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.
