NCAA may delay academic changes to give black schools more time | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NCAA may delay academic changes to give black schools more time

Status
Not open for further replies.
willie99 said:
do you really want to be known as a school that's ineligible but were granted a waiver because you have no money?

not sure I want that publicity
Expand ...

we want whats fair and consistent with this country. first, the ncaa decides to make a rule retroactive. then, they decide that it will only be retroactive for certain schools. whats next? certain schools, well just uconn, has to play with only 4 players on the floor, and each player only gets 3 fouls? i mean, this is insane.
 
lol this is just getting ridiculous. It's fitting such a smug bastard is in charge of the NCAA, look at those quotes. I did not think litigation would be worth the potential risk of an unfavorable ruling after the costs, but if this goes through I think UConn's chances of winning a suit go up significantly.
 
nomar said:
Emmert sounds like a real balloon knot.

This is good news for UConn. No, the NCAA isn't willingly opening the door for UConn -- whoever read this to say it would apply to UConn needs to re-read it slowly -- but it may be doing it unintentionally. This strengthens UConn's legal case without a doubt.
Expand ...

The linked article is different than it was when first posted. Its 5x as long now. But the original story still didn't say all schools would benefit, tho.
 
djct1999 said:
we want whats fair and consistent with this country. first, the ncaa decides to make a rule retroactive. then, they decide that it will only be retroactive for certain schools. whats next? certain schools, well just uconn, has to play with only 4 players on the floor, and each player only gets 3 fouls? i mean, this is insane.
Expand ...

I agree with the fair and consistent part, my comment was not directed at UConn. It was directed at the schools that would get waivers under the proposals as written
 
My gut feeling all along has been that the NCAA saw us as the ideal victim for their sham demonstration, showing the world they are serious about academics and that they are not afraid to come down hard on name schools (biggest joke ever).

I believe that they recently became aware of the fact that the new rule will punish a number of schools that they really don't care about one way or the other (traditional primarily black schools) and realized that the press generated by banning a significant number of these schools would create quite a bit if bad press for the NCAA and quite possibly put enough momentum behind complaints to start a public outcry, forcing them to scrap the new rule. The meeting (which led to this) was to find a way to avoid the above dilemma, the possibility of not enforcing the rules across the board was not intended to be made public this early.

It is my belief (nothing more than a gut feeling) that at some point further down the road (after we've been as completely gutted as possible) the announcement would have been made that in deference to the plight of the traditional black colleges, they will not enforce the rule (and in the process paint a picture of UConn being an undeserving beneficiary of the NCAA's benevolence). The tone of the revised statement makes it pretty clear to me that they realize the genie is out of the bottle, so now the rhetoric needs to paint UConn as the advantaged cheater looking for a pass ity doesn't deserve. The NCAA is painting a picture where if we do protest (or even apply for consideration) it will be akin to a multi-millionaire asking for food stamps.

My guess is that we will eventually be allowed in to the 2013 tournament but the NCAA will try to pile a load of dung on our reputation over the next few months before relenting.
 
Amazing, One little school from Cow country, can be hated so much.
 
djct1999 said:
we want whats fair and consistent with this country. first, the ncaa decides to make a rule retroactive. then, they decide that it will only be retroactive for certain schools. whats next? certain schools, well just uconn, has to play with only 4 players on the floor, and each player only gets 3 fouls? i mean, this is insane.
Expand ...

Next season, we'll see Emmert running onto the floor to reverse blocking fouls into charges against UConn, calling technicals for things like too many/not enough dribbles at the free throw line and so on.
 
So they kill our possible recruiting class, cause transfers and nba defections, and then say - oops - we'll not going to impose it this year. that. Sue. Now. I'll take the case for free (although I'm sure UConn has capable civil rights attorneys on their staff - if not - email me).
 
TheRogers said:
Maybe they will change their tune when they see the UCONN plans for the Al Sharpton Basketball Practice Facility and the new and improved Malcolm XL Center. Yeah...that's the ticket.
Expand ...

Don't forget the Jesse Jackson Court at Gampel Pavilion.
 
Emmert: “When you look at a BCS program and the level of resources they have and the staffing they have, it’s a very, very different model”

So his point is that we had the resources if we wanted to use them, fine. What about the fact that they guy that failed to provide those resources just chaired his tournament committee?
 
Why does he have to say "a BCS program?" We all know who he's talking about. Emmert should just grow a set and substitute "UConn" for "a BCS program." Frickin' vajheen.
 
BCS means nothing when it comes to college basketball. If there are different standards, let them compete in a different division. The NCAA will be hammered if they do not universally enforce the rules, so in the end they will relent, but it may get ugly getting to that point.
 
District-Husky said:
So they kill our possible recruiting class, cause transfers and nba defections, and then say - oops - we'll not going to impose it this year. that. Sue. Now. I'll take the case for free (although I'm sure UConn has capable civil rights attorneys on their staff - if not - email me).
Expand ...

Also, I'm going to bet that if they do push it off a year, they will wait until the after the Spring signing period, so that we won't have a chance to get any of the undecided blue chippers out there to consider UConn.
 
Advanced NCAA Logic (400 level)

Convoluted reasons not to use the most current APR scores + Aribitary reasoning for exempting every other affected institution = Nothing to see here.
 
UConn990411 said:
If the NCAA decides to make an arbitrary exception and give these "low-resource schools" another year to adjust...but not UConn...then yes, UConn is pretty much guaranteed a victory in the court of law.

(Not that I'm expert, but I think they almost are anyway.)
Expand ...

UConn is already in the same group with UL-Lafayette which received a waiver, so this doesn't change much. They are essentially granting waivers to schools. We know UL already received such a waiver.
 
Folks, why is this a surprise? UL already received a waiver. They are a state school.
 
"Emmert said the NCAA has offered to provide more money to low-resource schools for academic improvements."

I'd love to hear what this might be. Maybe money for a public relations firm available for each school? That might be an improvement.
 
You'd think if there was ever a time to give a school a waiver, it would be UConn. You know, considering their excellent scores over the past two seasons. It's kind of pitiful that the NCAA would rather use the older data even though UConn has made the current data readily available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
1,301
Total visitors
1,363
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,033
Messages
4,379,460
Members
10,172
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom