(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.