OT: NCAA denies UConn men's appeal

[UConnChapette]

This is a death sentence. This will impact UConn men's program for years to come. With the players who will likely choose to transfer, and commits who may decide not to come to UConn, in two years it will be like starting from scratch. Wonder if Jim decides to retire? Going to be a really difficult few years.

So glad that the women stay for four years and complete their degrees (or the vast majority of them do!). I think it is unlikely we will ever see this in the women's game.

The men's board is the more appropriate place for this, I know. But had to post it.

 

[Icebear]

Surprise, surprise. It never was going to happen. I really feel for the kids affected by it.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Poor recruiting by JC and even worse monitoring of the students by the athletic department and coaches. During this same time period that caused the ban, there were also some questionable criminal and other activities by some of the male basketball players.

 

[HeGotGame]

This is a death sentence. This will impact UConn men's program for years to come. With the players who will likely choose to transfer, and commits who may decide not to come to UConn, in two years it will be like starting from scratch. Wonder if Jim decides to retire? Going to be a really difficult few years.

So glad that the women stay for four years and complete their degrees (or the vast majority of them do!). I think it is unlikely we will ever see this in the women's game.

The men's board is the more appropriate place for this, I know. But had to post it.

Um a death sentence? Your post is pretty uninformed.

They have 1 commitment for next year and he has stated he will be at UConn next year no what happens with the ban. It will affect adding recruits to this years class, although right now the team does not officially have any open scholarships.

Any player outside of a rising senior, AO is the only one and he already said hes leaving, would have to sit out a year thus not playing in the Tournament regardless, so what would be the point?

Its a one year ban, not sure why you keep saying a "few years." It will have no affect on recruiting for the 2013 class.

It is a 1 year bump in the road, you might want to get some knowledge of the situation before you post.

 

[UConnCat]

The NCAA's retroactive application of the APR penalty in UConn's case is completely unjust. UConn deserved to be punished for its low APR scores and it was with the loss of scholarships. The new penalty (postseason ban) should not be applied retroactively to the same year for which the school has already been punished. The NCAA is a travesty.

 

[DudleyDoRight]

Things would be okey dokey if only the men's team had students on it as the women's team does. I can name the scholars on the men's team on one hand, Emeka Okafor.

 

[Icebear]

The NCAA's retroactive application of the APR penalty in UConn's case is completely unjust. UConn deserved to be punished for its low APR scores and it was with the loss of scholarships. The new penalty (postseason ban) should not be applied retroactively to the same year for which the school has already been punished. The NCAA is a travesty.

Except that as I understand it UConn did not pass the old standards let alone the new ones. At least that was the report from one media outlet a couple of months ago.

 

[UConnCat]

Except that as I understand it UConn did not pass the old standards let alone the new ones. At least that was the report from one media outlet a couple of months ago.

The standards didn't change; the penalty changed. If the new penalty (i.e., postseason ban) were applied prospectively rather than retroactively to years for which UConn was already penalized, it would be fine.

 

[Icebear]

The standards didn't change; the penalty changed. If the new penalty (i.e., postseason ban) were applied prospectively to years for which UConn were not already penalized it would be fine.

I understood that the standard also changed from 925 to 975 or something similar.

 

[HuskyNan]

Things would be okey dokey if only the men's team had students on it as the women's team does. I can name the scholars on the men's team on one hand, Emeka Okafor.

Kemba Walker left after 3 years - with his degree in hand. Who has left without his degree?

 

[UConnCat]

I understood that the standard also changed from 925 to 975 or something similar.

But that's not the issue. The issue raised by UConn is that the NCAA changed the penalty in October 2011 applicable to the 2012-2013 academic year. The NCAA did not, however, include the latest APR scores, i.e., from the 2010-2011 academic year. Had the latest available scores been used, UConn would've met the standard. And, as I understand it, UConn has already been punished based on the same set of scores that are the basis for the postseason ban. UConn's argument was the new penalty should be applied prospectively so as to give schools the opportunity to adjust. This can be accomplished by using the latest known set of scores available, in which case UConn would meet the standard, or delaying application of the new penalty to the 2013-2014 academic year, in which case UConn would also meet the standard.

