up your butt? Do you think if you flame and accuse UConn of a lack of insitutional integrity regarding its athletics problems that you will drive viewers to your site? I think you couldn't be more wrong. I encourage 'yarders to avoid it like the plague.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Harvard's APR was 974, the lowest it has been ever but still well above the minimum. So you're wrong.
And it's only a matter of time before Kentucky gets banned and you know it.
And most men's basketball players don't attend class anyway at UConn. What difference does it make if they're enrolled or if we eliminate the lies and disguises?

I'm trying to find some facts here but I'm not seeing any. Kentucky finds a way to have a perfectly fine APR score year after year, so how exactly are they going to ever get banned for APR reasons? And while it's true that men's basketball players miss a ton of class time due to travel schedules, do you really think that the work doesn't get made up? Given our current situation, do you actually think that there is nobody making sure that our players get their work done and make the grade academically?