Mar 22, 2012, 7:05 PM EDT
Connecticut’s hoping the NCAA will make changes that’ll allow the Huskies to play in the 2013 NCAA tournament – but it might have to wait until July to find out.
According to rules passed in October, UConn would be ineligible to compete in next year’s tournament because its APR scores were too low to meet the threshold. The NCAA’s Committee on Academic Performance has been discussing whether it should use data from 2010-11 and 2011-12 to determine eligibility, rather than 2009-10 and 2010-11. Schools must have a two-year APR average of 930 or a four-year average of 900.
But the committee may not resolve that question until April or even later this summer.
If the ruling comes out by April, it could affect the decision of numerous UConn players to enter the NBA draft, including potential lottery picks Andre Drummond and Jeremy Lamb.
“They don’t give us updates until they rule one way or another,” UConn spokesman Phil Chardis told the AP.
The school also wants a waiver regarding the sanctions, arguing its APR progress represents significant improvement. It scored 826 on the 2009-10 APR and says it’ll score above 975 for 2010-11. A perfect score is 1000.
You also can follow me on Twitter @MikeMillerNBC.
- Sources: Rick Barnes not expected to return to Texas 5
- Steve Lavin and St. John’s ‘mutually agree’ to part ways 1
- No. 2 Arizona pulls away from No. 6 Xavier, setting up West regional final rematch 0
- No. 3 Notre Dame knocks off No. 7 Wichita State to get to the Elite 8 17
- Tradition of success through change raises expectations at Xavier 1
- Sweet 16 Preview: The top 16 players left in the tournament 11
- Sweet 16 Preview: The x-factor in each game this week 1
- Kentucky’s John Calipari is the National Coach of the Year, and it’s not close (36)
- Kentucky responds to Daxter Miles Jr.’s pregame comments (30)
- Updated tournament records: Kentucky moves SEC above .500 (23)
- West Virginia freshman on Kentucky: ‘They’re going to be 36-1′ (20)
- NCAA’s Mark Emmert calls Indiana’s religious freedom bill ‘especially concerning’ (20)