Waiver Request Denied by NCAA | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Waiver Request Denied by NCAA

Status
Not open for further replies.
alexd. said:
We may be freaking out for no reason. (or maybe not)....read the last 6 parragraphs:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...ut-huskies-request-apr-waiver-2013-postseason
Expand ...

I don't trust the NCAA at all. They enjoy dangling a glimmer of hope of a reprieve out there just long enough to delay legal action until it is too late and the school has to finally accept the penalty to have some closure. If they can screw us (and specifically Jim Calhoun) they will. I see this heading to federal court.
 
caw said:
Walter Harrison is the President at UHart. Don't know if that's a good or a bad thing, but it means contacting him should be a short drive.
Expand ...
He is the president of Hartford? He would definitely have not wanted UCONN's self-punishment to be accepted because they would have entailed UCONN playing four less games next season, one of the games could have been against the Univ. of Hartford (haven't seen the schedule for next season) and they would miss out on a big payday from UCONN. The NCAA is just plain dirty and they think the AAU-player relationships are corrupt.
 
champs99and04 said:
The NCAA definitely has it out for UConn. I understand UConn's athletic department and Calhoun are also to blame for this mess, but the fact that the NCAA can change the rules as they please simply because they want to *k with a school is beyond ridiculous. The rules beforehand were that if you do not meet the score of 900, you are docked two scholarships. Suddenly UConn works around these rules to land Drummond and now not meeting the requirements leads to a postseason ban? If you can't see something *ked up about that then I don't know what to tell you.
Expand ...

Yes, the NCAA changed the rules for 360 D1 basketball teams just to crucify UConn.

As a member of the NCAA, UConn did not meet the minimum requirements for participation in post season play, therefore will not be allowed to compete. There are no grounds to sue. In a roundabout way, the idea of UConn bringing up a lawsuit on the NCAA for being denied participation even though they didn't meet the minimum standards would be as if a student athlete sued their institution if they didn't perform well enough in the classroom to remain eligible.
 
UCweCONN said:
He is the president of Hartford? He would definitely have not wanted UCONN's self-punishment to be accepted because they would have entailed UCONN playing four less games next season, one of the games could have been against the Univ. of Hartford (haven't seen the schedule for next season) and they would miss out on a big payday from UCONN. The NCAA is just plain dirty and they think the AAU-player relationships are corrupt.
Expand ...

The waiver would go to the board he chairs next, then a final appeal can go directly to him. He doesn't have to accept UConn's self-imposed penalties or at least not all of them. IF UConn played UHart after though, that would be a problem. UConn isn't playing UHart for awhile I think due to this case (on one side it's revenge for them turning the waiver down and on the other side it would be viewed as a bribe if they did put it on the books).
 
UCweCONN said:
He would definitely have not wanted UCONN's self-punishment to be accepted because they would have entailed UCONN playing four less games next season, one of the games could have been against the Univ. of Hartford and they would miss out on a big payday from UCONN.
Expand ...

Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
JohnUnitas said:
Yes, the NCAA changed the rules for 360 D1 basketball teams just to crucify UConn.

As a member of the NCAA, UConn did not meet the minimum requirements for participation in post season play, therefore will not be allowed to compete. There are no grounds to sue. In a roundabout way, the idea of UConn bringing up a lawsuit on the NCAA for being denied participation even though they didn't meet the minimum standards would be as if a student athlete sued their institution if they didn't perform well enough in the classroom to remain eligible.
Expand ...


Not sure if that is true, considering the NCAA made the rule retroactive. The fact UConn is the only team affected means it could very well be seen as a vendetta against UConn because the NCAA knew the scores it would be using when it set up the rule and who exactly would be affected.

Going forward the NCAA is blinded by the fact the data is not yet known or set.

I believe the NCAA didn't set up the rule to hit UConn but the fact they chose to have it start when they did could be exactly because it does hurt UConn.
 
.-.
Just out of curiosity, could UConn demand the ban be enforced this season? Not for nothing, but we are on a fast track to the wrong side of the bubble the way things are trending the past few weeks. Take the hit now, and come back with a vengance in 2013. It would minimize the potential impact to this recruiting class if they knew they were eligible for the 2013 post season.

Just a thought.
 
SAMCRO said:
Just out of curiosity, could UConn demand the ban be enforced this season? Not for nothing, but we are on a fast track to the wrong side of the bubble the way things are trending the past few weeks. Take the hit now, and come back with a vengance in 2013. It would minimize the potential impact to this recruiting class if they knew they were eligible for the 2013 post season.

Just a thought.
Expand ...


That would be interesting but I dont think so, considering it's mid-season. If UConn asked before the season, maybe.
 
it's time to litigate

they change the rules, make them retroactive, and punish for something they already punished us for

their nonsense has to end, it has to be stopped
 
SAMCRO said:
Just out of curiosity, could UConn demand the ban be enforced this season? Not for nothing, but we are on a fast track to the wrong side of the bubble the way things are trending the past few weeks. Take the hit now, and come back with a vengance in 2013. It would minimize the potential impact to this recruiting class if they knew they were eligible for the 2013 post season.

