UConn's ban from next year's postseason due to past low APR scores has ignited a lot of passion from Husky fans. Here's an email I received from FOB Jared Kotler. While I often look upon fan reaction to penalties against a program with a jaundiced eye (just look at how many Penn State fans are still supporting Joe Paterno), I think Jared articulates some fair points here. I know UConn AD Warde Manuel feels the program has been punished twice, as Kotler explains in his email:

"The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution describes a concept called Double Jeopardy. In the NCAA’s case against UConn regarding the 2013 College Basketball Tournament, this principle has clearly been forgotten. On May 20, 2011 UConn lost two scholarships for its low APR. Right here is where the first penalty occurred. A loss of scholarship is no small penalty in college basketball. However, a few months later, the NCAA decided to implement a post-season ban for teams who have a low APR. Connecticut’s own Walter Harrison, the Chair of the Committee for Academic Process for the NCAA came out saying he would try to make this transition fair and for there to be a way teams below the 930 APR limit could try and catch up to make the tournament. Instead, Harrison and his committee refused to make any changes or allow UConn’s appeal to be accepted, despite large jumps in APR scores. UConn has clearly been punished twice for the same crime, something that our Founding Fathers thought was wrong. Walter Harrison and his committee should be ashamed of themselves. By punishing students who had nothing to do with the low APR score shows how much the NCAA truly cares about student athletes. UConn basketball is the state’s main sport. If this were to happen in Kentucky all hell would have broken loose by now. Although the NCAA has ruled saying that UConn will not be allowed to play in the tournament, I believe the people of Connecticut should urge the university to take further action. As our own Governor has said, this case is, “absolutely outrageous."

I don't agree with every point. Collateral damage is a fact of life when punishing programs, fair or unfair. I think Penn State football should be on hiatus for a while. That's not fair to the current players who had nothing to do with the Sandusky affair, but that's life. And conjuring up the Founding Fathers in relation to missing out on the NCAA tournament for a year is a bit much.

But there's little question that this situation has been handled poorly by the NCAA. UConn has been punished twice for the same crime, and there should have been some leeway in regard to the timetable by which scores were counted. And that's not a fan talking, it's a writer who has never had any allegiance to the UConn hoops program.

The Committee on Academic Performance has decided not to change the timetable by which it uses APR scores to determine postseason eligibility. In other words, UConn will not be playing in next year's NCAA tournament.

UConn still disagrees with the decision -- not the intent, but simply the timing.


"We still believe there's a way for the 2011-12 scores to count for the '13 season," said UConn SID Mike Enright. "We're disappointed that didn't happen."

Here's a statement from CAP chairman Walter Harrison:

Statement from Walter Harrison

Committee on Academic Performance Reaffirms APR Timing

“During our July 12-13 meeting, the Division I Committee on Academic Performance reviewed and reaffirmed our current policies and procedures regarding Academic Progress Rate (APR) data and implementation of academic penalties and/or postseason eligibility.

“These policies were originally devised after considering several important conditions and objectives that are desired in the Division I Academic Performance Program (APP), as listed below.

1. Penalty decisions should be based on a body of data sufficient to support valid decisions;

2. Procedures should provide adequate time for a fair and deliberate process that ensures that data are correct and all waiver requests put forward by a school are given thorough review;

3. Data used in making decisions on penalties or eligibility for postseason competition should be as close as practicable in time to the implementation of those decisions; and

4. Procedures should enable consideration of student-athletes' interests in transferring if their own academic performances have been strong and they are in their last season of eligibility.

“After discussion over several meetings, the committee concluded the current process is effective and achieves a careful and appropriate balance among these factors. We expect to continue with these policies and procedures in the future.”