So Our Congressional Delegation...

[UCFBfan]

Just a question....has Jay Bilas weighed in on this issue in any way? If anyone follows him on Twitter, he's constantly bashing the NCAA on it's hypocrisy and idiotic actions such as their stupid ad campaign during the tourney saying "we're not dumb jocks". I would be curious how he'd feel about this. He may have already commented at some point and I don't know. However, if he hasn't stated an opinion, he's the only one I can see in the media taking the side of how stupid this whole ruling is and how it's punishing the wrong players.....he'd be a powerful voice, especially if he can use ESPN to express his opinion.

 

[Peacefrog]

Just a question....has Jay Bilas weighed in on this issue in any way? If anyone follows him on Twitter, he's constantly bashing the NCAA on it's hypocrisy and idiotic actions such as their stupid ad campaign during the tourney saying "we're not dumb jocks". I would be curious how he'd feel about this. He may have already commented at some point and I don't know. However, if he hasn't stated an opinion, he's the only one I can see in the media taking the side of how stupid this whole ruling is and how it's punishing the wrong players.....he'd be a powerful voice, especially if he can use ESPN to express his opinion.

I'm pretty sure Bilas has weighed in on this and is on the side that it is ridiculous. I think Jay is the NCAA basketball TV personality that presents himself the best and is perhaps the most respected. It would have been great if he had been more vocal while the season was still in progress.

 

[UConn5]

I respect the delegation for actually taking some action on the school's behalf. No need to rehash the ridiculousness of this retroactive application, but I wonder how long the NCAA is going to survive as a non-profit. We know their oft-repeated mantra that they distribution the bball money to cover the other sports, but I am not so sure they are going to be able to avoid increased and intense scrutiny for much longer.

 

[01Neaggrad02]

What's the matter, Himes?

I know... Seriously? You would think that the members of Congress would have something more important/pressing to deal with than this. The cost of gas, our debt, military overseas, etc. Get your priorities straight Mr. Himes.... I mean UCONN issues are bigger than issues facing the American people.

Sorry... not sure why Congress is even involved.

 

[uconnfan68]

I know... Seriously? You would think that the members of Congress would have something more important/pressing to deal with than this. The cost of gas, our debt, military overseas, etc. Get your priorities straight Mr. Himes.... I mean UCONN issues are bigger than issues facing the American people.

Sorry... not sure why Congress is even involved.

They are representing their constituents... their JOB.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The people who are defending us -- including ourselves in these internet forums and article discussion threads -- need to adhere to a single line of reasoning. The discussion is so muddled because everyone is bringing up a different defense. What we need to argue is the following:

- The NCAA is retroactively applying a rule in such a way that once the punishment was announced, there was literally no recourse for anyone involved. They announced this punishment in October 2011 and declared that only data from 2011 and before would be used.

When they set the rule, they designed it so that we had no way out of the ban. (Whether they were specifically targeting us is another question.)

Even though the following two things are true, they diffuse and weaken our argument:

- We're being punished twice for the infraction (reduced scholarships and now the ban). True, but so what? Multiple punishments are common
- There is nobody left on the team who was responsible for the poor scores being used against us. True, but the logistics of how the NCAA punishes programs means that current kids are always harmed by the actions of past ones. Otherwise the NCAA couldn't punish anyone.

Sorry this is a little long-winded, but my point is we really need to stick to that first argument and drive that point home.

 

[selles]

- The NCAA is retroactively applying a rule in such a way that once the punishment was announced, there was literally no recourse for anyone involved. They announced this punishment in October 2011 and declared that only data from 2011 and before would be used.

YES. THANK YOU. This is the issue. It is not about present athletes paying for the sins of the past, it is not about anything else. It is about an offense to the concept of due process which would have George Mason (the man, not the school) spitting in the face of the NCAA. It is about an abhorrent ex post facto application of a punishment created after a 'crime' was already committed. This is utterly inconsistent with any American concept of what is just. It defiles the concept of due process. It is absolutely ridiculous.

THIS needs to be the message. Period. People can argue the coulda woulda shouldas all they want, but the application of a punishment established after the crime should be game, set, match UConn.

