Why is it never brought up we are being punished twice?

[Palatine]

Why doesn't anyone ask the NCAA, say during the final four press conference....

"Since UConn lost two scholarships for their season of poor APR, isn't this ban punishing them twice for the same offense?"

Why is that question never asked? Isn't that the most relevant fact about this case? Isn't that completely unfair? Am I wrong?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Why doesn't anyone ask the NCAA, say during the final four press conference....

"Since UConn lost two scholarships for their season of poor APR, isn't this ban punishing them twice for the same offense?"

Why is that question never asked? Isn't that the most relevant fact about this case? Isn't that completely unfair? Am I wrong?

No national writer is ever going to ask that because the national writers don't know anything about the APR. They know that it has the word "academic" in it and they know that Uconn had a bad score at one point in time. So the only logical conclusion they can draw from those two bits of information is that Uconn doesn't care about academics and deserves to be punished.

You won't see anyone, other than Jay Bilas and Jim Boeheim (and eventually Calhoun once he loses the incentive to suck up to the NCAA), question the APR calculation or the NCAA's method of enforcing their penalties. It's much, much too easy for the media to get on their high horse and write about the "importance of academics" and how "it's about time the NCAA started punishing people."

Somebody else already mentioned this but it's very true. At this point, the only way the NCAA can take a national PR hit on the APR issue is to let us play in the tournament. If they approve our appeal, non-Uconn people are going to freak out and claim that the NCAA is pandering to a big name school. If they use the most recent data, which is unquestionably the most "fair" thing to do, non-Uconn people will still freak out and claim that they're only doing this to appease Uconn. Conversely, Mark Emmert will get nothing but pats on the back if he holds his ground.

 

[Palatine]

No national writer is ever going to ask that because the national writers don't know anything about the APR. They know that it has the word "academic" in it and they know that Uconn had a bad score at one point in time. So the only logical conclusion they can draw from those two bits of information is that Uconn doesn't care about academics and deserves to be punished.

You won't see anyone, other than Jay Bilas and Jim Boeheim (and eventually Calhoun once he loses the incentive to suck up to the NCAA), question the APR calculation or the NCAA's method of enforcing their penalties. It's much, much too easy for the media to get on their high horse and write about the "importance of academics" and how "it's about time the NCAA started punishing people."

Somebody else already mentioned this but it's very true. At this point, the only way the NCAA can take a national PR hit on the APR issue is to let us play in the tournament. If they approve our appeal, non-Uconn people are going to freak out and claim that the NCAA is pandering to a big name school. If they use the most recent data, which is unquestionably the most "fair" thing to do, non-Uconn people will still freak out and claim that they're only doing this to appease Uconn. Conversely, Mark Emmert will get nothing but pats on the back if he holds his ground.

Regardless of all that crap. Why are we beng punished twice?

We shouldn't have to appeal the penalty, we already paid the penalty.

 

[johnhuskies95]

I have a bigger problem with how they've retroactively enforced this.

 

[Palatine]

I have a bigger problem with how they've retroactively enforced this.

It's even worse, they have retroactively enforced this to push us a second time. Why does no one get this?

 

[AJC88]

I think people do get it. The thing is, we are one school. If this was happening to a number of big time schools, you might see more national media attention. HuskyBBall said it right that the only way the NCAA takes a PR hit is if they "pander to a big name" and let us off.
That doesn't make it any less B.S.

 

[Palatine]

I think people do get it. The thing is, we are one school. If this was happening to a number of big time schools, you might see more national media attention. HuskyBBall said it right that the only way the NCAA takes a PR hit is if they "pander to a big name" and let us off.
That doesn't make it any less B.S.

Well, whoever is making the case for us in the national press (the sid?) is doing an awful job.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Well, whoever is making the case for us in the national press (the sid?) is doing an awful job.

Given Calhoun's relative silence on this issue, I'm guessing that the Uconn party line is to not say anything that would tick off the NCAA. They hold our fate in their hands and we seem to be walking on egg shells. The only public comments I've seen have come from Herbst immediately after our initial waiver is denied.

 

[Ricky1Moore]

If the NCAA doesn't reverse course in some way (either through use of new data or granting a waiver) then I think you will see a VERY big deal made of the two key points made here (retroactive and double jeopardy). I assume it will be Herbst leading the charge. That said, we will only be able to achieve vilification of the NCAA at that point, and probably not salvage a postseason.

Hopefully, it won't come to this.

The only real outcome that is possible here in my eyes is the use of more recent data, it's the only PR/face saving move the NCAA can make... If they grant us a waiver then they look like they aren't being tough on academic performance.

