I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/15/51/53/357...28x471.jpg

His shoulders tell us where a decent chunk of that money went. No sympathy if you cant budget and have self control.

(04-16-2014 08:26 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 05:42 PM)ctipton Wrote:  Tuesday's vote came eight days after Shabazz Napier closed out Connecticut's championship run by complaining that he sometimes went to bed "starving" because he couldn't afford food.

How the hell do you go to bed "starving" on the meal plan the regular students buy, much less what they give the athletes?

Jeesh, any time he wanted to he could bring in his backpack and load it up with pounds of food to bring back to his dorm. Even if he was spotted, no one would care.

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

Many (pretty much all) basketball coaches want their players there in the summer so they can participate in open gyms and "voluntary" workouts. The problem is that while tuition and housing are covered, a meal plan isn't always provided. This is true for football, basketball, and any other athlete that's on campus in the summer.

Room and board are two different things. You can live off campus and have a meal plan. You can live on campus and not have one. Football and basketball players are head count sports, so schools will offer them full scholarships in the fall and spring, but in the summer they do not have to offer a meal plan, or even offer housing for that matter.

I don't know the facts, but I actually believe him. He probably didn't have a summer meal plan because they wanted to either save the money, or needed it for another sport. Oftentimes summer school is paid for out of a separate budget (why, I don't know. I just know that it is). That budget has to cover everyone, and when you have to do that you can't afford to give a basketball player a meal plan because a softball player may need tuition.

(04-16-2014 10:17 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/15/51/53/357...28x471.jpg

His shoulders tell us where a decent chunk of that money went. No sympathy if you cant budget and have self control.

I know this thread has taken a different turn but since Napier's name came up... I have to add as pleased as I was that a fellow AAC member won the national championship I thought his postgame comments were so classless...and his coach wasn't much better. They had a great run but it certainly gave me pause to think if that had been Kilpatrick and Cronin holding the trophy their comments would have been much more upbeat and gracious. SK was such a positive force for UC basketball.

(04-16-2014 10:32 AM)indycat Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:17 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/15/51/53/357...28x471.jpg

His shoulders tell us where a decent chunk of that money went. No sympathy if you cant budget and have self control.

I know this thread has taken a different turn but since Napier's name came up... I have to add as pleased as I was that a fellow AAC member won the national championship I thought his postgame comments were so classless...and his coach wasn't much better. They had a great run but it certainly gave me pause to think if that had been Kilpatrick and Cronin holding the trophy their comments would have been much more upbeat and gracious. SK was such a positive force for UC basketball.

Well, considering the NCAA changed the rules for the APR requirements, and then retroactively enforced them, I didn't have too much of a problem with it.

I actually know quite a bit about what happened.

UConn was ineligible the previous year because of APR violations. There were two problems. They actually weren't APR violations at the time. This is like the speed limit being lowered in the interstate, and then the cops coming to your house and writing a ticket because although the speed limit used to be 70, it's now 55, so you will now receive a citation for all those times you were driving 65.

Secondly, last year's team actually posted an APR score of close to 980. It was way above the national average. But, because of what previous players and coaches did literally four years ago, they weren't allowed to play. They were punished for what other people who no longer had anything to do with the program did, and those other people were actually within the rules at the time.

Another problem was during that four year period, UConn released several players so they could transfer. They did this knowing they would lose APR points for retention, but since they were still above what was then the minimum score, they let them go. Had they not let them go, UConn would have been okay.

So, yeah, I think they got crapped on a little bit. I'm not saying it was a classy response after the game, but I don't think it was classless either considering the circumstances, and considering that Mark Emmert appeared to be doing a lot of it just for hsow. It was and understandable reaction, and I actually had no problem with it.

(04-16-2014 10:32 AM)indycat Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:17 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/15/51/53/357...28x471.jpg

His shoulders tell us where a decent chunk of that money went. No sympathy if you cant budget and have self control.

I know this thread has taken a different turn but since Napier's name came up... I have to add as pleased as I was that a fellow AAC member won the national championship I thought his postgame comments were so classless...and his coach wasn't much better. They had a great run but it certainly gave me pause to think if that had been Kilpatrick and Cronin holding the trophy their comments would have been much more upbeat and gracious. SK was such a positive force for UC basketball.

Uconn's players/coaches felt they were unfairly persecuted by the NCAA. I remember the comments being about not able to play in a post season tourny last year. I am not sure why they had the us against the world/unjustly punished attitude. They did not comply with the rules and were punished accordingly. Actually, could have been punished alot more.

Players claiming they are "starving" make me laugh. "Starving" is code for we want boatloads of cash to play the college game. Napier did not look malnourished to me. These players claim they cannot eat, while sporting hundreds if not thousands of dollars in ink, the newest technology, and designer clothing. Maybe putting the money towards necessities would alleviate their plight.

(04-16-2014 10:59 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:32 AM)indycat Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:17 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/15/51/53/357...28x471.jpg

His shoulders tell us where a decent chunk of that money went. No sympathy if you cant budget and have self control.

I know this thread has taken a different turn but since Napier's name came up... I have to add as pleased as I was that a fellow AAC member won the national championship I thought his postgame comments were so classless...and his coach wasn't much better. They had a great run but it certainly gave me pause to think if that had been Kilpatrick and Cronin holding the trophy their comments would have been much more upbeat and gracious. SK was such a positive force for UC basketball.

