THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BAN US

[Kitaman]

That's a street tough Boston kid saying it like it is and like he don't care! He's earned the right to say what no one else would say, plus it came from the heart.

 

[Hongster]

As much as I hate the NCAA and its dictatorship.
As much as I love and appreciate Shabazz's talent and hard work to bring us our forth NC, and fame.
I wish he had never said what he said. I don't think we can win the argument on this subject and I believe this subject has a bad vibe, bad reflection on our school.

 

[intlzncster]

As much as I hate the NCAA and its dictatorship.
As much as I love and appreciate Shabazz's talent and hard work to bring us our forth NC, and fame.
I wish he had never said what he said. I don't think we can win the argument on this subject and I believe this subject has a bad vibe, bad reflection on our school.

When someone (group) does something wrong, you cannot, in good conscience, remain silent, even if it make you look bad. To be silent is to enable imo.

 

[MattMang23]

Someone forgot to tell fifteen players and a coaching staff of legendary Huskies that they were supposed to roll over and play dead. We will never die!

 

[Hongster]

When someone (group) does something wrong, you cannot, in good conscience, remain silent, even if it make you look bad. To be silent is to enable imo.

I hear what you're saying. But, what did the NCAA do wrong in this case?

 

[intlzncster]

I hear what you're saying. But, what did the NCAA do wrong in this case?

Created a rule, then applied it retroactively measure without giving programs a chance to address the situation. Not only that, but it is a dang near universal belief that the APR calculation is garbage. I mean, Kentucky had a better APR for a stretch than Harvard! Who do you think is getting the better education?

 

[Leebo]

I hear what you're saying. But, what did the NCAA do wrong in this case?

Applying a punishment retroactively for missing a standard on a formula that isn't even a good measure of academic quality in the first place?

 

[phillionaire]

I hear what you're saying. But, what did the NCAA do wrong in this case?

applied a rule ex-post facto to punish us, even though we were already punished with a loss of scholarships

 

[TouchdownHusky]

As much as I hate the NCAA and its dictatorship.
As much as I love and appreciate Shabazz's talent and hard work to bring us our forth NC, and fame.
I wish he had never said what he said. I don't think we can win the argument on this subject and I believe this subject has a bad vibe, bad reflection on our school.

I am so glad he DID say it. The NCAA was out to cripple the UConn program and Bazz was just telling - DIDN'T happen. And, of course you can win that argument. Anyone else hurt by that arbitrary ruling? Also when's the hammer gonna come down on fake classes University of North Carolina. The answer is not at all. They'll probably look to penalized Colorado State for that transgression.

 

[sportsart]

I hear what you're saying. But, what did the NCAA do wrong in this case?

You weren't the guy who asked JC about his salary were you?

 

[Hongster]

Created a rule, then applied it retroactively measure without giving programs a chance to address the situation. Not only that, but it is a dang near universal belief that the APR calculation is garbage. I mean, Kentucky had a better APR for a stretch than Harvard! Who do you think is getting the better education?

Thanks, I did not know that.

 

[Hongster]

You weren't the guy who asked JC about his salary were you?

LOL!

 

[UConn9604]

Applying a punishment retroactively for missing a standard on a formula that isn't even a good measure of academic quality in the first place?

Exactly. There's a reason why the Constitution bans ex post facto laws.

 

[jostar1]

UConn’s APR Warning Was Different Than Most

The idea that UConn was warned has become a central counterargument to Napier’s criticism. And it’s true that UConn had a history of poor APR scores going into the 2012–13 academic year. After a 930 multiyear rate in 2008–09, the score dipped to 893 in 2009–10 and 889 in 2010–11, the year that got UConn banned from the 2012–13 postseason.

But that postseason ban was different from previous bans. In August 2011, after the 2010–11 academic year was in the books and right before UConn would have started submitting the data for that year, the NCAA changed the rules.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014/04/08/uconns-apr-warning-was-different-than-most.htm

 

[CL82]

I love that this board is so well informed on the particulars of what happened. A few comments:

At the time the NCAA changed the rule, it was mathematically impossible for UConn to be compliance with it based upon the 2008 scores. So the retroactive change sure looks like a sanction in retaliation for UConn winning in 2011 while being down two scholarships.

UConn was already punished for the 2008 scores with the loss of two scholarships. So they were punished twice for the same offense (i.e., underperforming on a very arbitrary metric.)

UConn had current year APR information available. If that year was used the four year average would have excluded the 2008 year in favor of the most recent year and UConn would have been eligible for the post season play. The NCAA refused to use the current APR figures and instead used the 2008 numbers, which made it mathematically impossible for UConn to be compliance.

Finally, UConn offerred to give up any earnings from the 2013 post season, in addition to other sanctions. In effect the University said punish us, not the athletes. The NCAA refused and instead chose to punish the athletes.

Think Shabazz is justified in being pissed? I do.

 

[2north]

And it's not just our case. Former NCAA investigators are on record saying the NCAA does pick what cases to examine but with no rhyme or reason. Take the UNC debacle that took months to resolve (and even then mbball got away without a scratch) versus the Manziel investigation that was resolved in days. They do what's convenient for them and won't hurt their rake.

 

[donyell34]

IMHO , It was one of the absolute best things I have ever heard from any husky. Bazz had a venue and he used it. Saying what many of us would have liked to say.