 

[selles]

I know... Seriously? You would think that the members of Congress would have something more important/pressing to deal with than this. The cost of gas, our debt, military overseas, etc. Get your priorities straight Mr. Himes.... I mean UCONN issues are bigger than issues facing the American people.

Sorry... not sure why Congress is even involved.

Your fault then. Members of Congress actually have to act to make sure their state isn't getting screwed by others. Sorry to disillusion you and all, but that's how it is.

If Lieberman and Dodd were still in full force and effect, I guarantee this would not be happening to us.

 

[businesslawyer]

YES. THANK YOU. This is the issue. It is not about present athletes paying for the sins of the past, it is not about anything else. It is about an offense to the concept of due process which would have George Mason (the man, not the school) spitting in the face of the NCAA. It is about an abhorrent ex post facto application of a punishment created after a 'crime' was already committed. This is utterly inconsistent with any American concept of what is just. It defiles the concept of due process. It is absolutely ridiculous.

THIS needs to be the message. Period. People can argue the coulda woulda shouldas all they want, but the application of a punishment established after the crime should be game, set, match UConn.

Yes. The boat on retroactive punishment sailed long ago. And, unless we're willing to withhold paychecks from university presidents, administrators and coaches (and the odds of that are zero) there is no one else to punish. I don't recall this board being up in arms when USC football got the two year bowl ban.

 

[UConn5]

Sorry... not sure why Congress is even involved.

There is a very good reason that Congress is involved. The NCAA benefits from the non-profit status afforded to it under our tax code. Despite the fact that they are structured just like a major corporation (complete with excessive executive compensation). They sign multi-billion dollar television contracts and sell merchandise, tickets, etc.

In a time where there is outrage over corporations that are subject to paying income taxes finding ways to minimize their tax exposure, I believe there is no better time to re-evaluate whether the NCAA is indeed an organization that is "organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes."

I think congress has every right to involve itself in this fight. Now I don't think that UConn's plight alone will cause all of congress to take a good hard look, but they would be more than justified in doing so. The college football bowls (while not operated by the NCAA) benefit from the same status. HBO's Real Sports did a feature on them and its a joke.

Yes the retroactive application is unjust and goes against basic principles of our constitution and jsutice system, but the NCAA isn't subject to those limitations as long as they aren't deemed to be state actors, which would require overturning the Tarkanian decision.

Winning the argument that the application in this instance is unfair is the only way to get UConn into next year's tournament (barring the NCAA deciding to use the most recent data) but I don't think it will prevail -- although it could. Going after the NCAA's tax exempt status, in my eyes, has more teeth to it.

 

[UConn990411]

Just a question....has Jay Bilas weighed in on this issue in any way? If anyone follows him on Twitter, he's constantly bashing the NCAA on it's hypocrisy and idiotic actions such as their stupid ad campaign during the tourney saying "we're not dumb jocks". I would be curious how he'd feel about this. He may have already commented at some point and I don't know. However, if he hasn't stated an opinion, he's the only one I can see in the media taking the side of how stupid this whole ruling is and how it's punishing the wrong players.....he'd be a powerful voice, especially if he can use ESPN to express his opinion.

Yes, he absolutely blasted the NCAA regarding the APR: http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-jacobs-syracuse-column-0226-20120226,0,5425538.column

 

[NCHusky91]

The country is broke, the world is broke, and some people here are going to base their votes for elected officials on this.

 

[upstater]

Yes, he absolutely blasted the NCAA regarding the APR: http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-jacobs-syracuse-column-0226-20120226,0,5425538.column

While I agree with his main point, this one is a little questionable: "Graduation is not the only benchmark in education."

I actually agree with this point too, in general. You'll get something out of education whether you graduate or not. Steve Jobs wrote a piece before he died about his experience in higher education, and he made the same point that Bilas is making here.

But the APR doesn't set graduation as a benchmark. Elsewhere in the Jacobs' article, Bilas seems to make this same point when he discusses eligibility and retention.

 

[upstater]

The country is broke, the world is broke, and some people here are going to base their votes for elected officials on this.

No different, it seems, than the basis for many votes in general on a variety of issues.

