Mailbag 4/24: Are Any Other Schools in UConn’s Situation?

by Categorized: APR, Mailbag, NCAA, UConn men's basketball

Question: Dom, I am completely flummoxed. (That’s a real word, I looked it up). Is UConn the only major program that is being penalized for low grades? I mean, there has to be others, right?


Chadds Ford, Pa.

A: Mark, at this point, the answer is yes. UConn is the only major basketball program in trouble for 2013. However, APR scores for 2010-11 come out in May. UConn’s score of 826 for 2009-10 means that it cannot make the necessary two- or four-year average no matter what that score is. UConn’s score is believed to be 978, we don’t know others. When the APR scores come out, it’s possible other schools could be in trouble.


The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

13 thoughts on “Mailbag 4/24: Are Any Other Schools in UConn’s Situation?

  1. steve sullo

    What a joke the ncaa is. There is no way kentucky can be eligible. they have 1 and dones every year, and Calipari takes the SAT’s for them.

    1. Amina Scalice

      Hi there! This is my very first remark here so I just wanted to give a brief holler out and inform you I honestly take pleasure in reading through your blog page posts. Can you recommend any other weblogs/websites/message boards that deal with the exact same content?

    1. Cheree Negron

      Hi there I think you actually have got a very good blog going here, I discovered it on Google and plan on coming back consistently for the information that you all are delivering.|Thanks a lot for making my evening a bit bit far better with this very good article

  2. Aaron

    No, they aren’t the only school banned from next year’s tournament.

    I do enjoy watching people like Buddy make fools of themselves.

    Besides the fact that UConn wasn’t the only school. When UConn allowed the grades to slip, there was no post season tournament ban. The punishment was scholarships. The post season ban was added after UConn had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. The NCAA decided to add an additional punishment, do it retroactively, while refusing to allow the most recent scores to be included in the calculation. The most recent scores would likely keep Uconn eligible. Only a dummy would think that’s a) fair or b) UConn’s fault.

  3. Dave Lamoureux

    Toledo has also been banned from 2013 post-season. Am surprised no one is aware, it was in USA Today.

    1. Shanti Jarry

      I actually don’t actually fully understand how I ended up in this article, but I thought this blog post was fantastic. I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a widely known blogger if you aren’t presently

  4. Dave

    Wait to 2014 as of right now 23 schools would not be eligible Syracuse, Florida, Florida State among them. Let’s make a prediction the NCAA changes the law by then.

    1. Leisa Pingitore

      Hello I think that you actually have a superb web log going right here, I came across it on Ask and plan on coming back again frequently for the material that you all are delivering.|Many thanks for making my morning a small touch far better with this amazing posting

  5. Gregory

    No…. The scholarships were the initial punishment, and since we didn’t get it up, this was the second punishment. That being said, it’s still double jeopardy in a way because it would have been mathematically impossible to get our APR above what it should have been in the allotted time. Also, they were phasing it in gradually, that was the plan. There are no “First step”, “second step” punishments anymore. It was supposed to give schools time to adjust, and in most cases it did. UConn however, was mathematically incapable of adjusting in time.
    Of course, the fact that both punishments were applied retroactively is another issue. And I don’t like it either. But I don’t think the double jeopardy argument is as valid as people think it is.
    That being said, there should be some one-year-APR standard, set significantly higher than 930 (maybe 970) and any team above that standard for the most recent year is ok. That avoids the problems of teams with single-year APRs so low it essentially amounts to a two-year ban (which is what we would have gotten if the rule had been fully implemented at the beginning of this year).

    1. Giovanni Cipolloni

      it would seem like your webpage ate my 1st comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I sent in and say, I’m totally enjoying your weblog. I too am an aspiring web log blogger but I’m still new to almost everything. Do you have any valuable hints for inexperienced blog freelancers? I’d absolutely appreciate it.I heard somebody talking about this on the radio yesterday, but I can’t remember what station it was.

Comments are closed.