UHart Pres recused himself

[GemParty]

From UConn appeal, per the Courant. I guess because he runs a school in our state. It didn't specify. Why wouldn't Emmert do the same? Former employees can be biased, right?

 

[SubbaBub]

Likely did so as an escape. He probably wants nothing to do with the decision.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[businesslawyer]

That is not a good sign. He sounded sympathetic to the fact that we already have more recent scores that corrected the problem. and he has to live with neighbors and friends if UConn is barred.

 

[Yonick]

That is not a good sign. He sounded sympathetic to the fact that we already have more recent scores that corrected the problem. and he has to live with neighbors and friends if UConn is barred.

I agree, plus, he really didn't have to back out. He probably feels his no vote, which he would prefer to make, wouldn't sit well within the state.
Either way, this doesn't sound good for UConn.

 

[SubbaBub]

As an known advocate of tighter academic standards, he's in a lose-lose situation. Too bad, I think he would have lent some sanity to the proceedings.

Can't say I blame him, though.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[Vuce]

I don't think Uconn has any chance at winning the appeal. Their best chance, slim as it might be, is for the committee to change years of the data they are using. Harrison should be involved in that part of it.

 

[toppencil]

Given the high percentage of APR waivers the NCAA has granted in the past; something like 90% of the time. How can they defend their position in this case?

It would seem like an objective third party would rule the denial of UConn's waiver request as subjective rule enforcement, arbitrary and capricious.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Given the high percentage of APR waivers the NCAA has granted in the past; something like 90% of the time. How can they defend their position in this case?

It would seem like an objective third party would rule the denial of UConn's waiver request as subjective rule enforcement, arbitrary and capricious.

I don't think you're talking about the same type of APR waiver. If a player leaves for the NBA but meets the requirements, the school would submit a "waiver" to avoid losing an APR point. I think this is where your 90% statistic is coming from.

The APR postseason bans are only coming into affect now. I believe ours is only the second "waiver" of its kind.

 

[caw]

I don't think you're talking about the same type of APR waiver. If a player leaves for the NBA but meets the requirements, the school would submit a "waiver" to avoid losing an APR point. I think this is where your 90% statistic is coming from.

The APR postseason bans are only coming into affect now. I believe ours is only the second "waiver" of its kind.

Yes and no. Yes, the exact waiver is different. No, because schools have requested waivers based on sanctions stemming from APR scores.

 

[aceboon]

So who exactly is deciding the fate of UConn's appeal, is it the exact same group that turned it down in the first place? I didn't have high hopes to begin with but, I hope this isn't a Roger Goodell situation...

 

[geordi]

Given the high percentage of APR waivers the NCAA has granted in the past; something like 90% of the time. How can they defend their position in this case?

It would seem like an objective third party would rule the denial of UConn's waiver request as subjective rule enforcement, arbitrary and capricious.

They don't have to defend their position. They are like Ma Bell in the 1970s. It's a monopoly.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Like others have said, our only hope at this point is that they decide to use the most recent data, where our 2-year score will be acceptable. There isn't a snowball's chance in h*ll that they approve our waiver, even though it's probably merited based on the precedent set by other schools.

 

[freescooter]

there is a big difference between Harrison's role on the committee and Emmert's role as president of the NCAA. I suspect harrison decided not to participate because he is just too close to the UCONN situation. Emmert has been gone for more than 5 years now, and the typical requirement to recuse oneself from a former employer is 1-2 years, rarely 5 in adminsitrative decisions. Beyond that, there is a big differnece between voting on an appeal committee and enforcing the rules as written. I also think we're screwed unless they decide later to use the new data, something I give a 50-50 shot. But I'm sorry, but this is a UCONN screwup, not an NCAA one. If you read Susan Herbst recent letter to the UCONN alumni, she pretty much concedes this point.

 

[toppencil]

I don't think you're talking about the same type of APR waiver. If a player leaves for the NBA but meets the requirements, the school would submit a "waiver" to avoid losing an APR point. I think this is where your 90% statistic is coming from.

The APR postseason bans are only coming into affect now. I believe ours is only the second "waiver" of its kind.

Here is one that is similar:
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...es-ulm-wavier-grants-postseason-eligibility/1

There have been others related to APR scores in the past, this one indicates 9 of 10 similar requests were granted:
http://blogs.clarionledger.com/jsu/2011/03/23/jsu-gets-full-waiver-from-apr-penalties/

I think the NCAA owes UConn a better explanation for not allowing them to use more recent APR scores. I wonder if the NCAA will eventually relent as others have suggested.

 

[UConn990411]

there is a big difference between Harrison's role on the committee and Emmert's role as president of the NCAA. I suspect harrison decided not to participate because he is just too close to the UCONN situation. Emmert has been gone for more than 5 years now, and the typical requirement to recuse oneself from a former employer is 1-2 years, rarely 5 in adminsitrative decisions. Beyond that, there is a big differnece between voting on an appeal committee and enforcing the rules as written. I also think we're screwed unless they decide later to use the new data, something I give a 50-50 shot. But I'm sorry, but this is a UCONN screwup, not an NCAA one. If you read Susan Herbst recent letter to the UCONN alumni, she pretty much concedes this point.

Once again, your attempt to be the board contrarian is extremely transparent.

UConn duck*ed up by taking too long to take the APR seriously (when 300+ schools managed to skirt the new rules), and because of that they find themselves in the current predicament.

But the NCAA's decision to implement these rules retroactively is not really justifiable, especially when it is conceivable that they can use the most recent data (scores through the 2011-12 academic year) to decide eligibility.

UConn dug itself a hole, yes, but that doesn't mean the NCAA's actions are just either.

 

[upstater]

I don't think you're talking about the same type of APR waiver. If a player leaves for the NBA but meets the requirements, the school would submit a "waiver" to avoid losing an APR point. I think this is where your 90% statistic is coming from.

The APR postseason bans are only coming into affect now. I believe ours is only the second "waiver" of its kind.

Teams have received waivers in the past from scholarship bans. Arkansas and several others.

 

[upstater]

there is a big difference between Harrison's role on the committee and Emmert's role as president of the NCAA. I suspect harrison decided not to participate because he is just too close to the UCONN situation. Emmert has been gone for more than 5 years now, and the typical requirement to recuse oneself from a former employer is 1-2 years, rarely 5 in adminsitrative decisions. Beyond that, there is a big differnece between voting on an appeal committee and enforcing the rules as written. I also think we're screwed unless they decide later to use the new data, something I give a 50-50 shot. But I'm sorry, but this is a UCONN screwup, not an NCAA one. If you read Susan Herbst recent letter to the UCONN alumni, she pretty much concedes this point.

Bullshit. You repeat the same tired trash.