 

[Icebear]

But that's not the issue. The issue raised by UConn is that the NCAA changed the penalty in October 2011 applicable to the 2012-2013 academic year. The NCAA did not, however, include the latest APR scores, i.e., from the 2010-2011 academic year. Had the latest available scores been used, UConn would've met the standard. And, as I understand it, UConn has already been punished based on the same set of scores that are the basis for the postseason ban. UConn's argument was the new penalty should be applied prospectively so as to give schools the opportunity to adjust. This can be accomplished by using the latest known set of scores available, in which case UConn would meet the standard, or delaying application of the new penalty to the 2013-2014 academic year, in which case UConn would also meet the standard.

I agree with everything you are saying but that wasn't what was reported at one point.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Also, not that I've followed this at all, my question is "the NCAA changed" -- the NCAA changes nothing without the input and approval of the member institutions. When and how and by whom were these changes approved -- 'cause it doesn't seem they could single out UConn since it's underachieving schoolS who'd be impacted.

 

[uconnfan68]

Poor recruiting by JC and even worse monitoring of the students by the athletic department and coaches. During this same time period that caused the ban, there were also some questionable criminal and other activities by some of the male basketball players.

You are clueless. The WHOLE ISSUE is that UConn, while already being punished for poor academic performance by loss of 2 scholarships, is now being RETROACTIVELY punished again by a post season ban. The NCAA made those numbers up last summer to punish 1 school. The OTHER school in the SAME situation was granted a waiver.

 

[blackbird]

The NCAA's retroactive application of the APR penalty in UConn's case is completely unjust. UConn deserved to be punished for its low APR scores and it was with the loss of scholarships. The new penalty (postseason ban) should not be applied retroactively to the same year for which the school has already been punished. The NCAA is a travesty.

Exactly. That's why this is ridiculous.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Um a death sentence? Your post is pretty uninformed.

They have 1 commitment for next year and he has stated he will be at UConn next year no what happens with the ban. It will affect adding recruits to this years class, although right now the team does not officially have any open scholarships.

Any player outside of a rising senior, AO is the only one and he already said hes leaving, would have to sit out a year thus not playing in the Tournament regardless, so what would be the point?

Its a one year ban, not sure why you keep saying a "few years." It will have no affect on recruiting for the 2013 class.

It is a 1 year bump in the road, you might want to get some knowledge of the situation before you post.

False... he plays right away due to the ban, no sitting out!

 

[DaddyChoc]

nothing is final til July... this situation just say they rejected what "UConn put on the table".

UConn wants them to take the last 2 seasons, which would not ban them from the tourney. July is the deadline... they could hurt recruiting and if Calhoun stay or retire.

 

[sarals24]

This is one of the reasons I watch WCBB. There are so few instances of corruption, and the ones that do occur are so laughable. Maya and her tour of ESPN? I mean...is that really the worst that has happened with the women's program?

Money...the root of most evil in the men's game. How on earth does a championship program allow its players to get to this point academically? Regardless of the NCAA rules changing, unfair punishment, etc, the program should never have put itself in this position in the first place.

 

[HeGotGame]

False... he plays right away due to the ban, no sitting out!

Reread what I said. Do you now understand what I wrote? It is simple reading comprehension. I said anyone who is not a rising senior would have to sit a year. Therefore, AO does not have to sit as he is a rising senior.

Please take the time to read something fully if your going to comment that it is wrong.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Reread what I said. Do you now understand what I wrote? It is simple reading comprehension. I said anyone who is not a rising senior would have to sit a year. Therefore, AO does not have to sit as he is a rising senior.

Please take the time to read something fully if your going to comment that it is wrong.

relax sonny.... my mistake. (bigger man doesn't need to yell and hurl insults)

 

[AboutWeston]

I'm just waiting for next year!!!

