The statewide panic over UConn’s APR and subsequent potential NCAA Tournament ban is coming to a head. According to ESPN’s Andy Katz, the NCAA’s Committee on Academic Performance will announce UConn’s fate in the next week or so.
The industry consensus seems to be that the hammer is going to be dropped on UConn. The uncooperative ogre that is Jim Calhoun let his team flounder in the classroom and now the NCAA is going to make an example out of him, imposing the harshest of penalties for the first time on a major conference school.
But should they?
The NCAA is an oddly moralistic bunch. They have no problem presuming the guilt of 18-year-old kids, despite reaping monetary benefits when they return to the court. They extol the virtues of the student athlete in deference to “one-and-done” players, despite putting them on the cover of NCAA licensed video games the following year. They punish students and universities, but rarely coaches in any meaningful fashion.
It’s easy to look at the recent history of NCAA decisions, including one against UConn, and read the writing on the wall, but consider the effects of a tournament ban:
Who is Getting Punished?
Let’s take a run down the list. Susan Herbst, University President for a whopping 10 months, would be left leading an academically disgraced university despite ardent efforts to emphasize the importance of academics for student athletes. Included in that effort is the hiring of new Athletics Director Warde Manuel, another historically strong advocate for academic achievement off the court. Manuel would be immediately put at a disadvantage in terms of fundraising for the new practice facility, and university-wide, as the perception of UConn is tarnished.
Jeremy Lamb and Andre Drummond would almost certainly flee Storrs for the millions of the NBA. Without a championship to play for, it would be hard to fault them. Recently, NCAA president Mark Emmert told the Kansas City Star that he dislikes the “one-and-done” rule for college freshman because it sullies the true meaning of student-athlete. Explain that to Drummond, whose grades are high enough to stay on the court and keep UConn’s APR rating in good favor, but who would be severely punished by the failures of players long gone.
Junior forward Alex Oriakhi has already announced his intentions to leave UConn this offseason and transfer to a school that is tournament-eligible. Granted, there are other factors that surely led to that decision (like his maniacal father, perhaps) but the fact remains; the players are scared for their future as it pertains to UConn.
Thus begins the downward spiral. If players leave, fan interest wanes. Talk about overt cruelty, punishing ticket holders because Jerome Dyson slept through Linguistics. When fan interest wanes, revenues fall. When there’s less money coming in, there’s less money for that new practice facility, hindering recruiting.
There is also the very real possibility that Jim Calhoun retires. UConn would be left as a lame duck school in a dying conference, devoid of talent, with a first-year coach trying to recruit players into a hemorrhaging program. If that scenario unfolds, not one person – on the court or off – would have been at UConn when the original academic infractions occurred. That is both cruel and indicative of the backwards nature in which the NCAA operates.
People are right to assume that a tournament ban could have significant and lasting impacts for UConn basketball. But the NCAA would be wrong to let that happen
