KU and UK still waiting for Clearinghouse

[BD80]

VERY interesting:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13710136/toprated-kansas-hoops-recruit-not-cleared-by-ncaa?tag=globalNav.collegebasketball;headlines

KU's Selby and UK's Kanter still haven't been cleared.

Sure, there is plenty of time left, and it is not unusual for this to drag out until practice starts, but there may be some muscles tightening down below in both programs. Each is rather critical to their team's success this coming year.

[airowe]

This makes 3(including Barton) of the top incoming Freshmen to not be cleared 12 weeks(!) from the start of practice.

Honestly, I'm surprised there aren't more prospects waiting in limbo...

[Olympic Fan]

This makes 3(including Barton) of the top incoming Freshmen to not be cleared 12 weeks(!) from the start of practice.

Honestly, I'm surprised there aren't more prospects waiting in limbo...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Barton is in a different situation than Shelby and Kanter.

Shelby and Kanter simply haven't been cleared ... Barton's eligibity has been rejected by the clearinghouse, which is a much more serious situation. I know that in the past, the clearinghouse has taken a long time on tough cases (as Shelby and Kanter seem to be), but that's not unusual. Actually rejecting a player (as they did with Barton) is much rarer.

PS I have been hearing for months that the NCAA was going to change the rules governing foreign players and their participation in pro leagues -- rule changes that would allow Kanter to play. I still haven't seen where those rules were changed. Did I miss it? And if they aren't changed, how can Kanter -- who unquestionably played pro basketball in Turkey (some debate as to whether he got paid expenses or a salary) -- possibly be eligible?

[airowe]

Olympic Fan,

You're right about Barton's situation being different, but like the other two, the process is not over yet. He will almost certainly appeal, and could even practice with the team second semester if he loses the appeal.

Those rules changes are expected to go into effect in mid-August. I suspect we won't hear much regarding Kanter until then, but he should still miss the team's upcoming Canadian trip. I'd love it if he were ineligible through the Washington game, as UW would not accept Kanter based on his academics, at which point UK found a way to get him in. For the sake of all things good left in the NCAA, I hope Kanter will not be able to play against the team he was formerly committed to.

[77devil]

PS I have been hearing for months that the NCAA was going to change the rules governing foreign players and their participation in pro leagues -- rule changes that would allow Kanter to play. I still haven't seen where those rules were changed. Did I miss it? And if they aren't changed, how can Kanter -- who unquestionably played pro basketball in Turkey (some debate as to whether he got paid expenses or a salary) -- possibly be eligible?

I was unaware of such a rule change. Now I will vent. How can the NCAA justify such a hypocritical double standard? Next thing you know you'll have high school students moving to Europe to play for money before coming back to the U.S. to enroll in college, although one would think even N.C.A.A. officials are smart enough to prevent that loophole. Then again, maybe not. But seriously, this seems like a precursor toward allowing college students to get paid above the table, and maybe it's time given all the shadiness in big time D-1 football and basketball.

So what's the N.C.A.A.'s motivation for the rule change? As Deep Throat said: "follow the money."

[MarkD83]

I was unaware of such a rule change. Now I will vent. How can the NCAA justify such a hypocritical double standard? Next thing you know you'll have high school students moving to Europe to play for money before coming back to the U.S. to enroll in college, although one would think even N.C.A.A. officials are smart enough to prevent that loophole. Then again, maybe not. But seriously, this seems like a precursor toward allowing college students to get paid above the table, and maybe it's time given all the shadiness in big time D-1 football and basketball.

So what's the N.C.A.A.'s motivation for the rule change? As Deep Throat said: "follow the money."

Taking this one step further, if I am a high school student and restricted by the "one and done" rule, I can go to Europe get paid and then come back and have a choice of the NBA or college.

[Bluedog]

Taking this one step further, if I am a high school student and restricted by the "one and done" rule, I can go to Europe get paid and then come back and have a choice of the NBA or college.

No...you can go to Europe in a professional league and NOT get paid and then come back for college. You still won't be able to go to Europe and get paid and be eligible for the NCAA. Previously, playing in a professional league (even if not getting paid) was murky. I know that tennis players can participate in satellites and ATP tour events as much as they want and maintain NCAA eligibility as they want as long as they don't accept the prize money or endorsement deals.

[Indoor66]

No...you can go to Europe in a professional league and NOT get paid and then come back for college. You still won't be able to go to Europe and get paid and be eligible for the NCAA. Previously, playing in a professional league (even if not getting paid) was murky. I know that tennis players can participate in satellites and ATP tour events as much as they want and maintain NCAA eligibility as they want as long as they don't accept the prize money or endorsement deals.

