Jeff Jacobs slams NCAA

[UConn990411]

He's really been all over them throughout this whole APR ordeal.

 

[Huskies4ever]

He's really been all over them throughout this whole APR ordeal.

Was waiting for him to chime in on the Carolina situation. Every once in a rare (extremely rare) while, he hits a home run. The NCAA wanted to show how serious they were about academics with UConn. Along comes UNC, and the NCAA turns a blind eye. This year will be interesting. We will hear about this every game this season.

 

[Huskies4ever]

He's really been all over them throughout this whole APR ordeal.

That's not entirely true. He's been all over UConn and Calhoun frequently as well.

 

[husky99]

f Jacobs, for every good article he writes 10 ones.

 

[CL82]

"I just think if we're going to get into decisions about what level of academic success teams need to have then we should also be involved in determining what constitutes fraud and how we're going to deal with teams that fraudulently gain their academic success," Manuel said. "That's where we need to be.

Thank you! Remember that UConn is in compliance if the most recent information is used. The NCAA turned that down because it would not have information from every school - it wants an even playing field. How can you judge and punish the APR at all if you allow some schools to falsify grades? How is that an playing field?

 

[freescooter]

I completely agree with Jacobs on this one. I have been critical of UConn for not doing the job in the APR area but this is just a flagrant act on the NCAA's part. North Carolina cheated, they admitted cheating and the NCAA says "nothing to see here folks" I'm not sure I would equate what UConn did and what UNC did. UConn simply didn't take care of business. UNC outright lied and cheated. APR has nothing to do with the latter. Even if one buys the argument that UConn deserved its penalty, to say there is no penalty for outright cheating is utterly and completely wrong and would be wrong no matter how you feel about UConn's situation.

By the way, while I really like Susan Herbst, her argument about present players being penalized for past sins, so to speak, is utterly without merit. Punishing future teams for the actions of past ones is the only thing the NCAA can do that has any meaning. She really should drop that bogus argument.

 

[Hoophound]

Is there is a time to try and force a reversal, this is it.

 

[Waquoit]

Jacobs should have asked our ol' buddy Walt Harrison for his comments. He was talking to who ever asked while he was on his Tsk-Tsk UConn Tour. I wonder is feels like the fool he's shown himself to be?

 

[upstater]

Jacobs' first mistake is not knowing how the APR works. It's not about student grades, or getting a degree. It only measures whether students return to campus for school each semester. The schools report not grades, but a point system that is totally bogus. In other words, the APR was a sham from the beginning.

Only the people who were tricked into believing it was anything but public relations are in an uproar now.

I also laugh at Manuel's words about the APR. The whole thing is a sham.

It's dumb to get your knickers twisted now when you knew the score to start.

 

[CL82]

By the way, while I really like Susan Herbst, her argument about present players being penalized for past sins, so to speak, is utterly without merit. Punishing future teams for the actions of past ones is the only thing the NCAA can do that has any meaning. She really should drop that bogus argument.

I like Herbst as well but I agree that the punishing current kids argument isn't successful. Better arguments include

1. UConn was already punished for it's APR failings of the year that causes the problem (2008-2009, I think). That's the reason why we were two scholarships down in 2011. I suspect that it stuck in the CAP's craw that we won the national championship while serving this punishment. Punishing twice for the same offense is violates the our collective notions of fairness.

2. The NCAA changed the rules and used old data to apply them. Again fundemental fairness suggests that each institution should have had the chance to adjust its behavior to the new penalty scheme.

3. At the time the NCAA changed the rules, it knew that the periods it was using would cause UConn to fail the knew test. It designed a system that was mathmatically impossible for UConn to pass.

4. If current data was used UConn would pass the new test. This information is available and the NCAA is refusing to use it.

5. UConn is largely being punished for transfers and players leaving early to go pro. UNC is not being sanctioned for falsifying transcripts. How is that fair?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Jacobs' first mistake is not knowing how the APR works. It's not about student grades, or getting a degree. It only measures whether students return to campus for school each semester. The schools report not grades, but a point system that is totally bogus. In other words, the APR was a sham from the beginning.

GPA's do play a factor though. The kids who go pro have to at least be academically eligible when they leave, so they can't just flunk all of their classes. The kids who transfer must have at least a 2.6 GPA or else they hurt the APR score as well.

But your overall point is well taken. The APR is supposed to be all about "progress toward graduation" but it ends up penalizing schools with high roster turnover, even though that turnover almost never has anything to do with academics.

 

[CL82]

Is there is a time to try and force a reversal, this is it.

It begins with our reaching out to every local and national reporter to comment on the inequity between UNC's treatment and UConn's treatment and each and every interview should raise the points listed above in exactly the same order until if becomes the narrative. Reporters should reach out to Harrison to comment and then note his refusal to do so.

