NCAA regs passed: 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 900 multiyear or 930 avg over two years

[Rumrunner]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...onn&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Good article on which years' mumbers would be used. Also, President Herbst on top of it, as usual. Biggest thing I get from this is the stigma of having to apply for a waiver when the good #s are on ice is unneccesarily prejudicial. Sounds like a waiver at the very worst would be approved.

 

[intlzncster]

For those who know the details, do these rulings allow provisions for penalizing schools twice? We already have scholarships docked for poor APR. Now, in a particular scenario, we could be penalized twice in a fashion (by getting an additional tournament ban)? Seems strange to me.

I'm not worried about it.

 

[Walker11]

Is a waiver definite because there is no way the team reaches 930.

@uconnmbbsid Kyle Muncy

#UConn has received clarification today that the two APR years for determining eligibility for 2013 NCAA MBB will be 09-10 & 10-11.
12 minutes ago via TweetDeck

 

[Rumrunner]

Oh well. Just more paperwork.

My understanding is that waivers will be granted much more easily during the implementation period. Once it's fully implemented you're screwed.

This should end up being just a slight embarassment.

 

[UCDaveD]

Oh well. Just more paperwork.

My understanding is that waivers will be granted much more easily during the implementation period. Once it's fully implemented you're screwed.

This should end up being just a slight embarassment.

AmoreCourant Dom Amore

Harrison: "[NCAA} plans to be very, very strict with appeals" for teams coming up short for APR in 2013.

 

[intlzncster]

I still don't understand how we can get penalized twice for the same transgression.

 

[Rumrunner]

More forked tongue Stop. The guy just was quoted as saying waiver process would tighten up once implemented.

Sounds like they're going to look into collecting the data sooner (basketball January). This should be a nonissue one way or the other.

With respect to football, they'd need the data by November for Dec.'s bowl selections. I imagine a billion dollar outfit can handle it. If not maybe the Big East can loan Hathaway to the NCAA. He works cheaply, I hear.

 

[Askgreek]

According to this we are out already...
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-apr-uconn

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm not understanding the optimism. Associated Press reporting we're out (see ESPN -- not that I trust ESPN, but it's an AP story).

 

[arnie3]

It looks like Yahoo has jumped the gun, because the article is not allowing for the possibility (probability) that the APR's might come out sooner, actually twice a year (winter and spring). In that case we will be okay.
As with almost everything that is coming out of the NCAA lately, this is still in its "process form".

 

[champs99and04]

It is a bit of a concern seeing that this is already on several national websites. The notion that we could be left out of the 2012-2013 tournament based on our low 2009-2010 scores is really quite ridiculous, especially when you consider the improvement during the 2010-2011 season. It's Academic Progress Reporft afterall, so considering UConn has shown progress, I don't see why we would not be granted a waiver.

 

[Karmacop]

Arnie, the AP article specifically states that the NCAA has specifically confirmed that the 2010-11 and 2011-12 years are the ones that will be considered. Those numbers would prevent UConn from participating in the tourney, and we know this right now.

Not much gray area or involved here, according to that article.

 

[Walker11]

Yea its not entirely fair for the AP to report that Uconn will be kept out of the 2013 tournament without mentioning that the NCAA said they are looking into collecting the APR data more quickly, so that the scores will be known each February, instead of May.

 

[Karmacop]

Yea its not entirely fair for the AP to report that Uconn will be kept out of the 2013 tournament without mentioning that the NCAA said they are looking into collecting the APR data more quickly, so that the scores will be known each February, instead of May.

This quote from the article has no wiggle room: "The NCAA confirmed Thursday that scores from those years [2010-11 and 2011-12, and NOT 2012-13] will be used to determine eligibility."

 

[champs99and04]

Arnie, the AP article specifically states that the NCAA has specifically confirmed that the 2010-11 and 2011-12 years are the ones that will be considered. Those numbers would prevent UConn from participating in the tourney, and we know this right now.

Not much gray area or involved here, according to that article.

If the 2010-11 and 2011-12 years are the ones being considered, wouldn't that be beneficial to UConn? I heard it was the 2009-10 and 2010-11 scores that were being considered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive UConn scored in the 970's last season. That would put is in a good position to exceed the 930 two year average requirement.

 

[arnie3]

Arnie, the AP article specifically states that the NCAA has specifically confirmed that the 2010-11 and 2011-12 years are the ones that will be considered. Those numbers would prevent UConn from participating in the tourney, and we know this right now.

Not much gray area or involved here, according to that article.

Don Amore tweeted that this will probably be changed at their next meeting(see UcCdaveD's post above).

 

[Karmacop]

If the 2010-11 and 2011-12 years are the ones being considered, wouldn't that be beneficial to UConn? I heard it was the 2009-10 and 2010-11 scores that were being considered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive UConn scored in the 970's last season. That would put is in a good position to exceed the 930 two year average requirement.

Maybe I'm confusing years. But the important thing is that however you describe the years, it is the 826 and 975 scores that will be used, as confirmed by an NCAA source, meaning no NCAA tourney. If there were no definitive quote, I'd be less nervous. But someone at the NCAA was so confident of this that they specifically reported this to Yahoo and the AP.

 

[ctchamps]

Maybe I'm confusing years. But the important thing is that however you describe the years, it is the 826 and 975 scores that will be used, as confirmed by an NCAA source, meaning no NCAA tourney. If there were no definitive quote, I'd be less nervous. But someone at the NCAA was so confident of this that they specifically reported this to Yahoo and the AP.

Forget anonymous sources. Wait until the official statement.

 

[arnie3]

We have to remain patient until this is clarified. Remember that the NCAA Prez couldn't get it straight either!

 

[Walker11]

This quote from the article has no wiggle room: "The NCAA confirmed Thursday that scores from those years [2010-11 and 2011-12, and NOT 2012-13] will be used to determine eligibility."

It would be hard to get the 2012-2013 scores before the 2012-2013 school year is over so you are right on that front. That said, the 2013 tournament is projected to depend on the most recent years scores. That means that the 2013 tournament would be based on APR scores from 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 because this years APR scores will not be released until Mary 2013, even though they will be known after next summer's classes. The idea is that they will release this years scores in a more timely manner so the 2013 tourney is actually dependent on the previous two years, not 2 and 3 years earlier.

 

[Sportsman5]

I swear ESPN just changed the headline from WILL knock UConn out of the tournament to MAY knock UConn out of the tournament. I'm sure someone realized that the NCAA is looking into changing when scores are reported

 

[ctchamps]

I swear ESPN just changed the headline from WILL knock UConn out of the tournament to MAY knock UConn out of the tournament. I'm sure someone realized that the NCAA is looking into changing when scores are reported

I was quoting an article on the realignment board at 11AM. By 11:30 the article was altered. You are not imagining things. That's why people should chill until this is all defined..

 

[upstater]

This is great for recruiting.

Plus, all over America, faculty are being told that they need to give these kids As.

 

[ctchamps]

This is great for recruiting.

Plus, all over America, faculty are being told that they need to give these kids As.

You mean the rest of America. It was already done in SEC land.

 

[rman726]

I don't see how the NCAA can institute a rule that adds a punishment for past behavior. We got punished with scholarship losses. How can they punish us again for the same past behavior? I know they want to get this thing through fast, but this is way too fast. Maybe they should change it to start at 1 year (next year's) APR, and then change it to 2 years after instead of using past data to hurt us again.

Whatever they do, I really hope they get this sorted out quickly. The longer UConn is held in limbo, the worse it is for recruiting.