The Syracuse basketball program has announced that it will self-impose a postseason ban for the current season in response to violations that consist of nearly a decade of academic fraud, drug violations, and Eric Devendorf.
Before we get to the meat here, yes, I’m an angry UConn fan. Every UConn fan should be mad about the NCAA letting Syracuse invent their own non-punishment. If you think that makes me too biased to discuss this, then you don’t have to read what I’m writing. Look around you. Do you see anyone else reading this? Do that, then.
OK, now. Let’s just look at the facts. UConn, as you well know, thanks to a well-publicized scandal (thanks, ESPN!), was banned from postseason play in 2013 because of deficient APR scores across the two-year period of 2008-09 and 2009-10. When these violations occurred (and when they were announced), the punishment for low APR scores was limited to scholarship reductions and decreased practice time. These punishments were instituted against UConn, but the NCAA decided that this wasn’t enough, because in 2011 the NCAA changed the rules that this violation now carried with it a postseason ban. Despite the fact that the rule change came after the violation had occurred (and the punishment had already been levied), UConn was still to be banned from postseason play in 2013.
UConn appealed, showing that their most recent APR scores (using the data from 2009-10 and 2010-11) met the standard. In other words, the problems had been fixed, and none of the players on the teams in violation were in the program anymore. That didn’t matter, according to the NCAA, and UConn was banned anyway, so remember that every time one of the 32 Syracuse alumni who write, produce, or work on-the-air for ESPN tells you that they should escape further punishment because of the steps they took to fix the issues. The violations in question were first reported in 2007, but they have occurred as recently as 2012, so that should tell you plenty about how effective these steps have been.
UConn’s ban was announced more than a year in advance and widely publicized in broadcasts and news stories, which harmed recruiting more than the scholarship reductions did. Before the 2012-13 season, UConn players were allowed to transfer freely, and for seniors (like Alex Oriakhi), they were incentivized to leave when it was announced they wouldn’t have to sit out a year.
All of this has done measurable harm on the program and the University, and was likely a factor in UConn being shut out of the major conferences during realignment (Paul Pasqualoni was another factor).
Meanwhile, Syracuse committed academic fraud over the course of a decade, and allowed ineligible players to play despite failed drug tests. For this, they’ve decided to “punish” themselves by banning themselves from a postseason that their mediocre season would have them banned from anyway. Sure, this costs them an NIT bid and a chance to embarrass themselves in the ACC tournament, but is this a real issue? Let’s do the comparison.
By announcing the ban in February, Syracuse limits themselves to about a month of media scrutiny (not that this matters, as ESPN’s many Syracuse alumni have chosen to paint Syracuse as the victim in this). They prevent any players from transferring out to avoid the ban, and none of the recruits they’ve already signed will look to renege, as they won’t be faced with any punishment.
The one who really loses out here is Rakeem Christmas, who finds out in February that his senior year is meaningless. This is a minimal punishment that is great for the program and terrible for the players. Of course, that’s nothing new for Jim Boeheim, who publicly blasts players who might leave early for the NBA in the hopes that they’ll come back to school if he cripples their draft stock enough. Boeheim has once again put his own well-being ahead of that of his players.
But to the ultimate question about fairness, justice, or even just trying to stop teams from cheating, this is absurd. If the NCAA allows this to stand, Syracuse will have received a far less harmful punishment for academic fraud than UConn got for honestly reporting the poor academic performance of their players, most of whom saw their academics suffer because they were transferring or leaving early for the NBA. To make this as clear as possible, Syracuse lied and cheated to keep players eligible, so punishing them less than or even equal to what UConn received would incentivize teams to cheat, since there’s no additional punishment beyond what would have happened if they’d just let the kids fail honestly.
It should be noted that the NCAA still has the opportunity to add further sanctions, but given that it’s been three months since the conclusion of the hearings, I’m not confident that will happen. If they choose not to, it would make it difficult to understand why Syracuse would get such a light punishment compared to what UConn got. While the protection of the ACC and the ESPN apologists are certainly a possible explanation, it’s not hard to imagine that this is, in some way, personal. Mark Emmert, the Clown Putz of the NCAA, was formerly the chancellor of UConn, and left under the cloud of scandal, including the loss of more than $100 million in public money and more than 100 fire and safety code violations during a billion dollar construction project that led to the removal of two of his subordinates. Emmert, of course, had already departed for LSU when this came out, and avoided any sanctions.
So at the end of the day, I don’t know what to think. It’s pretty clear that UConn was targeted and made an example of, but that example isn’t going to be followed when schools in the ACC, propped up by ESPN, commit much more serious violations. I’m not sure what the recourse here is, but if this stands, I would burn down everything that UConn has ever produced just to catch Emmert, Boeheim, and the rest of their slimy ilk in the flames.
Like the article, but love the photo of Boeheim, that snot.
Actually, now that I say it, snot is a very good word for hime, as in “that little snot.”