Push the notion that the NCAA sure seems to have different rules for different institutions. For this to get traction, the NCAA needs to be the organization that does not play by the rules, not us.

 

[huskyjawz]

I like Herbst as well but I agree that the punishing current kids argument isn't successful. Better arguments include

1. UConn was already punished for it's APR failings of the year that causes the problem (2008-2009, I think). That's the reason why we were two scholarships down in 2011. I suspect that it stuck in the CAP's craw that we won the national championship while serving this punishment. Punishing twice for the same offense is violates the our collective notions of fairness.

2. The NCAA changed the rules and used old data to apply them. Again fundemental fairness suggests that each institution should have had the chance to adjust its behavior to the new penalty scheme.

3. At the time the NCAA changed the rules, it knew that the periods it was using would cause UConn to fail the knew test. It designed a system that was mathmatically impossible for UConn to pass.

4. If current data was used UConn would pass the new test. This information is available and the NCAA is refusing to use it.

5. UConn is largely being punished for transfers and players leaving early to go pro. UNC is not being sanctioned for falsifying transcripts. How is that fair?

Great summary, I agree.

 

[upstater]

GPA's do play a factor though. The kids who go pro have to at least be academically eligible when they leave, so they can't just flunk all of their classes. The kids who transfer must have at least a 2.6 GPA or else they hurt the APR score as well.

But your overall point is well taken. The APR is supposed to be all about "progress toward graduation" but it ends up penalizing schools with high roster turnover, even though that turnover almost never has anything to do with academics.

What does it take to establish academic eligibility? If you have completed a certain number of minimal credits, you're eligible. The intersession and summer credits carry over into the spring. If you've taken those courses in the mid-winter break, you've established your half-time status at least.

Remember when Emeka took 1 credit in the Spring (he had completed all his required credits in 2 1/2 years)? If you take intersession courses in August and the December break, you're eligible. Then you can fly off right after the F4 and prepare for the pros.

GPA only works into it to the degree you maintain eligibility, but even then, what's the cut-off? 2.0 GPA? 1.7 GPA? I'm going to guess that there is almost no cut-off other than failure. We know that only the transfers are held to the 2.6 GPA standard, not the kids going pro (and Bilas is right, that makes absolutely no sense), but even the transfers can apply for a waiver.

 

[caw]

What does it take to establish academic eligibility? If you have completed a certain number of minimal credits, you're eligible. The intersession and summer credits carry over into the spring. If you've taken those courses in the mid-winter break, you've established your half-time status at least.

Remember when Emeka took 1 credit in the Spring (he had completed all his required credits in 2 1/2 years)? If you take intersession courses in August and the December break, you're eligible. Then you can fly off right after the F4 and prepare for the pros.

GPA only works into it to the degree you maintain eligibility, but even then, what's the cut-off? 2.0 GPA? 1.7 GPA? I'm going to guess that there is almost no cut-off other than failure. We know that only the transfers are held to the 2.6 GPA standard, not the kids going pro (and Bilas is right, that makes absolutely no sense), but even the transfers can apply for a waiver.

I agree with everything here, but I thought transfers (or schools applying due to transfers) would only get the waiver if the 2.6 GPA was established.

Transfers are automatically negatives, but schools may apply to get the point back via a waiver which would be granted if transferring student is transferring to a 4 year (D1/D2) school and has a 2.6 or higher. I don't think a waiver is granted if the minimum 2.6 is not met. Of course I may be off.

 

[upstater]

I agree with everything here, but I thought transfers (or schools applying due to transfers) would only get the waiver if the 2.6 GPA was established.

Transfers are automatically negatives, but schools may apply to get the point back via a waiver which would be granted if transferring student is transferring to a 4 year (D1/D2) school and has a 2.6 or higher. I don't think a waiver is granted if the minimum 2.6 is not met. Of course I may be off.

You're right, I screwed that up. I got it confused with the GSR, where transfers are regularly granted waivers for that calculation. Which makes GSR even screwier than the APR. Tell me, if transfers get waivers and kids going pro don't figure into the Grad rate, then who does figure into it? The kid who goes to school 4 years and then doesn't graduate? That's it?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I agree with everything here, but I thought transfers (or schools applying due to transfers) would only get the waiver if the 2.6 GPA was established.

Transfers are automatically negatives, but schools may apply to get the point back via a waiver which would be granted if transferring student is transferring to a 4 year (D1/D2) school and has a 2.6 or higher. I don't think a waiver is granted if the minimum 2.6 is not met. Of course I may be off.

This is correct. A transfer receives a waiver for APR purposes if he meets the GPA threshold, transfers to a 4 year school, etc. It's very black and white.

