I received this e-mail today from Mike Enright, the Associate Director of Athletics/Communications at the University of Connecticut. It seems someone in Storrs was not happy with my column last Sunday.
Dear Chris,
I would like to point out a number of factual errors and your misunderstanding of the APR process and UConn’s opinion on our ban from the 2013 NCAA Tournament.
(column comment)“….the current student-athletes (boy, that was hard to type), two having already decided to leave school and seek their fortunes in the NBA.”
(UConn reply) I am not sure why you would have a hard time typing that. The current players on the team have clearly demonstrated that they are student-athletes. In 2010-11, the team had a nearly perfect APR score with a mark of 978 out of 1000 – and won the national championship. This year’s team, had a perfect APR score in the fall 2011 semester and is on track to enjoy and outstanding APR score this spring. It is anticipated that UConn’s final APR score for this year will also be in the 975 range. Jeremy Lamb is completing his coursework for the semester before he begins his professional career as is Andre Drummond, although he does not count in the APR score due to his walk-on status. To assume that a player who declares early for the NBA Draft does not care about academics is grossly unfair. For example, the day after the team returned from the 2011 Final Four, Kemba Walker was in our Academic center working on paper that was due for a class in order to complete work for an upcoming class. A few days later, he declared for the NBA Draft.
(My rebuttal)
Maybe that comment was somewhat harsh, but no one can argue that the term “student-athlete,” especially in men’s college basketball, is almost laughable. Just about everyone who follows the game understands that the vast majority of these men’s basketball ‘student-athletes’ are in school just to try and make it into the NBA, or some professional league overseas. I would be most interested to know – as would a lot of other people – as to how many UConn men’s basketball players who were on their respective rosters over the past decade how many have graduated within their allotted four-year eligibility window? 75 percent? 50 precent? 25 percent?
(column comment) Is it unfair? Probably, but rules are rules and the bottom line is UConn broke them. Over and over again.”
(UConn reply) The fact of the matter is that the APR regulations are not part of the NCAA Rulebook. APR is a standard that teams are required to meet. A school not meeting those standards is not considered a violation of rules by the NCAA, it is a failure to meet standards.
(My rebuttal)
OK, I’ll change rules to standards … “Standards are standards and UConn failed to meet them. Over and over again.”
(column comment) “Last season, Portland State was not eligible for NCAA tournament play due to low APR scores. This season, Grambling, Southern, Louisiana-Monroe, Chicago State and Cal State-Northridge were not eligible.”
(UConn reply) First of all, a simple factual error. Louisiana-Monroe was eligible after winning an appeal. The teams listed above were all declared ineligible for the tournament due to a penalty system that was established before they posted their poor APR scores. All these schools were ineligible because they received “Occasion 3” penalties, which means that for the third-straight year, they had a four-year rolling APR score that was below NCAA standards. If the former NCAA penalty structure was in place, UConn would be receiving “Occasion 2” penalties, which would included a reduction of weekly practice time and one scholarship. UConn was ready and willing to accept those penalties. With our improved APR scores we would not have received “Occasion 3” penalties. Instead, a new penalty structure was adapted after our four-year APR scores had been posted.
(My rebuttal)
OK, my mistake, Louisiana-Monroe was eligible.
(column comment) “Just like Ohio State is paying. The Buckeyes football program is banned from….
Just like North Carolina is paying. The Tar Heels football program is banned from…
And we haven’t even begun to hear what might happen in Syracuse….”
(UConn reply) Again, a misunderstanding of the NCAA process. Ohio State and North Carolina received these penalties due to a violation of NCAA Rules listed in their formal rulebook that dealt with impermissible benefit given to student-athletes. Yes, this is very similar to the penalties UConn received in the “Nate Miles case”. However, a comparison of the APR system to the violations of Ohio State and North Carolina is not valid. A potential Syracuse case would also fit the same standards.
(My rebuttal)
The point I was making there was the above mentioned schools are all accepting their punishments, not sending out appeal after appeal.
(column comment) “Susan, the NCAA does that all the time. Get used to it.”
(UConn reply) Not sure if I have ever seen any college president simply referred to by their first name. In my opinion, disrespectful to the office. If you can find another example of that, would be happy to see it.
(My rebuttal)
Point taken. President Herbst it is.
(column comment) But no school is above the law. UConn broke the rules. And now it has to pay the price.
(UConn reply) Again there is no violation of NCAA “laws” or “rules” involved in the APR case. I don’t think that you have ever heard one person at UConn say that there is an excuse for the academic performance of our basketball team in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. We are also very proud of the 978 scored by our 2005-06 team and the 981 scored by our 2006-07 team. In addition, we are proud of our scores by the 2010-11 national championship team and the anticipated score of our 2011-12 team. Our main concern with the NCAA is their inability to include the 2011-12 APR score in their use to determined eligibility for the 2013 tournament. I would hope that you would be willing to share the mistakes of your column with your readers. If not, these corrections will have to be distributed to our constituents in the state in a way we see fit.
