OT: BREAKING NEWS: NCAA denies APR waiver request

[Aluminny69]

Just got this email:

Men's basketball still ineligible for 2013 tournament, school will appeal

 

[Kait14]

Just got this email:

Men's basketball still ineligible for 2013 tournament, school will appeal

I'm pretty disgusted with Calhoun and staff.. it's really unacceptable that they let it get this out of hand.. I wish UConn would stop appealing, it's only embarrassing us further

 

[DaddyChoc]

I'm pretty disgusted with Calhoun and staff.. it's really unacceptable that they let it get this out of hand.. I wish UConn would stop appealing, it's only embarrassing us further

its not really THIS staff... this is a clean crop of guys.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Drummond and Lamb will definitely go pro with this news. Would probably go pro even if still eligible for the tournament. I wonder if the NCAA will allow the players to transfer without a penalty because the team is not eligible for the tournament. If that happens it will take the mens team many years to recover.

 

[speedoo]

its not really THIS staff... this is a clean crop of guys.

Calhoun and Blaney are not a "new" crop.

Could someone summarize the cause of this for me? Seems like there is a whole variety of issues with the NCAA for the man's team, and I have no idea which issue(s) caused this.

 

[Icebear]

A belief that all that is necessary is "Winning." Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

[UConn990411]

Calhoun and Blaney are not a "new" crop.

Could someone summarize the cause of this for me? Seems like there is a whole variety of issues with the NCAA for the man's team, and I have no idea which issue(s) caused this.

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

There's two things worth noting:
1) The current players haven't had any issues academically.
2) Nate Miles, who was expelled before the 2008-09 season, is still receiving a score of 0 for the team. Yes, a player that was expelled MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO is still counting.

So to sum: the NCAA has decided to enforce these rules retroactively against UConn, despite the fact that they have already been punished once (loss of schollies) under the entirely separate set of rules that was in place.

Seems a little absurd to me.

 

[speedoo]

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

There's two things worth noting:
1) The current players haven't had any issues academically.
2) Nate Miles, who was expelled before the 2008-09 season, is still receiving a score of 0 for the team. Yes, a player that was expelled MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO is still counting.

So to sum: the NCAA has decided to enforce these rules retroactively against UConn, despite the fact that they have already been punished once (loss of schollies) under the entirely separate set of rules that was in place.

Seems a little absurd to me.

Thanks.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Calhoun and Blaney are not a "new" crop.

Could someone summarize the cause of this for me? Seems like there is a whole variety of issues with the NCAA for the man's team, and I have no idea which issue(s) caused this.

do you know the other FOUR guys on the "staff"

come on lets not play word games... Blaney & Calhoun is like Geno & CD but you wouldn't blame Charde's issue on Marissa & Shea (just an example so lets not rehash Charde or play word games again.)

She mentioned his STAFF when this "staff" really didnt have anything to do with these issues.

 

[speedoo]

do you know the other FOUR guys on the "staff"

come on lets not play word games... Blaney & Calhoun is like Geno & CD but you wouldn't blame Charde's issue on Marissa & Shea (just an example so lets not rehash Charde or play word games again.)

She mentioned his STAFF when this "staff" really didnt have anything to do with these issues.

OK so when you said this "staff is a clean crop of guys", you were not including the top two.

I see.

 

[DaddyChoc]

OK so when you said this "staff is a clean crop of guys", you were not including the top two.

I see.

Calhoun and "his staff"... this takes Jim out of it when mentioning "his staff". You correctly identified Blaney as part of "his staff" (I'll agree with that) but I would still say Blaney IS Calhoun.

Do you know the FOUR other "staff" members and how long they've been on the staff? Ar you aware of the timeline of these events thats causing all this stuff with the mens team?

 

[speedoo]

Calhoun and "his staff"... this takes Jim out of it when mentioning "his staff". You correctly identified Blaney as part of "his staff" (I'll agree with that) but I would still say Blaney IS Calhoun.

