UConn outlines self-imposed penalties in effort to qualify for 2013 NCAA tourney

[HuskyCarlJ]

This whole thing is stupid in that, all that matters is the court of public opinion. I think the self-imposed ban is good in that sense. UConn acknowledges their previous failings and attempts to take the punishment as an institution and program, rather than something that unduly affects the innocent players at the school (who have thus far all received perfect APR scores). The NCAA has also failed to offer any reasonable justification for using the 2-year APR data from '09-'11 instead of the more recent '10-'12 for the 2013 tournament. The larger the data lag, the more likely you're affecting student athletes who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

The thing that scares me is that so few people understand what's really going on, and trying to push back against any kind of APR punishment puts the school in the politically untenable situation of arguing against academics in the eyes of much of the public. The only reason a tournament ban is preferable from the NCAA's standpoint is that is resonates with non-fans in the public.

 

[Dann]

who was the player that was benched this season for 2 games? he missed a couple classes and JC benched him. was that scoe early in the year? or who?

 

[caw]

Unfortunately, I don't think that saying, "these new kids, they had nothing to do with it," has any weight, nor should it. The program is getting punished. It's like a school losing its accreditation. Sure, the current students had nothing to do with it, but they get slammed. Kids who get caught up in it get screwed, no doubt. Oh well. That's life. It's a piece of pie that you've got to eat sometimes.

I don't buy the argument that "kids today are being punished for what kids did X years ago" could ever be a valid defense, because, if it was, there would never be any incentive to get better. You'd just keep up, and then, when it came time to pay the piper, you'd say, "whoa nellie. That wasn't THESE kids. That was those other kids, and they're gone."

So there are innocents here. Oh well. If you're unhappy about innocents, I'd suggest sending a letter to Jim Calhoun telling him he really screwed over those innocents by not controlling his idiot assistant coaches, and by pursuing a known problem child like Nate Miles. Do that.

Or piss and moan on an Internet chat board about "unfair" and "we're being targeted."

One or the other.

I don't see this as a prevailing sentiment, or really anyone mentioning this until you just did.

To quote President Herbst:

"On a personal level, and as an educator, I would be very sorry to see such harsh punishment of the outstanding young men on our current basketball team," Herbst said. "I believe that it would be wrong to punish these students, caught in the fallout from a sudden passage of new rules — rules that did not exist when they enrolled at UConn.
"That would be a fundamental injustice to our team and to our university."

 

[EricLA]

sadly, this is the price UCONN has to pay for not paying attention to kids going to class and qualifying each semester for minimum grades or courses taken. if there had been more focus on that, none of this would be going on. sure you can say it was "someone else's responsibility", but ultimately the program is paying the price, so JC should have paid more attention to what was going on.

then again, going back to what Herbst said, if they enacted the rules after kids left UCONN, and then are trying to punish us retroactively, then that makes no sense. i don't pretend to completely understand this. i hope it works out for the best for us...

 

[HuskyCarlJ]

sadly, this is the price UCONN has to pay for not paying attention to kids going to class and qualifying each semester for minimum grades or courses taken. if there had been more focus on that, none of this would be going on. sure you can say it was "someone else's responsibility", but ultimately the program is paying the price, so JC should have paid more attention to what was going on.

I agree. A very stark reality of this is that no other programs are in this position. It was completely and totally avoidable. That said, UConn has already been levied a punishment by the NCAA (scholarship reduction). They've made actionable changes to respond to their academic shortcomings (presidential involvement, new academic plan, etc.), and they've achieved tangible results (near perfect APR last season, perfect APR during this season's first semester). In between the NCAA changed the rules.

I understand the reasoning for the rule changes. The real question is though, why the adherence to the 1-year data lag? If a school can prove that its' APR scores in the two most recent school years meet the eligibility requirements, why should they be forced to be punished for the year prior? Isn't that what the waiver process exists for?

 

[UChusky916]

Good response from President Herbst... sticking up for our program:

http://borgesblognhr.blogspot.com/

“We believe that we have made a very compelling case to the NCAA and will be deeply disappointed if our request for a waiver, from the 2013 men’s basketball postseason ban, is denied. Our team’s academic performance improved tremendously in 2010-11, and in the fall 2011 semester. We developed a new long-term academic plan for our team, and it has already shown positive results.

“It is unfortunate that our current men’s basketball student-athletes could be punished for the problematic academic performance of other students -- students who have not been enrolled at UConn for over two years. That decision would be unfair to innocent young people, which is baffling to us. Regulatory bodies should not change rules retroactively. The NCAA should focus on the future, so that people have the chance to work toward positive change. They should not dredge up the past, and then hurt innocent parties of the present.