This ought to be a real donnybrook to police. How do you make the determinations on payments in Europe? I see this as a "joke" in the making.

[SCMatt33]

This ought to be a real donnybrook to police. How do you make the determinations on payments in Europe? I see this as a "joke" in the making.

The same way as in the states. They keep pretty good records in Europe. It's not like they are a bunch of developing nations or something. It's also not James Bond with everything going into numbered Swiss bank accounts for 18 year old kids.

Anyway, I found a .pdf of the 2010-2011 NCAA Division I Bylaws (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf). Here is the new rule that just went into effect a week ago regarding playing with professional teams.

12.2.3.2.1 Exception—Competition Before Initial Full-Time Collegiate Enrollment—Sports Other Than Men’s Ice Hockey and Skiing. In sports other than men’s ice hockey and skiing.
Before initial full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may compete on a professional team (per Bylaw 12.02.4), provided he or she does not receive more than actual and necessary expenses to participate on the team.
(Adopted: 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10; applicable to student-athletes who initially enroll full time in a collegiate institution on or after 8/1/10)

The bylaw referenced in the rule defines a professional team as one that pays beyond a list of specifically enumerated expenses, so the NCAA is keeping tabs on what is and isn't acceptable. In fact, I'm pretty sure the reason that the process is taking so long for Kanter is that the NCAA is indeed doing its due diligence in looking into Kanter's history with the team in Europe.

There are many reasons to scratch your head about NCAA rules, but this really isn't one of them. There is an entirely different structure on amateur sports in Europe and the NCAA is finally recognizing it. Basically, they are switching from identifying teams as professional to identifying individuals as professional. The other thing to note is that even under the old rule, if Kanter hadn't been paid as a professional, he would still have likely been able to play this year, but would have had to serve a lengthy suspension. So it's not like the NCAA is letting people in who normally would have been barred from playing college basketball.

[77devil]

The same way as in the states. They keep pretty good records in Europe. It's not like they are a bunch of developing nations or something. It's also not James Bond with everything going into numbered Swiss bank accounts for 18 year old kids.

Non expense payments will be made surreptitiously and disguised in the records. I've lived and worked in Europe and multiple books are common. You can bet the N.C.A.A. won't see the real ones, and of course, has no jurisdiction.



There are many reasons to scratch your head about NCAA rules, but this really isn't one of them. There is an entirely different structure on amateur sports in Europe and the NCAA is finally recognizing it.

I disagree. This is a transparent double standard. Rarely ascribe anything but self interest to the motives of N.C.A.A. officials.

[SCMatt33]

Non expense payments will be made surreptitiously and disguised in the records. I've lived and worked in Europe and multiple books are common. You can bet the N.C.A.A. won't see the real ones, and of course, has no jurisdiction.

I'm living and working in Europe right now and it doesn't really matter. The NCAA has no jurisdiction anywhere, and payments are hidden all over the world. If players want to play at a high level in certain areas, they don't necessarily have a choice. This rule is entirely necessary for players who aren't getting paid illegally and want to play NCAA ball. As I said, this change in rule will not make any new players eligible for the NCAA that wouldn't have been last year. They just won't have to sit out for 10-20 games.



I disagree. This is a transparent double standard. Rarely ascribe anything but self interest to the motives of N.C.A.A. officials.

What's the double standard? There's nothing in the new rule that only applies to one group. I don't see it.

[77devil]

I'm living and working in Europe right now and it doesn't really matter. The NCAA has no jurisdiction anywhere, and payments are hidden all over the world. If players want to play at a high level in certain areas, they don't necessarily have a choice. This rule is entirely necessary for players who aren't getting paid illegally and want to play NCAA ball. As I said, this change in rule will not make any new players eligible for the NCAA that wouldn't have been last year. They just won't have to sit out for 10-20 games. What's the double standard? There's nothing in the new rule that only applies to one group. I don't see it.

Actually the N.C.A.A. has jurisdiction over member schools and the conduct of players they recruit. As a practical matter, though, it cannot conduct any meaningful due diligence on under the table payments made by European pro teams. Plenty of European kids have played college ball in the U.S. without having sanctioned financial relationships of any kind with pro teams so there are other options.

The double standard is that American high school players have to pay their own expenses by and large in AAU play(there is some limited scholarship money available), and AAU teams don't fit the definition of a professional team in the new rule. Why should it be any different for foreign players and professional teams? As high school player development activity, they essentially serve the same purpose as the AAU circuit.