Do you know the FOUR other "staff" members and how long they've been on the staff? Ar you aware of the timeline of these events thats causing all this stuff with the mens team?

Whatever you say. I really could care less, because I have the answer to my question. As for your question, what I know about the other four is none of your business.

Done with you on this.

 

[uconnfan68]

I'm pretty disgusted with Calhoun and staff.. it's really unacceptable that they let it get this out of hand.. I wish UConn would stop appealing, it's only embarrassing us further

This is BS. This is people leaving mid-semester to try pro basketball, because they had the opportunity.

 

[EricLA]

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

There's two things worth noting:
1) The current players haven't had any issues academically.
2) Nate Miles, who was expelled before the 2008-09 season, is still receiving a score of 0 for the team. Yes, a player that was expelled MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO is still counting.

So to sum: the NCAA has decided to enforce these rules retroactively against UConn, despite the fact that they have already been punished once (loss of schollies) under the entirely separate set of rules that was in place.

Seems a little absurd to me.

i didn't realize it was like that. that seems unfair to retroactively punish the program. i was all ready to blame JC and the staff for not being aware, but to still count Miles (especially since he never officially set foot on campus for classes) and to enact it retroactively given the "new" rules seems unfair.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Whatever you say. I really could care less, because I have the answer to my question. As for your question, what I know about the other four is none of your business.

Done with you on this.

 

[ThisJustIn]

It's interesting that the voting body of universities and colleges -- that is, those who decide what rules the NCAA should enforce -- decided to do this.

 

[jsloanjr]

This is a very ugly mess that was allowed to get out of control. Everybody at UCONN is accountable for this mess and the players, students and the fans suffer the penalties.......President herbst needs to be more out front and fix this problem for good. This penalty will hurt UCONN for years......

 

[stamfordhusky]

This is BS. This is people leaving mid-semester to try pro basketball, because they had the opportunity.

If a player leaves for the pros while in good academic standing, there is NO effect on the APR. The problem for UConn is the players who have left for the pros while in bad academic standing. That falls on Calhoun etc.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The APR issue has been embarrassing for UConn, but honestly this one is the NCAA being a joke.

The previous rules in place stated a team could lose scholarships if it did not achieve a certain combined APR score. UConn lost two scholarships for this season because of it.

Then, in October, the NCAA enacted new legislation that could ban a team from the tournament if it did not achieve a certain score. Instead of waiting a few years to implement the rule like a competent organization would (I believe the APR takes four years of grades into account), the organization has decided to enforce the rules retroactively for the 2013 tournament. Therefore, UConn will be ineligible.

The previous rule, passed in 2008-09, also mandated a ban from tournament play if a school had an APR below 900 after four years. A number of teams in other sports have already received postseason bans. What is retroactive about the new rule is the change to a 930 threshold. However, UConn's most recent APR is 893 - so they were headed for trouble with either standard.

 

[speedoo]

The previous rule, passed in 2008-09, also mandated a ban from tournament play if a school had an APR below 900 after four years. A number of teams in other sports have already received postseason bans. What is retroactive about the new rule is the change to a 930 threshold. However, UConn's most recent APR is 893 - so they were headed for trouble with either standard.

If that is factually correct, it means all the complaing about the NCAA being unfair to UConn is just blather, right?

 

[Icebear]

Yes.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Actually, No. The rule is more complicated than that AND the NCAA has also waived the ban for several teams that were demonstrating progress. They are NOT treating UConn like they have treated others. There IS an axe being ground here.

 

[Icebear]

Actually, No. The rule is more complicated than that AND the NCAA has also waived the ban for several teams that were demonstrating progress. They are NOT treating UConn like they have treated others. There IS an axe being ground here.

The question was is it factually correct. Whether waiver is given or not does not change that they did not surpass either of the thresholds. It would require a waiver beyond the rules as you suggest.

 

[Kait14]

.

[Kait - Belatedly saw what you were responding to (men's versus women's fans crap cum personal attack), and response is now unnecessary. You can stick to responding to substantive posts like uconnfan68's if you want. - JS]