“On a personal level, and as an educator, I would be very sorry to see such harsh punishment of the outstanding young men on our current basketball team. I believe that it would be wrong to punish these students, caught in the fallout from a sudden passage of new rules -- rules that did not exist when they enrolled at UConn. That would be a fundamental injustice to our team and to our university.

“My thanks go out to so many wonderful professionals at UConn who have made great strides in our academic approach over the past few years, as well as to our students, whom we treasure, along with our dedicated faculty and coaches. And I cannot think of many people in this world who have improved the lives of young men more profoundly than Jim Calhoun, our Hall of Fame coach, and highly-valued member of this university community.”

 

[Rico444]

So, if accepted, we would only play 5 OOC games?

 

[caw]

sadly, this is the price UCONN has to pay for not paying attention to kids going to class and qualifying each semester for minimum grades or courses taken. if there had been more focus on that, none of this would be going on. sure you can say it was "someone else's responsibility", but ultimately the program is paying the price, so JC should have paid more attention to what was going on.

then again, going back to what Herbst said, if they enacted the rules after kids left UCONN, and then are trying to punish us retroactively, then that makes no sense. i don't pretend to completely understand this. i hope it works out for the best for us...

I agree with most of this, but some points were also lost because of Nate Miles and transfers to non-D1 schools (ie. Trice?), non-academic stuff. Would those have made UConn score 1000? No, but would it have made some difference. One lost point is at minimum a 20 point drop (13 scholarships X 4 points a year = 52; 51/52x1000=980). If the school doesn't have a full compliment of scholarship players then you end up with an even bigger drop from the loss of one point.

In 2009-2010, UConn had an APR of 826, 11 scholarship players? Majok, Trice and Smith left/transferred, I believe none (or one) went to a D1 school directly upon transferring. That would be somewhere around 40-60 points lost regardless of their academic record/success.

They expect around 979 for 2010-2011.

The new 2 year score must be >930. UConn is around 910. That 40-60 points lost could have made the difference, or at least made it a lot closer.

Just putting those kids in a D1 school or not letting Majok leave. Another thing was UConn did a poor job of making sure good students who left the campus to go try out, etc. were able to keep up with classes (ie. Edwards).

 

[Rico444]

@AmoreCourant Dom Amore
Clarifcation from #UConn: Their proposal would be to schedule 23 games, plus a tournament (paradise jam). so really 26 games instead of 30
2 minutes ago via web

That makes me feel a little better.

 

[Chief00]

So are there still doubters about my sources comment about the combined APR/Miles related sanctions "it's going to be bad"?

 

[businesslawyer]

I have set my alarm clock for 2017.

By then, I hope we are out of the Big East, Ollie is in his second year of coaching with a 72-1 career record (we lost his first game), the practice facility is open and LeBron James II is telling every recruiting site that he hopes UConn offers. And the football team has recruited a quarterback who can throw.

Do not forget to come get me if I oversleep.

I thought you were serious until I got to the part about having a QB who can throw.

 

[mcs333]

Update from courant.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-uconn-apr-penalties-0209-20120208,0,7697536.story
Hopefully the committee will change the rule in Feb.

 

[CL82]

What kills me is that we are playing let's make a deal on this at all. The NCAA had certain academic progress rules in place. Those rules are flawed, as has often been discussed on this board and elsewhere, but let's set that aside for the moment. UConn fell short of those rules during a four year period and was punished by losing two scholarships. The failure to meet the rules was punished.

The NCAA now says we are changing the rules to provide for a post season ban. That's a new rule. However the NCAA says that it will use prior years, for which UConn has already been punished, to determine who should receive the brand new punishment. UConn mathmatically could not meet the new standard with the prior years the NCAA is using even with perfect scores. The NCAA was aware of UConn's scores before implementing the new rules. So when the NCAA ratified the new rules, it knew, or ought to have known, that they would have the effect of postseason ban on UConn regardless of how well UConn performed. How is that fair?

Let's say that you are driving one night. It is getting late and you want to home so you drive in excess of the speed limit. You realize that there is a risk that you might be caught and might get a ticket, but you do it anyway. You are stopped by and officer and issued a ticket. You pay the fine. A year later the state decides that all speeders should have their cars taken away from them. They pass the law and apply to anyone who's been caught speeding over the past two years. The police come to your home and take your car. You tell them that you've been a model citizen since and haven't driven above the speed limit. It doesn't matter. They take your car.

That's what is happening to UConn here. It isn't appropriate and we ought to fight it. By the way, the language at end of Herbst quote is a signal to the NCAA, that we will fight it, if they don't take this deal.

 

[Fishy]

I thought you were serious until I got to the part about having a QB who can throw.

I figured, while I was dreaming...maybe, just maybe, I could aim for the moon.