 

[Tenspro2002]

At this point, the only way the NCAA can take a national PR hit on the APR issue is to let us play in the tournament. If they approve our appeal, non-Uconn people are going to freak out and claim that the NCAA is pandering to a big name school. If they use the most recent data, which is unquestionably the most "fair" thing to do, non-Uconn people will still freak out and claim that they're only doing this to appease Uconn. Conversely, Mark Emmert will get nothing but pats on the back if he holds his ground.

This is the crux of the issue; everyone else in this thread is preaching to the choir. These points are the only ones that matter as far as the (un)likelihood of our ban being overturned.

 

[benjordan]

Can someone school me on the double jeopardy thing and how the scholly sanctions work? If we lost 2 ships this year for last year's crappy APR, would we be punished again this year for a bad APR? Or is it done every few years? I apologize for asking what is probably common knowledge around here.. I've been burying my head in the sand regarding this issue hoping it would go away.

 

[UChusky916]

It's BS enough that the NCAA retroactively created an ADDITIONAL punishment on top of the 2 scholarship reductions.

But what pisses me off more is the fact that they KNOWINGLY created the rule with the APR score standard IMPOSSIBLE for UConn to reach.

They basically knew that by creating that rule with such standards, that UConn would be penalized and negated from post-season play.

I'm fairly certain that the NCAA will grant the appeal or change the APR score data used and that they are just trying to hurt the program by dragging it through the mud. But if not, I don't expect UConn to go down without a fight. The legal team is probably on stand-by.

 

[freescooter]

Why doesn't anyone ask the NCAA, say during the final four press conference....

"Since UConn lost two scholarships for their season of poor APR, isn't this ban punishing them twice for the same offense?"

Why is that question never asked? Isn't that the most relevant fact about this case? Isn't that completely unfair? Am I wrong?

While you are absolutely correct, it doesn't matter. They changed the rules. And part of the problem is that UCONN doesn't make a sympathetic "victim" since much of this problem was self-imposed.Hard to generate lots of sympathy for a 3-time national champion that didn't keep its players academically eligible ((upstater, I'm using this term as the perception, not necessarily the reality, so please don't start another APR discussion lol). This isn't a court of law, a point which many people seem to miss, too. It is a private association and its rules don't even have to have to be "fair"in the same sense that a public agency would need to be. So while you are right that this potential ban is punishing UCONN twice for the same offense, the NCAA is perfectly within its rights to do so. the other argument is that the NCAA isn't punishing UCONN twice, but rather just increasing the harshness of the "sentence" so to speak.

 

[UConn990411]

If the NCAA doesn't reverse course in some way (either through use of new data or granting a waiver) then I think you will see a VERY big deal made of the two key points made here (retroactive and double jeopardy). I assume it will be Herbst leading the charge. That said, we will only be able to achieve vilification of the NCAA at that point, and probably not salvage a postseason.

Double jeopardy has nothing to do with this situation, as it applies to someone not being tried in court twice for the same crime. The NCAA is not a governing body and therefore is under no obligation to follow the Constitution.

But like johnhuskies said, the bigger issue is that these rules are being implemented retroactively - that's an argument that I think could hold up in a court of law.

 

[AfgHusky15]

For what its worth. I was speaking with a law professor at Quinnipiac and he was on the athletic department there. We ended up talking about college basketball as he said that was his favorite sport. I ended up asking him about the current situation with uconn and the apr/post season ban. He said that it seemed to him there were people in the ncaa's who were pursuing the interests of some particular schools over others. Specifically he said that the ncaa was punishing a team retroactively and if the true intention was to improve "academics" of sports programs then all it would have to do is establish the new requirements and rules and punishments for violations of the new requirements and say they will enforce them instead of retroactively punishing teams for violations of the past especially when they were already punished. He said it seemed to him uconn has a very good case to sue the ncaa's bc of the possible damage to the school... he was pretty firm in his belief that the ncaas had specific interests of their own in terms of dealing with some schools over others.

 

[uchusky]

This leads to my question for the lawyers on the board - If UConn is ultimately banned, what kind of legal action could it take? I realize that it's unlikely they would take legal action, but what options would they have?

 

[FDNY99]

For what its worth. I was speaking with a law professor at Quinnipiac and he was on the athletic department there. We ended up talking about college basketball as he said that was his favorite sport. I ended up asking him about the current situation with uconn and the apr/post season ban. He said that it seemed to him there were people in the ncaa's who were pursuing the interests of some particular schools over others. Specifically he said that the ncaa was punishing a team retroactively and if the true intention was to improve "academics" of sports programs then all it would have to do is establish the new requirements and rules and punishments for violations of the new requirements and say they will enforce them instead of retroactively punishing teams for violations of the past especially when they were already punished. He said it seemed to him uconn has a very good case to sue the ncaa's bc of the possible damage to the school... he was pretty firm in his belief that the ncaas had specific interests of their own in terms of dealing with some schools over others.

