OT: NCAA denies UConn men's appeal

[justML]

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.

Oriaki too. But he's leaving

 

[justML]

I don't pretend to understand the specifics of any of this but I do know that this is absolutely unfair to the students on the current team and whoever is coming in next season. From what I've read, the current team has raised its APR to the acceptable number and yet they will be punished for the low academic performance of students who are no longer on the team.

If the NCAA doesn't feel that the original sanctions were enough, then fine the coaches who were in charge of monitoring academic progress and let the current team have the opportunity to play themselves into the post-season.

 

[Dairyair]

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.

Uconnfan68, you seem to be up on this issue, and I admittedly am not. But I was wondering how many other schools are in the same position as UConn? From your post, it sounds like only one? That seems quite unlikely. Can you shed any more light on other schools facing banishment from the 2013 NCCA tourney? Thanks!

 

[uconnfan68]

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.

Read the truth about it. There is no money involved. The NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, made a decision last summer to use data from several years prior to evaluate a program's academic progress. Only 1 player from this year's team was around then, and he is an honor student. They are punishing next year's team for what happened 4 years ago. And they are doing this based on a formula they decided on AFTER the fact. There was another team in the exact same situation, and they got a waiver to be eligible to play. Still think it's fair?

 

[uconnfan68]

Uconnfan68, you seem to be up on this issue, and I admittedly am not. But I was wondering how many other schools are in the same position as UConn? From your post, it sounds like only one? That seems quite unlikely. Can you shed any more light on other schools facing banishment from the 2013 NCCA tourney? Thanks!

Only one, U of Louisiana-Monroe? Plenty of more informed people on the men's board. I'm just an angry one that frequents all the boards... fixing the internet, one message board at a time.

 

[DaddyChoc]

"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

thank you... I was going to respond with something similiar but I would have been lowering my posting standards

 

[BooRadley]

thank you... I was going to respond with something similiar but I would have been lowering my posting standards

No worries... As you know from reading my nonsense posts over the years, I specialize in posting all stripes of tripe without lowering my bottom dwelling, mud-sucking standards one bit....

Your Ol' Pal Boo