 

[Huskies2324]

So we are willing to forfeit revenues from BE or post season appearances? Forget that...keep the revuenues and use that money to sue the NCAA. These clowns need to be taken to task and have to publicly be held accountable for their biased and discriminatory actions. They are not above discrimination and harassment laws even if they are a private association.

 

[DogMania]

This doesn't make sense to me. I thought the ncaa was going to make a decision this spring about calculating current year apr. I also seem to remember the ncaa saying they would consider rewarding programs that show progress with their apr. Unless the ncaa already decided to exclude UConn From the 2013 tournament no matter what, doesn't it seems UConn is offering something up prematurely.

I don't know if UConn has any grounds for litigation but it sure seems like that's where it's heading. I also think someone at UConn needs to take negotiations 101.

 

[caw]

This doesn't make sense to me. I thought the ncaa was going to make a decision this spring about calculating current year apr. I also seem to remember the ncaa saying they would consider rewarding programs that show progress with their apr. Unless the ncaa already decided to exclude UConn From the 2013 tournament no matter what, doesn't it seems UConn is offering something up prematurely.

I don't know if UConn has any grounds for litigation but it sure seems like that's where it's heading. I also think someone at UConn needs to take negotiations 101.

They are making the decision this month. Considering it really only affects UConn...

 

[Kitaman]

I figured, while I was dreaming...maybe, just maybe, I could aim for the moon.

Well Newt ain't dreaming so maybe your dream will come true so says The Sandman.

 

[joober jones]

Mandeldove and Darius Smith left in bad academic standing and on top of that I think D Smith went to Southern Idaho which isn't a D1 school. Trice went to Appalachain State which is D1.

 

[dogpause]

I think it's terrible that we are making this offer rather than fighting what is clearly an injustice. Even the worst parents know you don't make rules and then enforce them for for actions that occured previously. Yet somehow, the NCAA doesn't recognize how wrong this is? We should be fighting this, not simply trying to customize the punishment.

 

[Prezidint]

Alright.

Can anybody succintly write what the change in rules is?

What would have been our punishment under the old rules? And then the new rules?

 

[Gurleyman]

My issue is why go public with this and create an unnecessary round of bad p.r. If you want to negotiate with the NCAA, feel free - show them everyone's transcripts this year and last year behind closed doors and make a case. But now this is all over the news. I guess the p.r. people there thought this was a good idea? Maybe they have their reasons, I dunno.

 

[Robertelamin]

Mandeldove and Darius Smith left in bad academic standing and on top of that I think D Smith went to Southern Idaho which isn't a D1 school. Trice went to Appalachain State which is D1.

Mandeldove pisses me off so much. He wasn't even on the team last year and red shirted the year before and had 5 full years to get his together including summer and winter sessions. Embarrassing for him and the school, and yet some people act like Shabazz is the anti-christ...

 

[aceboon]

My issue is why go public with this and create an unnecessary round of bad p.r. If you want to negotiate with the NCAA, feel free - show them everyone's transcripts this year and last year behind closed doors and make a case. But now this is all over the news. I guess the p.r. people there thought this was a good idea? Maybe they have their reasons, I dunno.

Apparently it was requested by the AP as part of the FOI act, but how would the AP even know the school submitted something like this without someone telling them? I wonder who snitched...

 

[champs99and04]

Couple things:

First off, this whole situation is a PR nightmare, and a nightmare for any UConn fan. Situations such as these tend to lead to opinions to people who don't have all the facts, and on the surface, it would be very easy to take the "School before athletics" approach. And to an extent, you would be right. However, it's not a matter of valuing athletics over academics. In short, the NCAA placed a system in place a number of years ago with certain guidelines in place. UConn met the guidelines to play in postseason tournaments, but did not score high enough to keep scholarships. That's fair. What's not fair, is to change the rules after the fact, and then to punish kids who did nothing wrong. It's like putting up a sign that says "speed limit 40 MPH", then changing it to 35 MPH and punishing all those who traveled between 35-40 two years later.

As always with the NCAA, the kid who did nothing wrong got *ked. When they signed on to come to UConn, there was no such rule in place. Suddenly years later they are being punished for the laziness of those before them. If you want to hurt the University, deem UConn ineligable for the 2015-2016 tournament so that kids know what they are signing up for. Do that, or dock UConn more scholarships so that it effects the future rather than the innocent kids currently on campus.

I'm no legal expert, but the whole situation doesn't smell right.

Secondly, Calhoun has to take full responsibility for this mess. How kids who were here for four years fail to get their degree with the amount of help they get is amazing to me. At some point, you have to either tell them to get their asses in gear or kick them off the team. Or recruit kids with no baggage, I.E. Nate Miles.