Sincerely,
Mike Enright
(My counter-rebuttal)
It’s apples and oranges. Rules. Standards. Whatever they were, UConn didn’t meet them. Oh, and by the way … love the thinly veiled threat:
I would hope that you would be willing to share the mistakes of your column with your readers. If not, these corrections will have to be distributed to our constituents in the state in a way we see fit. Really? I’m curious. Wanted posters, maybe? And as for the “number of factual errors,” there was one. Louisiana-Monroe was eligible.
Just to show that I do have a heart, I did praise the university and coach Jim Calhoun in the column…but I’m guessing no one in the UConn athletic administration read that part.
At least UConn men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun realizes that mistakes were made.
“While we as a University and coaching staff clearly should have done a better job academically with our men’s basketball student-athletes in the past,” he said, “the changes we have implemented have already had a significant impact and have helped us achieve the success we expect in the classroom. We will continue to strive to maintain that success as we move forward.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Jim. Move forward. Get stronger.
And UConn is. There are tougher academic rules in place. There will be weekly academic progress reports to Herbst. There will be sanctions for any basketball player who misses three or more classes during the academic year. There will be daily checking of class work for a player who has a GPA of 2.3 or lower, and each player has to take nine hours of summer school.
All these things will help make the Huskies’ academic situation even stronger.
Hope that clears everything up.
Not sure what difference it makes if I leave my name or not. Either respond to what I posted, or ignore it. Besides, my name could be considered a fact, and we have all seen your disdain for those!!
This is me responding to your response to UConn’s response to your article about UConn and the APR. And yes. I am going to “hide” behind an e-mail address. Not sure why that matters, but whatever.
Point 1: What is your definition of “vast majority”? Because the likelihood of an NCAA player making into the NBA is 1.2% (http://bit.ly/J8a2IB). I doubt that the number of players going overseas make up that remaining 49% to get that number just barely above 50. And since conjecture about what all NCAA players are thinking is apparently fact, I say that a vast majority are in fact student-athletes using the opportunity provided them to earn a degree while on scholarship.
Also, why are you limiting the players to the four-year eligibility window? Furthermore, the answer to that question is useless without providing the graduation precentage for the rest of the UConn student body as an appropriate basis of comparison. “Nationally, four-year colleges graduated an average of just 53% of entering students within six years, and “rates below 50%, 40% and even 30% are distressingly easy to find” (http://usat.ly/UgXLe)
Point 2: Semantics argument. All good there for me.
Point 3: You conceded the first two sentences of their response. How about the rest? I’d be interested to know what you think about the rest of Mr. Enright’s response. I like how you leave off the words “after winning an appeal” in your rebuttal about conceding Louisiana-Monroe’s eligibility.
Point 4: I think the main issue was the tone of “appeal after appeal”. The school has only sent in an appeal twice. And both times it was the exact same document. You make it sound as if UConn has been pestering the NCAA with more than two appeals.
Lousiana-Monroe men’s basketball appealed and won…so not sure what Ohio State and UNC football have to do with this.
Point 5: I am still baffled that you don’t seem to understand Mr. Enright’s issue with this ban. The “rule” UConn broke was passed in October 2011. It utilizes APR data from prior to that time period. Furthermore, UConn had already been docked scholarships as a result of that poor period of academic performance. Now they are being ret…Actually, why am I trying to explain this. Mr. Enright explained what the issue is in his response to you. TWICE. Yet both times you just gloss it over.
Point 6: Since you feel slighted by Mr. Enright for not acknowledging you being “nice”, I’ll do it. Thanks for actually saying something nice about Calhoun.
Chris,
It appears that Mr. Enright has factually corrected you on your article to which you are so slanted anti-Uconn you probably don’t wanna hear about the “truth” which is what Uconn is showing you.
I am a proud Alumnus of the University of Connecticut and am thrilled that our student-athletes are doing much better in the classroom.
Now that only took me 1 minute to type. I am a Uconn grad after all.
Russ
Same as above … next time, please leave your name. Don’t hide behind an “e-mail address.”
Next time, please leave your name. Don’t hide behind an “e-mail address.”
Who is the bigger whiner, Jeff Jacobs or Elsberry? Both of you are haters. What happened Chris, Calhoun not give you time of day when you asked him a question in a press conference? Shut up and write about the Sound Tigers or something.
is funny that Uconn saw fit to respond to one of your articles! of the 25-30 people who read it, 90% are aware of your childish obsession with bashing all things Uconn. the other 10% are likely comprised of your family members, who are probably of the same mind as the rest of us anyways.
To an objective reader, it would appear that Mike Enright handed you your lunch. You should take care to do some fact checking prior to writing such biased nonsense, but then again, maybe not. Quality control is not exactly a strong point for the Com-post, and perhaps a lashing such as the one you took from Mike Enright would probably increase your readership by another 10-15 people.
Next time, why don’t you give your BFF Cooley a call to learn something about how the NCAA works so your articles won’t be so amateurish. Then again, he has probably blocked your calls or taken out a restraining order so you’d stop stalking him! Call your other BFF Edsall. He is likely to be desperate for contact from a media member who still thinks highly of him!