 

[B1GEast]

Looks like the hungry panthers might have a shot in 2016

http://www.wisn.com/sports/uwmilwau...ament-play-next-season/25402010#ixzz2yUS57g2z

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's basketball team has been deemed ineligible for the 2014-15 season due to past academic performance.

 

[jibsey]

I love that this board is so well informed on the particulars of what happened. A few comments:

At the time the NCAA changed the rule, it was mathematically impossible for UConn to be compliance with it based upon the 2008 scores. So the retroactive change sure looks like a sanction in retaliation for UConn winning in 2011 while being down two scholarships.

UConn was already punished for the 2008 scores with the lose of two scholarships. So they were punished twice for the same offense (i.e., underperforming on a very arbitrary metric.)

UConn had current year APR information available. If that year was used the four year average would have excluded the 2008 year in favor of the most recent year. The NCAA refused to use the current APR figures and instead used the 2008 numbers, which made it mathematically impossible for UConn to be compliance.

Finally, UConn offer to give up any earnings from the 2013 post season, in addition to other sanctions. In effect the University said punish us, not the athletes. The NCAA refused and instead chose to punish the athletes.

Think Shabazz is justified in being pissed? I do.

Anyone who has something nasty to say about UCONN's "academics" should just be handed a copy of this.

 

[UChusky916]

The worst part about all of this is when I hear the media say like UConn was banned for 'poor grades' or 'poor performance in the classroom'. Finishing in good academic standing isn't what killed our APR scores. What killed our scores were the transfers of those IN poor academic standing. Granted, some of the guys in 2008/2009 should have finished in good standing when they could have. But according to the APR formula, the penalty that hurt UConn the most was the transfers.

If you are persuing a basketball career and don't like the college you're early on and decide to transfer, there's no motivation for athletes to finish in good academic standing. It's not a measure of 'academic progress' by any means.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I hear what you're saying. But, what did the NCAA do wrong in this case?

1) Retroactively applied a rule and gave no recourse in terms of a gradual implementation
1b) Actively declined to use the most recent information in calculating their numbers

2) Punished us twice for the same infraction (and, once again, changed the penalty for said infraction after the numbers that were to be used had been obtained)

3) Denied us waivers, despite the unjust factors of (1-2), and despite the fact that other schools were granted similar waivers on the basis of improved performance

Quite frankly, given all of the above, it was a straight-up vendetta on the part of the NCAA (Emmert) against UConn and JC. And a poorly-concealed one at that. The fact that the media hasn't called it out as such speaks to their laziness, cowardice, and bias.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

1) Retroactively applied a rule and gave no recourse in terms of a gradual implementation
1b) Actively declined to use the most recent information in calculating their numbers

2) Punished us twice for the same infraction (and, once again, changed the penalty for said infraction after the numbers that were to be used had been obtained)

3) Denied us waivers, despite the unjust factors of (1-2), and despite the fact that other schools were granted similar waivers on the basis of improved performance

Quite frankly, given all of the above, it was a straight-up vendetta on the part of the NCAA (Emmert) against UConn and JC. And a poorly-concealed one at that. The fact that the media hasn't called it out as such speaks to their laziness, cowardice, and bias.

Agreed. In short, they attempted to cripple the UConn program. Didn't happen.

 

[donyell34]

That's exactly correct. It was a shout out to for all of us. Loved his defiance, attitude , he spoke for us .

 

[sparky]

Live for the Day Bazz.

 

[Gregory Koch]

1) Retroactively applied a rule and gave no recourse in terms of a gradual implementation
1b) Actively declined to use the most recent information in calculating their numbers

2) Punished us twice for the same infraction (and, once again, changed the penalty for said infraction after the numbers that were to be used had been obtained)

3) Denied us waivers, despite the unjust factors of (1-2), and despite the fact that other schools were granted similar waivers on the basis of improved performance

Quite frankly, given all of the above, it was a straight-up vendetta on the part of the NCAA (Emmert) against UConn and JC. And a poorly-concealed one at that. The fact that the media hasn't called it out as such speaks to their laziness, cowardice, and bias.

The only schools granted waivers were schools with limited resources, mainly HBCUs in the SWAC and MEAC. Resources are not a problem for a school like UConn, so it clearly did not qualify for a waiver. I agree with you on most of the other points, though technically it was a gradual implementation.

When we were banned, the rule said 900 four-year score or 930 two-year score. For next postseason, they moved it up to 930 and 940. In 2015-16, it will just be 930 four-year score, no matter how high your two year score is, eliminating the possibility for getting out of it due to academic improvement. This was all planned from the creation of the rule, as part of the "gradual implementation" you mentioned. Keep in mind this past year, our four year score was still below 900 thanks to a series of poor scores a couple years ago, but our two year score was easily above 930, so we were allowed in. Next year, our two year score can still save us, though it likely won't need to as one of the poor scores will be dropped. I believe an APR above 970 would give us an acceptable four year score, and we are on track for that, but as long as it's 933 or higher, our two-year score will be ok. By 2015-16 the bad years will have all dropped off the four-year score and we will be ok.

Frankly, I think no team with a one-year score above 970 should be banned, no matter how bad their two or four year score, since that score is considered the benchmark for academic excellence. As I recall, the same day the NCAA officially announced we were banned, they commended us for our outstanding one-year score. I thought it was a typo at first, since it made no sense, but then I read closer. How is it logical to simultaneously commend a school for strong academic performance and punish them for weak academic performance? It can be one or the other. It can't be both. Either commend them or punish them. Not both.