UConn ineligible for the 2013 Tourney due to APR?

 That article only mentions Uconn. I cant believe theyre the only school that wouldnt reach the required score or that any Calipari coached team would qualify.
 
 That article only mentions Uconn. I cant believe theyre the only school that wouldnt reach the required score or that any Calipari coached team would qualify.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that Kentucky actually has a pretty high score.
 
 
STORRS Conn. -- Changes in NCAA rules are expected to keep defending national champion Connecticut from participating in the 2013 NCAA men's basketball tournament.
Click to expand...


Why would a kid go there now? Does that mean that this will be Calhoun's last year?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...xpected-keep-connecticut-huskies-2013-tourney
Click to expand...
 

Hate to say this but I don't think thats right. I don't think you can change the rules and then be able to punish past teams that don't meet those rules/requirements. They can't punish UConn because last year's team all of a sudden caused them to violate a rule that wasn't even in existence yet....

It would be like St Johns stating that as of 10/27/2011, upperclassmen must have played in at least 90% of the games the previous year in order to be eligible for a scholarship, and then taking scholarships away from Malik Stith and Jamal White because they didn't play enough...... I just don't think its fair...
 
 
STORRS Conn. -- Changes in NCAA rules are expected to keep defending national champion Connecticut from participating in the 2013 NCAA men's basketball tournament.
Click to expand...


Why would a kid go there now? Does that mean that this will be Calhoun's last year?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...xpected-keep-connecticut-huskies-2013-tourney
Click to expand...
 

Hate to say this but I don't think thats right. I don't think you can change the rules and then be able to punish past teams that don't meet those rules/requirements. They can't punish UConn because last year's team all of a sudden caused them to violate a rule that wasn't even in existence yet....

It would be like St Johns stating that as of 10/27/2011, upperclassmen must have played in at least 90% of the games the previous year in order to be eligible for a scholarship, and then taking scholarships away from Malik Stith and Jamal White because they didn't play enough...... I just don't think its fair...
Click to expand...
 
Stith and White did not play all that much!! Just saying! :evil: 
 
 We all know how this will go. We hold our breaths and hope UConn will get punished, but they will squirm out of it.
Click to expand...
 

I agree; IMO this is just a smokescreen put up by the NCAA to counteract the bad publicity regarding conference jumping. A coincedence that it comes out at the same time senators are getting involved?
 
The way I read it the schools have 4 years to get it right-since part of it is based on a four year average. How can you punish someone/university for failing to make the grade when you change the rules after the fact. Of course I could be interpreting it wrong but I would think it unfair. I am not a UCONN fan, and I think it is shameful that they have consistently scored so poorly academically-but I wouldn't think it fair to any school to change a rule and make it retroactive. This is only my opinion- based on what I have read-which isn't a lot- :) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top