Post-Season Ban for 9

[Muskie]

ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8077431/connecticut-huskies-9-others-sit-postseason-apr)

• Arkansas-Pine Bluff
• Cal State Bakersfield*
• California-Riverside
• Connecticut
• Jacksonville State
• Mississippi Valley State
• North Carolina-Wilmington
• Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
• Toledo
• Towson

[bleedXblue]

UCONN finally is getting what is deserves.


Look for Calhoun to be moving on soon.

[xubrew]

It's actually ten teams.

UConn's APR for the 2010-2011 year, which was the year they won the national championship, was 978. It will likely be higher for the 2011-2012 year when it comes out next year. I think the NCAA reacted about three years to late, and ended up punishing a team that is doing excellent academically.

Xavier's APR for the 2010-2011 single year was 923. For men's basketball, that is below average. It's actually in t he 60th to 70th percentile range. UConn is actually blowing us away, but because certain players from three years ago who are no longer on the team either left early or transferred with GPAs below 2.60, a group of players who far exceeds the national average in academics is now ineligible. I fail to see how these players deserve to be punished in any way. The rolling APR measures what WAS and not what IS. I think that's part of the problem. The way things CURRENTLY are, the group of UConn students who can't play are actually doing an outstanding job in the classroom.

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/apr2011/812_2011_apr.pdf

[XU 87]

The tourney just won't be the same without Pine Bluff.

[bleedXblue]

It's actually ten teams.

UConn's APR for the 2010-2011 year, which was the year they won the national championship, was 978. It will likely be higher for the 2011-2012 year when it comes out next year. I think the NCAA reacted about three years to late, and ended up punishing a team that is doing excellent academically.

Xavier's APR for the 2010-2011 single year was 923. For men's basketball, that is below average. It's actually in t he 60th to 70th percentile range. UConn is actually blowing us away, but because certain players from three years ago who are no longer on the team either left early or transferred with GPAs below 2.60, a group of players who far exceeds the national average in academics is now ineligible. I fail to see how these players deserve to be punished in any way. The rolling APR measures what WAS and not what IS. I think that's part of the problem. The way things CURRENTLY are, the group of UConn students who can't play are actually doing an outstanding job in the classroom.

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/apr2011/812_2011_apr.pdf

Wow.

Didn't realize the situation. The NCAA in their infinte wisdom, strikes again !

I hope this information is made public and it's current so that when a high school kid is considering where to play college ball, they know whether a program could possibly face
post season bans like this.

[xubrew]

Wow.

Didn't realize the situation. The NCAA in their infinte wisdom, strikes again !

I hope this information is made public and it's current so that when a high school kid is considering where to play college ball, they know whether a program could possibly face
post season bans like this.

It's made available to the public, but not conspicuously. The media loves things that are easy to digest, and that generate a reaction (take the brawl, for instance). The best way to do that is to report that UConn is on probation for sucking it up academically. Most people in the media who are dogging UConn don't even know how the APR works.

This is essentially what happened with the NCAA and their infinite wisdom. Certain people in the media, namely USA Today and the Washington Post, started printing NCAA Tournament brackets with the teams' graduation ratesand screaming bloody murder. Not that it was entirely unwarranted, but the way it was presented was bogus because they didn't take into account that the grad rates they were publishing did not reflect the current status of the players on the team. It was based on information that was several years old. It should be common sense that previous graduation rates have nothing to do with players that are still playing and haven't graduated yet, but with the NCAA and the general college sports fan who reads USA Today, there is no common sense.

UConn, and other schools like them, have very low freshman cohort graduation rates. The freshman cohort rate measures how many students enroll at a school as freshman, and graduate from that same school within six years. The reason UConn's is low is because their roster is made up of players who are good enough to play professionally and leave early before graduating, or players that sit the bench for UConn, but would start for other teams, and transfer.

If a player has a 3.8 GPA and transfers, it counts against the freshman cohort rate even if they graduate from another school. It doesn't count against the GSR or the senior cohort rate, but most readers don't know the difference. They just see "Graduation Rate" and see that UConn's is low.

The NCAA starts having meetings about how bad this looks, and then starts making changes and retroactively enforcing those changes without any regard to the big picture. There are 340+ div 1 schools. Lets just say on average that each school has 18 sporrts. I know some have less and some have more, but just to estimate, we'll say 18 per school. 340 X 18 = 6120 different NCAA teams. The NCAA is making decisions that effect all 6120 of them while only looking at and worrying about rougly ten to fifteen men's basketball teams. If you look at that list, most of the schools that got burned are low resource schools who deal with a lot of transfers. On top of that, UConn's old APR was within the rules. It was low, but it was within the rules. The decision to raise it was purely done for posturing and without any regard as to who it would really effect (low resource schools from small conferences with high transfer rates). So, the NCAA goes back, raises the APR, retroactively enforces it, and declares UConn ineligible even though the academic performance of the current players is way above average.

Oh yea, and some other schools and teams got screwed in the process....but at least everything looks good in USA Today.

Seriously, this would be like getting a speeding ticket for doing 67 in a 55, and then two years later after you've paid the fine, a cop coming to your door and informing you that the speed limit has been dropped to 35. They are retroactively enforcing the speed limit, and since you were 32 over, you now must surrender your liscense. I'm not exaggerating or beign cynical. That's literally what happened to UConn.

[chico]

The tourney just won't be the same without Pine Bluff.

Is that Pine Bluff the school or Pine Bluff the city? Depending on which one it could really be a boost to Dayton's recruiting efforts.

Yes, I stole your line.

[ballyhoohoo]

ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8077431/connecticut-huskies-9-others-sit-postseason-apr)

• Arkansas-Pine Bluff
• Cal State Bakersfield*
• California-Riverside
• Connecticut
• Jacksonville State
• Mississippi Valley State
• North Carolina-Wilmington
• Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
• Toledo
• Towson

One of these things is not like the other

[X-band '01]

You're right - why did Bakersfield get an asterisk?

[xubrew]

You're right - why did Bakersfield get an asterisk?

They're appealing it because they believe they submitted their data incorrectly.