APR About to bite UConn

Submitted by StephenRKass on

I haven't seen much posted here about APR lately.  It appears this is about to hit UConn hard. Their request to the NCAA for a waiver allowing them to play in the 2012-2013 post-season has been denied.  LINK:  http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7562956/ncaa-denies-connecticut-huskies-request-apr-waiver-2013-postseason

Assuming their appeal is not granted, that would be huge. I don't understand all the APR implications, but if teams start to become ineligible for either the Bowl season or for the NCAA tourney, or both, that would be a significant penalty. If conferences voted not to give a financial share to ineligible teams, that would sting even more.

I don't know all the issues involved, but banning teams from the post-season for a failure to perform academically is a tremendous way to make athletes attending school less of a sham.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 10th, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^

I had to agree with Forde's take on the whole thing (although it was a little over-nasty for my tastes, and it's funny how he thinks Ohio didn't get off easy.)  UConn is essentially trying to weasel out of the penalty.  Rules are rules.  The APR can be kind of arbitrary and needs a few tweaks, but you still have to be really, really negligent to get to the point where you're doing as badly as UConn.  Let 'em take their medicine.  I'll be disappointed as hell in the NCAA (again) if they say OK to this.

APBlue

February 10th, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^

If I understand the rule, you're okay as long as the student finishes the current semester.  

So, a basketball player, in this case, has to finish the winter semester.  If they know before March Madness that they're going pro and decide to not go to class after March 1st, they're going to hurt your APR.  

If they continue going to class because they're not sure, then after the winter semester (mid April?) decide to go pro, then you're good (as long as they complete the semester).  

That's how it works.  I think.

bacon1431

February 10th, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^

That kinda sucks for the schools. Do they really expect a kid that is about to make millions to finish a semester that is pretty much irrelevant for them (especially if they don't really care about finishing their degree in the future)? I think exceptions in those cases should be made. Not saying UCONN has any of these, just a general comment.

APBlue

February 10th, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^

It's definitely a risk that comes with One & Done players.  If that player is the selfish type, beware.  If he cares about the university, program, his teammates, then he's probably going to be responsible enough to get his butt to class.  

My thought is that if he's talented enough that he may not stick it out another year, it was probably at least in the back of he mind when selected selected his classes.  If that's the case, he probably didn't load up on the toughest course schedule.  Again, get your butt to class and be responsible to your coach and teammates.  

It just doesn't matter to some kids, though; another reason coaches should be careful with whom they bring into their programs. 

Tater

February 11th, 2012 at 8:11 AM ^

All the current system really does is encourage corrupt athletic departments to develop relationships with teachers who will ensure that their players get good grades, whether or not they actually earn them.  

For example, a player could "write" a paper or two for extra credit to shore up a grade, or the teacher could just give the student an A with no actual justification needed.  It would be a major violation of the student's right to confidentiality if athletes were forced to produce proof of having earned their grades, so this would be really difficult to prove.

This is just another reason why I think the NCAA should throw out 95 percent of the rulebook. All they are doing right now is forcing schools that play by the rules to compete on an uneven playing field against the Ohios, USCs, and Bammers of the world.  

 

ChillChet

February 10th, 2012 at 6:38 PM ^

"(especially if they don't really care about finishing their degree in the future)?"

If that was the case, I think the school should be re-examining why they gave that student a scholarship.  That type of mentality is why people question issuing 1,000s of scholarships to athletes while there are students around the country struggling to just stay in school and complete their degree.

-Chet

DarkWolverine

February 10th, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^

Glad they are not granting exceptions. If this prompts a rule change then OK with that too. Good question about Calipari and Kentucky. Good for Huggins/Cincy this is after his tenure there. Read a few years back that he never graduated a player while coaching there.

ajcrmr

February 10th, 2012 at 6:21 PM ^

They're complaining in order to go to another bowl no one cares about where they can lose more money and then continue to complain about a bowl system treating smaller football schools unfairly?