The media is once again jumping all over UConn

[djct1999]

Here is Dana O'Neill's take( someone who I do respect)

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebask...d/47887/oneil-ncaa-should-deny-uconn-proposal

 

[caw]

She makes a better case than Forde. Still quite flawed.

Here are the APR scores for the three schools:

Southern Grambling Uconn
856 939 889
820 851 934
837 930 946
842 895 939
847 884 930
852 873 893

If anyone is curious, individual years the year before the post season ban:
Southern Grambling Uconn
780 882 975*

*reported

UConn has the highest low score, doesn't have the reputation of having low scores (or at least not nearly as bad) and reportedly has a score 100-200 points higher than the other two schools when they received bans.

 

[Rico444]

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

Good enough for our legal system, but not for the NCAA, apparently. Uconn has paid its price for it's low APR score, by losing two scholarships for this year and the next two to follow, not to mention the recruiting hit they took while the NCAA took two years to decide their fate. Now, the NCAA wants to punish Uconn again? For the same crime? When Uconn has made a dramatic improvement since they had the original charges levied against them?

I understand wanting Uconn to pay a penalty for their poor academic performance. But how many times must they pay for the same crime?

 

[Letsgohuskies11]

dana o'neil is friends with pat forde..

 

[businesslawyer]

She totally misses or ignores the point. Does the NCAA have every right, much less legal ability, to put a postseason ban on teams not meeting academic performance metrics? Of course it does. does it have the same right to punish a team a second time for act that have already been punished? By changing the rules after the first punishment has been meted out? Well, legally it probably does, but morally that is absurd. O'Neil actually quotes Herbst addressing this point, which is the most important thing she says, but then chooses to ignore it instead of taking it on.

Nice journalism.

 

[HuskyCarlJ]

She totally misses or ignores the point. Does the NCAA have every right, much less legal ability, to put a postseason ban on teams not meeting academic performance metrics? Of course it does. does it have the same right to punish a team a second time for act that have already been punished? By changing the rules after the first punishment has been meted out? Well, legally it probably does, but morally that is absurd. O'Neil actually quotes Herbst addressing this point, which is the most important thing she says, but then chooses to ignore it instead of taking it on.

Nice journalism.

It amazes me that both Forde and O'Neill completely omit Herbst's points about the retroactive punishment and the successes of UConn's APR improvement initiative, and both couch the story as UConn vs. HBCU's.

 

[Chief00]

I tried to warn you folks this stuff was coming over a year ago.......it is personal with Emmert......hence punishing us for the same offense .......a second time. And when I say personal......I mean that is what it is .....no principle is involved .....it is settling old scores from his UConn days.

If he had any redeeming quality of principle he wouldn't of hired the former Freddie Mac Chief Compliance Officer as his Chief Counsel.

As for the Grambling APR scores mentioned above - they don't matter - Emmert was so out to punish UConn that he granted the black schools immunity - if they voted to impose these rules on other schools......they would not apply to them .........he got 25 Black Colleges votes that way. It is a fact.

 

[prankster]

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

Good enough for our legal system, but not for the NCAA, apparently. Uconn has paid its price for it's low APR score, by losing two scholarships for this year and the next two to follow, not to mention the recruiting hit they took while the NCAA took two years to decide their fate. Now, the NCAA wants to punish Uconn again? For the same crime? When Uconn has made a dramatic improvement since they had the original charges levied against them?

I understand wanting Uconn to pay a penalty for their poor academic performance. But how many times must they pay for the same crime?

My preference is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution:


"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Now, the Constitution does not apply to or control the NCAA, still....these NCAA bastards need a good swift kick in the nuts over this....

 

[jibsey]

Do we have a 50/50 shot at this?

 

[uconnfan68]

Here is Dana O'Neill's take( someone who I do respect)

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebask...d/47887/oneil-ncaa-should-deny-uconn-proposal

You should limit your respect for ESPN employees to a handful of behind-the-scenes people. They had nothing to do with trashing the Big East and destroying UConn sports.