Uconn's players/coaches felt they were unfairly persecuted by the NCAA. I remember the comments being about not able to play in a post season tourny last year. I am not sure why they had the us against the world/unjustly punished attitude. They did not comply with the rules and were punished accordingly. Actually, could have been punished alot more.

Players claiming they are "starving" make me laugh. "Starving" is code for we want boatloads of cash to play the college game. Napier did not look malnourished to me. These players claim they cannot eat, while sporting hundreds if not thousands of dollars in ink, the newest technology, and designer clothing. Maybe putting the money towards necessities would alleviate their plight.

That's just it. UConn did comply with the rules. The rules were changed and retroactively enforced, and the every single player on last year's team (and for that matter, the team that won it all in 2011) was in full compliance with both the old and the new rules. Everyone who played was actually in full compliance and eligible to play.

It was the 2010 APR, which was the 2008-2009 athletic year, that they were punished for. And in 2009, UConn was actually within the rules.

So, yeah, I can't blame them for being pissed about not being able to play because of what other people did when Napier (and everyone else) was still in high school.

thread title changed to reflect direction of discussion

A little research tells me tats cost up to $100/hour or $50-600 or more.

So poor little Shabbaz has money for what looks like thousands in tats and then cannot afford a $10 pizza delivery? Priorities. Could his mother get food stamps and let him use her EBT Card to buy food?

With or without that tats, Shabazz ain't going hungry.

(04-16-2014 11:25 AM)dossbig Wrote:  A little research tells me tats cost up to $100/hour or $50-600 or more.

So poor little Shabbaz has money for what looks like thousands in tats and then cannot afford a $10 pizza delivery? Priorities. Could his mother get food stamps and let him use her EBT Card to buy food?

(04-16-2014 11:43 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  With or without that tats, Shabazz ain't going hungry.

(04-16-2014 11:25 AM)dossbig Wrote:  A little research tells me tats cost up to $100/hour or $50-600 or more.

So poor little Shabbaz has money for what looks like thousands in tats and then cannot afford a $10 pizza delivery? Priorities. Could his mother get food stamps and let him use her EBT Card to buy food?

That's also implying that he paid for those tats...which I think we all know from local exposure is almost definitely not the case.

(04-16-2014 11:07 AM)3rd Wise Man Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:59 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:32 AM)indycat Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:17 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 10:03 AM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  I have explained this somewhere before.

My guess is that Napier has chosen to live off campus and not in the dorm. This is a common practice in both athletics and general population students.

When a student athlete chooses to leave campus, he is given a check at the beginning of the semester equivalent to the room and board portion of his scholarship. This can be a rather large check. As most young students, you give them a check that has to last the semester to cover all expenses and they will probably run out of cash in week two.

So when Napier says that he goes to bed hungry, is it a bye product of the University not providing or poor management and budgeting skills? And given that the University provided what they said they would provide, why is it their issue if the money for food is spent on arm ink or a new car or some good electronics.

There is always more to the story than a young man complaining to the press that he is hungry. Let's find out how the money was spent before throwing the University under the bus.

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/15/51/53/357...28x471.jpg

His shoulders tell us where a decent chunk of that money went. No sympathy if you cant budget and have self control.

I know this thread has taken a different turn but since Napier's name came up... I have to add as pleased as I was that a fellow AAC member won the national championship I thought his postgame comments were so classless...and his coach wasn't much better. They had a great run but it certainly gave me pause to think if that had been Kilpatrick and Cronin holding the trophy their comments would have been much more upbeat and gracious. SK was such a positive force for UC basketball.

Uconn's players/coaches felt they were unfairly persecuted by the NCAA. I remember the comments being about not able to play in a post season tourny last year. I am not sure why they had the us against the world/unjustly punished attitude. They did not comply with the rules and were punished accordingly. Actually, could have been punished alot more.

Players claiming they are "starving" make me laugh. "Starving" is code for we want boatloads of cash to play the college game. Napier did not look malnourished to me. These players claim they cannot eat, while sporting hundreds if not thousands of dollars in ink, the newest technology, and designer clothing. Maybe putting the money towards necessities would alleviate their plight.

That's just it. UConn did comply with the rules. The rules were changed and retroactively enforced, and the every single player on last year's team (and for that matter, the team that won it all in 2011) was in full compliance with both the old and the new rules. Everyone who played was actually in full compliance and eligible to play.

It was the 2010 APR, which was the 2008-2009 athletic year, that they were punished for. And in 2009, UConn was actually within the rules.

So, yeah, I can't blame them for being pissed about not being able to play because of what other people did when Napier (and everyone else) was still in high school.

I saw your post after I posted mine. If that's the case, I can understand their irritation.

(04-16-2014 12:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 11:43 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  With or without that tats, Shabazz ain't going hungry.

(04-16-2014 11:25 AM)dossbig Wrote:  A little research tells me tats cost up to $100/hour or $50-600 or more.

So poor little Shabbaz has money for what looks like thousands in tats and then cannot afford a $10 pizza delivery? Priorities. Could his mother get food stamps and let him use her EBT Card to buy food?

That's also implying that he paid for those tats...which I think we all know from local exposure is almost definitely not the case.

Could have received the tats for free. However, Napier is not going hungry. He's the healthiest malnourished person I have ever seen.