I would bet if Calhoun suddenly retires before APR ruling comes out...miraculously we would be eligible for the tournament next season! This screams of Emmert getting a shot to stick it up Calhoun's and UConn's A**!!!

 

[freescooter]

There are lots of reasons to file a lawsuit, some of which actually involve the law. I could see UCONN suing simply to force the NCAA into negotiating a settlement that would get them into the tourney if they qualify. It is basically what West virginia did in their move. In the end they agreed that the Big East 27 month rule applies, but negotiated a way out for themselves. A law suit sometimes forces both sides to sit down and work out a reasonable settlement. It is also pretty much what UNLV and the Tark did back in the 1990s. They made a deal where UNLV got to defend its title, even though the NCAA had declared them ineligible. I could imagine something like that happening here if UCONN loses its appeal. far too much dirty laundry for the NCAA to risk a full and public trial, and for that matter I'm not so sure UCONN would want all its internal information public either.

 

[businesslawyer]

While you are absolutely correct, it doesn't matter. They changed the rules. And part of the problem is that UCONN doesn't make a sympathetic "victim" since much of this problem was self-imposed.Hard to generate lots of sympathy for a 3-time national champion that didn't keep its players academically eligible ((upstater, I'm using this term as the perception, not necessarily the reality, so please don't start another APR discussion lol). This isn't a court of law, a point which many people seem to miss, too. It is a private association and its rules don't even have to have to be "fair"in the same sense that a public agency would need to be. So while you are right that this potential ban is punishing UCONN twice for the same offense, the NCAA is perfectly within its rights to do so. the other argument is that the NCAA isn't punishing UCONN twice, but rather just increasing the harshness of the "sentence" so to speak.

There is part of that that makes no sense to me. The NCAA is a private institution, that at the Division I level at least consists mainly of state entities. Without pretending to know the law on this, it strikes me as a bit absurd that a group of state instititions, each of which has to provide some level of due process to the students it enrolls, can band together and, acting collectively, provide none whatsoever.

 

[freescooter]

There is part of that that makes no sense to me. The NCAA is a private institution, that at the Division I level at least consists mainly of state entities. Without pretending to know the law on this, it strikes me as a bit absurd that a group of state instititions, each of which has to provide some level of due process to the students it enrolls, can band together and, acting collectively, provide none whatsoever.

bl, I'm not a lawyer, but I suggest you read the UNLV v NCAA decison which addresses that exact issue. basically the decison was that just because UNLV was a state entity, didn't mean that its membership in the NCAA caused the NCAA's rules to be "state actions." Obvioulsy it goes much further than that. Tark actually made the exact argument that the NCAA's power is so great that UNLV had no choice but to do whatever they wanted.

 

[UConn5]

bl, I'm not a lawyer, but I suggest you read the UNLV v NCAA decison which addresses that exact issue. basically the decison was that just because UNLV was a state entity, didn't mean that its membership in the NCAA caused the NCAA's rules to be "state actions." Obvioulsy it goes much further than that. Tark actually made the exact argument that the NCAA's power is so great that UNLV had no choice but to do whatever they wanted.

That is true that the NCAA was deemed not to be a state actor in the Tarkanian suit. However, the NCAA has grown significantly since then and it may be worth revisiting.

 

[Marty Jackson]

attached link explains that the 2 scholarships weren't directly related to the APR.


http://borgesblognhr.blogspot.com/2011/05/heres-why-uconn-loses-two-scholarships.html

 

[Tk79]

Someone already pointed this out, but let's stop referring to this situation as "double jeopardy". It's really an "ex post facto" punishment (i.e. retroactive). Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US, but as has already been stated many times on this forum, it's not clear that this concept is relevant for a private institution making its own rules. Of course there may be other reasons that a lawsuit would be justified - I'm no lawyer though so admittedly I am clueless on this matter. From wikipedia:

"An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact") or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted... ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution"

 

[NJHusky]

my question is why didn't this rule come into play in this years tournament...oh i forgot, then wouldn't like 13 schools have been banned...don't think cbs would have been happy with that.

 

[upstater]

My question is how come the rule wasn't instituted this year? If it was going to be a retroactive rule, then why not institute it immediately? Why wait until 2012-2013.

Waiting doesn't make any sense. It's retroactive. Why wait?