 

[Inyatkin]

I know... Seriously? You would think that the members of Congress would have something more important/pressing to deal with than this. The cost of gas, our debt, military overseas, etc. Get your priorities straight Mr. Himes.... I mean UCONN issues are bigger than issues facing the American people.

Sorry... not sure why Congress is even involved.

I love this idea that if an issue is not the most important thing ever then they shouldn't do anything. It's signing a letter.

Also, this is the NCAA. They're known for being accountable to no one. If Congress doesn't say something, who will?

 

[Deadrody]

Its far worse than that. He is making nothing but a string of irrelevant strawman arguments.

Because a specific team meets the standard does not imply that they even knew about the requirement. You could choose any number of criteria and apply it to yourself, your friends, your family, etc. Pick height. Make up a rule, only adults above the age of 14 and taller than 2' can come in the house. Guess what ? As of right now, everybody meets the rule. Do they know about it ? No they don't. Doesn't mean a thing.

So, whether or not teams knew about the criteria, or the possibility that the criteria would come to exist, and the fact they meet the criteria are two wholly independent facts.

Now, furthermore, the delegations point is that the rule is being applied retroactively, thus making it unfair.

Where does the NCAA spokesmoron even ADDRESS retroactive or fair ? Nowhere. As if some teams meeting the criteria therefore means that they knew about the rule, it is fair, and that the fact it is retroactive is moot. One thing does not result from the other.

The fact that the NCAA is clearly made up of bureaucratic idiots (but I repeat myself) makes the impact of this rule that much more ridiculous.

Finally, the extreme liklihood that UConn is going to miss the tournament anyhow, I say they go to the mat and sue the living out of the NCAA. Next season is going to be a lost cause, it couldn't be any worse if there is a lingering legal distraction as well.

I'm convinced that the NCAA is one giant collection of bumbling idiots.

Just because the NCAA says colleges may have known this penalty was a possibility since 2006 is not a compelling legal argument for a rule that was put in place in October, then used to retroactively punish a school that was already punished under the previously established rules.

And that's not even mentioning that this duck*wad is completely contradicting the president of the Committee on Academic Performance Walter Harrison, who said teams would have ample time to prepare for the changes...a comment that was made far more recently than 2007. I'm pretty sure implementing rules retroactively does not qualify as "ample time."

Further, the NCAA is ignoring the fact that a slew of high-profile schools would have missed the 2012 NCAA tournament if the new rules were put in place for this year.

UConn really needs to sue their as$es.

 

[UCFBfan]

Yes, he absolutely blasted the NCAA regarding the APR: http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-jacobs-syracuse-column-0226-20120226,0,5425538.column

Thanks for the link! I figured he'd take a stand on this. I am a huge fan of Jay Bilas. Works for the big propaganda machine that is ESPN yet still expresses HIS opinion and not the one he's asked to express.

 

[champs99and04]

I thought this was the most noteworthy quote in the article:

"So riddle me this," Bilas said, "How is it a kid who remains in good standing and goes pro, you don't lose a retention point? Kid says enough, I'm done, I'm turning my back on education, you don't lose a point? But a kid who leaves and goes to another four-year institution to further his education, you lose a retention point? That makes no sense."

This is what has made no sense to me throughout this entire process. Why the hell are the standards for transferring different than the standards for going pro? Especially given the fact that the reasons for transferring are oftentimes basketball related and out of the coaches control.

 

[jrazz12]

I thought this was the most noteworthy quote in the article:

"So riddle me this," Bilas said, "How is it a kid who remains in good standing and goes pro, you don't lose a retention point? Kid says enough, I'm done, I'm turning my back on education, you don't lose a point? But a kid who leaves and goes to another four-year institution to further his education, you lose a retention point? That makes no sense."

This is what has made no sense to me throughout this entire process. Why the hell are the standards for transferring different than the standards for going pro? Especially given the fact that the reasons for transferring are oftentimes basketball related and out of the coaches control.

Because the APR was created by 4th graders for a special project in Ms. O'Neill's Social Studies class. Haven't you seen the responses defending the system by the classroom's spokeschildren? They're almost 5th graders now so they speak very well