The Connecticut Huskies are about to lose a total of three basketball scholarships -- one for recruiting violations, and two more for low APRs. Not only that, if they don't get their act together in the APR area, the hits could just keep on coming, including a possible post-season ban and even revocation of their membership in the NCAA.
Connecticut coach Jim Calhoun also gets affected as well, as he will be ineligible for his post season bonus, as well as being contractually obligated to make a $100,000 donation to the general scholarship fund of the University of Connecticut. I have to hand it to UConn, that is a great provision and I wish it were a requirement for every college coach's contract, but as a percentage of his salary rather than a fixed number.
While this is surely embarrassing for the Huskies, one is forced to wonder who is hurt the worst by the loss of scholarships -- the school or the general public? My feeling is that schools losing scholarships in this manner should be forced to fund them as academic or hardship scholarships, rather than simply sending them to the dustbin. If the purpose is to punish the school for not overseeing the education of their students, it is unseemly for the NCAA to punish potential students, athletic or otherwise, by just taking scholarships off the table.
But my primary motivation for this article is to ask this question: How much greater do you think the outrage would be if this were happening at Kentucky versus UConn? Larry Vaught asks this question in a slightly different way today. Truth is, this is a big story and it is getting coverage, but does anyone think that it will be covered at the level of Enes Kanter's eligibility or the Eric Bledsoe matter?
Myself, I doubt it will.