 

[Mattydog]

I'm just waiting for next year!!!

One name- Mark Emmert.

 

[BooRadley]

Reread what I said. Do you now understand what I wrote? It is simple reading comprehension. I said anyone who is not a rising senior would have to sit a year. Therefore, AO does not have to sit as he is a rising senior.

Please take the time to read something fully if your going to comment that it is wrong.

"Please take the time to read something[I do wish that you would have been a bit more specific about you meant by "something"] fully if your [you're] going to comment that it[I also wish that you would have been more specific about you meant by "it"] is wrong."
Hmmm... Writing comprehension aside, I'll take my best stab at understanding what you meant to post....

My best decipher chokes on the grammar and ambiguity issues, but it still gives us two possible deconstructions....
A) Either posts must be responded to in the positive -OR- one must "read something fully" prior to openly "declaring another's post to be wrong".
B) Either posts must be factually correct -OR- one must "read something fully" prior to posting a "factually incorrect post."

I'm not familiar with either of these new standards for posting a message, but then I'm not familiar with a lot of the current pop scene either... who the heck is "Chiddy Bang?"

Wow, a reading assignment prior to posting messages that fall into either of your two cases.... Geez, I don't know... I think most posters are too lazy to do reading assignments before posting.... I know I am....

And then when one considers the paltry number of "factually Correct" or "positive response" posts that pass through here these days, I would expect this board to rack up somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 posts a year.... I'm not sure they would keep this joint open under those conditions....

I like the old rules better... you know ones... the ones where posters post whatever they like as long as they don't hurt, harass, or demean another poster.
So, if you don't mind, I'll stick with the old rules.... I am pretty sure DC will do the same....

Your Ol' Pal Boo

 

[Biff]

"Please take the time to read something[I do wish that you would have been a bit more specific about you meant by "something"] fully if your [you're] going to comment that it[I also wish that you would have been more specific about you meant by "it"] is wrong."
Hmmm... Writing comprehension aside, I'll take my best stab at understanding what you meant to post....

My best decipher chokes on the grammar and ambiguity issues, but it still gives us two possible deconstructions....
A) Either posts must be responded to in the positive -OR- one must "read something fully" prior to openly "declaring another's post to be wrong".
B) Either posts must be factually correct -OR- one must "read something fully" prior to posting a "factually incorrect post."

I'm not familiar with either of these new standards for posting a message, but then I'm not familiar with a lot of the current pop scene either... who the heck is "Chiddy Bang?"

Wow, a reading assignment prior to posting messages that fall into either of your two cases.... Geez, I don't know... I think most posters are too lazy to do reading assignments before posting.... I know I am....

And then when one considers the paltry number of "factually Correct" or "positive response" posts that pass through here these days, I would expect this board to rack up somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 posts a year.... I'm not sure they would keep this joint open under those conditions....

I like the old rules better... you know ones... the ones where posters post whatever they like as long as they don't hurt, harass, or demean another poster.
So, if you don't mind, I'll stick with the old rules.... I am pretty sure DC will do the same....

Your Ol' Pal Boo

Boo,

Much of your post confuses me but I try to help whenever I can. Specifically, to answer your question "who the heck is Chiddy Bang?"

Well I got that one covered but I must admit that I am quite surprised that a man with your standards would have such atros....atrosh...atroce....bad spelling.

 

[BooRadley]

Boo,

Much of your post confuses me but I try to help whenever I can. Specifically, to answer your question "who the heck is Chiddy Bang?"

Well I got that one covered but I must admit that I am quite surprised that a man with your standards would have such atros....atrosh...atroce....bad spelling.

Biff,

Even more atros....atrosh...atroce.... worse than my bad spalling is my weirld klass fibulicous typong.... think gawd know won evar reeds my pists....


YOPB

p.s. Biff, I still have the "official" Boneyard ID cards you made up for me a good many years ago... my board name was T9 back then... I've wanted to thank you for that card for quite a long time... Thank you Biff.... I do appreciate the card you made up for me...