I one thing I think we agree on is that a lot more players are getting paid here and over there than the N.C.A.A. knows or will ever know about.

[Olympic Fan]

The double standard is that American high school players have to pay their own expenses by and large in AAU play(there is some limited scholarship money available), and AAU teams don't fit the definition of a professional team in the new rule. Why should it be any different for foreign players and professional teams? As high school player development activity, they essentially serve the same purpose as the AAU circuit.


Not sure if you are right about AAU expenses. Of course, many kids DO pay their own way, but at aleast as of a few years ago, it was permissable for the team to pay expenses for travel to and from games -- and even for practice.

That all came up in the Myron Piggie case and was one of the things that made sorting it out so difficult. Piggie recruited players from all over the country to play on a Kansas City based AAU team. Legally, he could give Chicago-based Corey Maggette (and his other non-KC players) money to fly to tournaments and to stay in hotels and even to fly to Kansas City for practices. The only illegal money was that over and above those expenses.

That's why team sponsorships are so important. Nike and Adidas sponsor dozens of teams -- paying their expenses for travel as well as for equipment. Again, there are plenty of teams that pay their own way -- which means the parents of the kids involved usually have to pay ... but the system obviously encourages the best players to gather on a few sponsored teams.

Is the system vulnerable to abuse? Absolutely -- as Piggie proved.
But so is the high school system as we saw with Eric Bledsoe ... and I think the European system is equally vulnerable to under-the-table payoffs.

Thanks for posting the new rule, it does explain Kentucky's optimism regarding Kanter. I know there is a European basketball writer who claims he's seen receipts that show Kanter received "tens of thousands of dollars" from his Turkish team, but unless they were incredibly stupid about it, the NCAA will never find it.

As to his academic situation -- the Washington people found they couldn't admit him, but Kentucky magically could -- smacks lof the Jason Parker case a decade ago ... or maybe Chris Wilcox.

[SCMatt33]

Actually the N.C.A.A. has jurisdiction over member schools and the conduct of players they recruit. As a practical matter, though, it cannot conduct any meaningful due diligence on under the table payments made by European pro teams. Plenty of European kids have played college ball in the U.S. without having sanctioned financial relationships of any kind with pro teams so there are other options.

The double standard is that American high school players have to pay their own expenses by and large in AAU play(there is some limited scholarship money available), and AAU teams don't fit the definition of a professional team in the new rule. Why should it be any different for foreign players and professional teams? As high school player development activity, they essentially serve the same purpose as the AAU circuit.

I one thing I think we agree on is that a lot more players are getting paid here and over there than the N.C.A.A. knows or will ever know about.

The fact that the NCAA has only jurisdiction over its member schools means that it has no power to conduct proper due diligence on anyone or any institution unless that person is currently affiliated with a member school. It has no extra means with which to investigate AAU teams compared to European Teams.

In regards to AAU travel, the fact is that they call themselves amateur teams. There is nothing in the rule preventing US players from playing on a professional team in the US under the same circumstances. The reason that I say this is necessary for European players is that there is no AAU in Europe. Some players have no choice in the matter if they hope to play against high level competition. Why should they be punished for that. The NCAA will do the best they can with Kanter to find out if he received extra money, but the NCAA will never know everything, so you live with that.

[77devil]

Not sure if you are right about AAU expenses. Of course, many kids DO pay their own way, but at aleast as of a few years ago, it was permissable for the team to pay expenses for travel to and from games -- and even for practice.

I went back an reread the rules and you're right as long as the expenses are paid by the team and not directly by a sponsor or any non relative.


The fact that the NCAA has only jurisdiction over its member schools means that it has no power to conduct proper due diligence on anyone or any institution unless that person is currently affiliated with a member school. It has no extra means with which to investigate AAU teams compared to European Teams.

I never wrote anything to the contrary so I'm not sure what your point is. I was simply responding to sentences in one one of your earlier posts where you wrote that the N.C.A.A. has "no jurisdiction anywhere," which is false, it does in the U.S. over member schools, and that "the NCAA is indeed doing its due diligence in looking into Kanter's history with the team in Europe," which I still maintain is a joke and moot, particularly in Turkey where cheating institutions is a national pastime.

I disagree with your last sentence. While the N.C.A.A. has no formal authority over the A.A.U., it has plenty of leverage. The N.C.A.A. could all but eliminate big time A.A.U. basketball with a stroke of a pen. It has no such leverage with European pro teams that could care less.


In regards to AAU travel, the fact is that they call themselves amateur teams. There is nothing in the rule preventing US players from playing on a professional team in the US under the same circumstances. The reason that I say this is necessary for European players is that there is no AAU in Europe. Some players have no choice in the matter if they hope to play against high level competition. Why should they be punished for that. The NCAA will do the best they can with Kanter to find out if he received extra money, but the NCAA will never know everything, so you live with that.

Of course the AAU teams call themselves amateurs. You do know what the acronym stands for don't you. And so what if the rule would allow the same thing in the U.S. That's besides the point. As I wrote before, almost all European players that play in college in the U.S. had no affiliation with a pro team. I see no reason to change the rules for a few exceptions. It should be their tough luck as far as I am concerned.

[SCMatt33]

I never wrote anything to the contrary so I'm not sure what your point is. I was simply responding to sentences in one one of your earlier posts where you wrote that the N.C.A.A. has "no jurisdiction anywhere," which is false, it does in the U.S. over member schools, and that "the NCAA is indeed doing its due diligence in looking into Kanter's history with the team in Europe," which I still maintain is a joke and moot, particularly in Turkey where cheating institutions is a national pastime.

I disagree with your last sentence. While the N.C.A.A. has no formal authority over the A.A.U., it has plenty of leverage. The N.C.A.A. could all but eliminate big time A.A.U. basketball with a stroke of a pen. It has no such leverage with European pro teams that could care less.

When I said "No jurisdiction anywhere," I was referring to comments about the ability of the organization to subpoena financial records for incoming recruits, which they can't do anywhere, US or Europe, before they become members. The rulebook actually makes a big distinction between people who they regard as "student-athletes" and "individuals" which basically differentiates between those who are attending member schools and those that don't. They have basically no power over those that are individuals, until they try and become student-athletes. It just goes to illustrate the the NCAA really can't do anything to get word out to every prospect in Istanbul that a 16 year old kid can't play in a game with a professional, even if he's not paid himself. As I said before, the new rule comes down to treating a player as amateur or not, instead of a team as amateurs or not, which I believe is the right call. I don't really care that Kanter played in 10 games with professionals 2 years ago if he wasn't paid, just like I don't care that Deniz Kilicli played in 13 games with professionals two years before going to WVU. There is no reason that he had to sit out 20 games for that. If they find that Kanter did get money, he won't be declared eligible. The NCAA has only so many resources to fight it battles with. They shouldn't waste time suspending people who were considered amateur in their home countries.




Of course the AAU teams call themselves amateurs. You do know what the acronym stands for don't you. And so what if the rule would allow the same thing in the U.S. That's besides the point. As I wrote before, almost all European players that play in college in the U.S. had no affiliation with a pro team. I see no reason to change the rules for a few exceptions. It should be their tough luck as far as I am concerned.

I'm very well aware of the history and significance of the Amateur Athletic Union, but what I was getting at is that the differences are pretty minor for the experiences of an athlete on an "amateur" US and being unpaid on a "professional" European team, so there is no reason to treat the two athletes differently. Across the board, I think that it has been a bigger issue than "a few exceptions." If the NCAA just passed a rule this year, that means that the notion has been around for a while, and the problem longer than that. This isn't the "Enes Kanter rule" or anything. He will likely just be a lucky beneficiary of timing.

[El_Diablo]

I never wrote anything to the contrary so I'm not sure what your point is. I was simply responding to sentences in one one of your earlier posts where you wrote that the N.C.A.A. has "no jurisdiction anywhere," which is false, it does in the U.S. over member schools, and that "the NCAA is indeed doing its due diligence in looking into Kanter's history with the team in Europe," which I still maintain is a joke and moot, particularly in Turkey where cheating institutions is a national pastime.

Okay, well, you said this about the accounting books for European teams: "You can bet the N.C.A.A. won't see the real ones, and of course, has no jurisdiction."

Presumably you meant that they had no jurisdiction over the recruits' teams in Europe. If you meant the NCAA has no jurisdiction period, then you're obviously contradicting your own statements regarding NCAA teams, because, as you've pointed out, the NCAA has jurisdiction over its own members.

But that's not what we're talking about, or were ever talking about, in this thread. SCMatt pointed out that the NCAA doesn't have any jurisdiction anywhere, but he was clearly referring to jurisdiction over high school recruits' teams in the US. Given the discussion, I'm not sure why you would lead us off onto this tangent about jurisdiction over its own members when it quite frankly falls outside the scope of this discussion. Who cares? It's irrelevant that the NCAA has jurisdiction over Kentucky basketball. It doesn't have jurisdiction to the AAU teams it recruits players from. The focus here is on the jurisdiction over the recruit's team in investigating amateur status, and the NCAA has as much jurisdiction over European teams as it does over American AAU teams in reviewing the accounting. That's how I understand the issue, and that's how I understood Matt's comments as well. The NCAA has no such jurisdiction anywhere...it can only request information and makes its best judgments based on what it gets.

On that note, going back to the original issue, what makes you think that a European team will be more deceptive than an AAU team in its accounting? And do you think NCAA jurisdiction varies in any way over the two categories? Given that the NCAA has access problems with AAU teams because it has no jurisdiction over them, I'm genuinely not sure why the lack of jurisdiction over European teams would be an issue in your mind. But if there's something else that would shed light on it that we're missing, please feel free to share it. I'm curious about the issue and do not understand how the lack of NCAA jurisdiction over European teams is any different than the lack of similar jurisdiction over recruits' teams in the US, much less serve as a factor in your opposition to the rule change.

Although I think I am reading into your comments about Turkey that cheating is simply more prevalent in European society, so that we will get more cheaters as we draw players from the European pool. The total lack of NCAA jurisdiction over recruits' teams--while mirroring the lack of jurisdiction for US recruits' AAU teams--would thus allow more cheating into the system. Which I guess would make sense, if one accepts your major premise concerning cheating in Europe. Is that what you're saying?

EDIT: Sorry, Matt beat me to it and responded while I was composing this.

[77devil]

Okay, well, you said this about the accounting books for European teams: "You can bet the N.C.A.A. won't see the real ones, and of course, has no jurisdiction."

Presumably you meant that they had no jurisdiction over the recruits' teams in Europe. If you meant the NCAA has no jurisdiction period, then you're obviously contradicting your own statements regarding NCAA teams, because, as you've pointed out, the NCAA has jurisdiction over its own members.

But that's not what we're talking about, or were ever talking about, in this thread. SCMatt pointed out that the NCAA doesn't have any jurisdiction anywhere, but he was clearly referring to jurisdiction over high school recruits' teams in the US. Given the discussion, I'm not sure why you would lead us off onto this tangent about jurisdiction over its own members when it quite frankly falls outside the scope of this discussion. Who cares? It's irrelevant that the NCAA has jurisdiction over Kentucky basketball. It doesn't have jurisdiction to the AAU teams it recruits players from. The focus here is on the jurisdiction over the recruit's team in investigating amateur status, and the NCAA has as much jurisdiction over European teams as it does over American AAU teams in reviewing the accounting. That's how I understand the issue, and that's how I understood Matt's comments as well. The NCAA has no such jurisdiction anywhere...it can only request information and makes its best judgments based on what it gets.

On that note, going back to the original issue, what makes you think that a European team will be more deceptive than an AAU team in its accounting? And do you think NCAA jurisdiction varies in any way over the two categories? Given that the NCAA has access problems with AAU teams because it has no jurisdiction over them, I'm genuinely not sure why the lack of jurisdiction over European teams would be an issue in your mind. But if there's something else that would shed light on it that we're missing, please feel free to share it. I'm curious about the issue and do not understand how the lack of NCAA jurisdiction over European teams is any different than the lack of similar jurisdiction over recruits' teams in the US, much less serve as a factor in your opposition to the rule change.

Although I think I am reading into your comments about Turkey that cheating is simply more prevalent in European society, so that we will get more cheaters as we draw players from the European pool. The total lack of NCAA jurisdiction over recruits' teams--while mirroring the lack of jurisdiction for US recruits' AAU teams--would thus allow more cheating into the system. Which I guess would make sense, if one accepts your major premise concerning cheating in Europe. Is that what you're saying?

EDIT: Sorry, Matt beat me to it and responded while I was composing this.

1591

[tommy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Barton is in a different situation than Shelby and Kanter.

Shelby and Kanter simply haven't been cleared ... Barton's eligibity has been rejected by the clearinghouse, which is a much more serious situation. I know that in the past, the clearinghouse has taken a long time on tough cases (as Shelby and Kanter seem to be), but that's not unusual. Actually rejecting a player (as they did with Barton) is much rarer.


According to Zags, Barton has been declared eligible.
http://www.zagsblog.com/2010/08/20/memphiss-barton-declared-eligible/