 

[freescooter]

All of that is correct, I guess but the real point here is that this isn't about the APR, this is about CHEATING. UNC players got grades for non-existent classes going back at least a decade. This is a far more fundamental problem than how you calculate APR. They were letting players compete and lying about their academic status. And it was systematic. clearly many people knew what was happening. they chose a department which would be hard to criticize for PC reasons and which would not raise too many eyebrows if large numbers of athletes, who happen to be African American took enrolled there. Even if there were NO APR, this would have been a scandal and in the pre-APR days would have likely brought down the wrath of the NCAA. If it had happened at NC Central, it would have brought down the wrath of the NCAA.

 

[upstater]

All of that is correct, I guess but the real point here is that this isn't about the APR, this is about CHEATING. UNC players got grades for non-existent classes going back at least a decade. This is a far more fundamental problem than how you calculate APR. They were letting players compete and lying about their academic status. And it was systematic. clearly many people knew what was happening. they chose a department which would be hard to criticize for PC reasons and which would not raise too many eyebrows if large numbers of athletes, who happen to be African American took enrolled there. Even if there were NO APR, this would have been a scandal and in the pre-APR days would have likely brought down the wrath of the NCAA. If it had happened at NC Central, it would have brought down the wrath of the NCAA.

I don't see a big difference here. The APR is a self-reporting mechanism that turns college into a sham. So, how do UNC's actions move against the spirit of APR?

 

[freescooter]

I don't see a big difference here. The APR is a self-reporting mechanism that turns college into a sham. So, how do UNC's actions move against the spirit of APR?

It is really irrelevant to the APR. They flat out cheated. Gave people grades for non-existent courses. With or without the APR that is at least wrong and at worst criminal. It would be equally y wrong if the APR never existed. In fact, I don't believe the APR did exist when UNC started this sham. That it helps UNC teams to meet the APR is a side benefit, but the real purpose was to allow players to focus on football or basketball without having to be bothered with academics.

 

[upstater]

It is really irrelevant to the APR. They flat out cheated. Gave people grades for non-existent courses. With or without the APR that is at least wrong and at worst criminal. It would be equally y wrong if the APR never existed. In fact, I don't believe the APR did exist when UNC started this sham. That it helps UNC teams to meet the APR is a side benefit, but the real purpose was to allow players to focus on football or basketball without having to be bothered with academics.

The point I'm making is that the NCAA is not going to get involved in curricula at all. They are not there to decide to what degree UNC is teaching real and actual classes. Why? It's a can of worms. What about these phony 1-week intersession courses upon which all the billions the NCAA makes rely? Is it going to police those as well? The APR was never anything but a PR scam that's right in line with the NCAA's decision to do nothing about UNC.

If there's sufficient bad press, that will have to well exceed that at Auburn, then maybe the NCAA acts, but not because it wants to become involved here.

 

[ElmCity40th]

hate to say it but where the hell is ESPN on all this, can we get an OTL segment please? Bob Lee where you at?

 

[specialisthusky]

hate to say it but where the hell is ESPN on all this, can we get an OTL segment please? Bob Lee where you at?

ESPN is not investigating the number 1 most recongnizable school of a conference it owns Tier 1 2 and 3 rights to.

 

[Huskies4ever]

By the way, while I really like Susan Herbst, her argument about present players being penalized for past sins, so to speak, is utterly without merit. Punishing future teams for the actions of past ones is the only thing the NCAA can do that has any meaning. She really should drop that bogus argument.

Disagree. You can punish the coaching staff or people within the athletic department. Punishing current players who are achieving proper grades because past students failed to meet the requirement is comparable to arresting the innocent son of a murderer because the murderer is beyond your reach.

 

[freescooter]

Disagree. You can punish the coaching staff or people within the athletic department. Punishing current players who are achieving proper grades because past students failed to meet the requirement is comparable to arresting the innocent son of a murderer because the murderer is beyond your reach.

So you should agree with the NCAA decision to do nothing on UNC...The NCAA virtually always punishes programs going forward for violations. Sure they take away past wins, but really those are mostly symbolic not real punishments since the games have been played and everyone knows the outcome. Southern Cal is coming off a bowl ban for its actions in the Reggie Bush matter. The kids who played last year and the previous year had nothing to do with Bush. Weren't even on the team when he was since he left after the 2005 season. When Michigan was involved in the Ed martin-Fab 5 scandal, it was banned from the post season in 2002-3 even though the Fab 5 violations occurred in 1996. None of those guys were anywhere near Michigan when the violations occurred. Yet it was the 2002-03 team that missed out on the post season. there really is no other way to do it. If you accept Herbst's and your argument, you could pretty much do as you please, then if you get caught, say you've cleaned up you act for next year and totally avoid any consequences.