Just a thought.
Expand ...
The NCAA only bends when it suits their purposes and never let's a program in their crosshairs of the hook (unless it's to appease the SEC to keep them from breaking away from the NCAA). Also, if you remove the possibility of a tourney this year, how much effort do you think this team is going to give the rest of this season? If you think they are tough to watch now, wait until they know they aren't going to the dance this year. I'm tired of UCONN trying to compromise. The time for that has passed. It's now time to fight.
 
This seems like it should be so clear-cut. I don't see how the the NCAA can just retroactively apply penalties.

What a weird story, and a joke of an organization.
 
Let's see what the APR is after this year.

They have a 978 and they have 1000 for Fall as far as we know. That gives them some leverage. Two good years in a row and the NCAA wants to speed up the cycle by a year. Harrison implied that last year and he seems like a straight shooter--otherwise they would just say "CT is out and we designed these standards to punish UConn".
 
.-.
JohnUnitas said:
Yes, the NCAA changed the rules for 360 D1 basketball teams just to crucify UConn.

As a member of the NCAA, UConn did not meet the minimum requirements for participation in post season play, therefore will not be allowed to compete. There are no grounds to sue. In a roundabout way, the idea of UConn bringing up a lawsuit on the NCAA for being denied participation even though they didn't meet the minimum standards would be as if a student athlete sued their institution if they didn't perform well enough in the classroom to remain eligible.
Expand ...

You are ignorant of the facts of the case.
 
RS9999X said:
Let's see what the APR is after this year.

They have a 978 and they have 1000 for Fall as far as we know. That gives them some leverage. Two good years in a row and the NCAA wants to speed up the cycle by a year. Harrison implied that last year and he seems like a straight shooter--otherwise they would just say "CT is out and we designed these standards to punish UConn".
Expand ...
Maybe I'm off-base here but here's another danger I see. What if this matter drags out into the future and it seems like UCONN will not be in the 2013 tourney? As a result, certain players decide they are going pro or leaving because they don't want to stay if they can't play in the tourney. As a result, grades fall. Then the NCAA (either on their own or after legal action) decides that the retroactive APR measurement was unfair and now bases it on this year and last. Is it possible that the uncertainty could lower our APR so that we would still miss the tourney with a revised calculation because of discouraged players? The NCAA would love this scenario. They come out looking like the good guys and damage the program even more. This matter needs to be resolved in our favor ASAP.
 
JohnUnitas said:
You're right. Being stupid is one thing, but being both stupid and ignorant? ****. It's tough.

Thankfully any mouth breathing dip**** (much like myself) could tell you that there is no case here. Deal with it.
Expand ...

You really dont see an issue with Uconn being penalized for their 2009/2010 APR score twice?
 
bobbygt said:
It hasn't hurt USC (two year postseason ban) nor OSU in football. They both had top recruiting classes.
Expand ...

To be fair, in football you need to stay three years, and except for the top 2 teams, the post season is a joke. It's a lot easier to convince players to come to your school when you have a 1-2 year ban in football--even if they leave as early as possible, they can play for the title.
 
CTGoonie said:
What makes you say this? Obviously to Uconn fans this is double jeopardy but the NCAA is a governing body and they can choose to make whatever rules they want. If a member doesn't like the rules they can leave but can they sue?
Expand ...

The NCAA is what the courts would call a monopoly. They could be forced to disband as an organization which would lose every program and the NCAA billions upon billions of dollars. They'd settle before the paperwork hit a judges desk.
 
.-.
Unfortunately as this story garners more and more attention, there will be more stories from people like Johnny Unitas who will not have all the facts. UConn did not meet the requirements, and it would be fair to ban them for not meeting those requirements IF the requirements were known beforehand. For example, you might go a few miles over the speed limit if you knew the only risk was a fine and a warning. You can't decide two years later that all those who went above the speed limit will now spend a year in jail. There is a reason rules are not made like this in the real world, and I'm not a legal expert, but this can't be right in any sense.
 
JohnUnitas said:
You're right. Being stupid is one thing, but being both stupid and ignorant? ****. It's tough.

Thankfully any mouth breathing dip**** (much like myself) could tell you that there is no case here. Deal with it.
Expand ...

Pretty simple about Johnny U..........his team can't win and he's all for a champion not being part of the tourney for once......you're a pitiful man JU!! LOL
 
Uconn needs to know better and recruit kids that wants a degree and actually care for their grades IN MY OPINION
 
But what kid says he doesn't, or should we just not take a chance on anyone?
 
.-.
That is the most screwed up thing ive seen in my entire life. You have to take 2011-2012 into consideration for this. It is just not fair that this group will have a near perfect score and get punished for kids mistakes from 3 years prior. It needs to be more current if the punishment is this severe
 
uconnfan68 said:
It would be refreshing if all UConn teams refrained from playing post-season tournaments in support of the men's team.
Expand ...

The football team was extremely proactive in their support :D
 
MarieM said:
Uconn needs to know better and recruit kids that wants a degree and actually care for their grades IN MY OPINION
Expand ...

Wanting a degree is irrelevant. If it were relevant, Kentucky would fall afoul of the APR. That should tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree. Look up the APR criteria.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,268
Messages
4,560,565
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom