More bad news for the UConn basketball program.

Big East presidents ruled earlier this month that any conference team facing a post-season ban in any sport also would be prohibited from playing in the Big East tournament in New York.

So that means UConn will miss the conference tournament next season if its post-season ban for 2013 due to a sub-standard APR remains in place.

UConn still is holding out hope that it will win its appeal with the NCAA, or the NCAA will change the APR reporting dates. The Huskies will likely receive a ruling on those two matters by sometime in April.

In a related matter, NCAA president Mark Emmert was asked about UConn's situation and the APR at his Final Four press conference Thursday in New Orleans.

Here's the question and answer:

Question: "Mark, question regarding the APR situation. You said last week Connecticut would probably find out within the next seven to ten days their fate. Do you have an update on that? They've already lost one player, Alex Oriakhi, who was a star in this event, who says he's leaving because of the possible ineligibility next season. Is that a consequence the NCAA is comfortable with, a junior like that who is in good academic standing at his own school, now being forced to transfer to another school? Third, what do you see as the problem with using the most current data to collect that penalty?"

Emmert: "All good questions.

"First of all, I don't want to say I was misquoted. What I'd said in passing to some folks was there was a possibility that it could be resolved that quickly. The reality is this is the first time we've gone through this kind of appeal. The committee is going to have to look at it and make a decision. The time frame within which that happens is entirely up to them as they work through it.

"The issue about someone leaving or staying, I would disagree with your characterization that somebody is being forced to transfer. I don't think under any circumstance someone gets forced to transfer. If they want to, they can make those decisions.

"The idea of using the most recent APR data is, of course, a valid one in that we want to use the most recent data for which we have comparability across all institutions. We bring out the APR data as quickly as it's made available to us by each of the schools as they finish up their years. We then bring it together collectively and make it available to the membership.

"That provides or necessitates a lag time in a way that data is collected. So we use the most recent data that's generically available for all schools in describing APR.

"As I assume you're aware, we're phasing into a 930 target. Next year it will be a 900 target, and that target can be met with two years of data rather than four. When we get to the full implementation two years after that, it will be a 930 on a four‑year rolling average, with the four years being intended to smooth out any bumps you might have either one way or the other so that it's a better measure of the long‑term academic success of that institution.

"But the APR targets have been in place for a long time. Everyone's known that they're going to have to compete in a world where there's a 920 APR and we just moved it up to a 930. I don't think it's a shock to anyone that it's moved up to a 930.

"Again, the vast majority of schools and teams are performing well above that level."