PDA

View Full Version : More questionable Calipari/Kentucky stuff



Lord Ash
09-14-2010, 10:19 AM
Seems there is some serious question about Bledsoe even being qualified for school last year.

Looking at those grade jumps and the out-of-order classes and the ridiculous online classes (and even ignoring the conflicting grade scandal, and reading some of those quotes from school administrators) it sounds like Bledsoe should have been nowhere near a college classroom last year.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/records_differed_on_bledsoes_p.html

If the NCAA, NBA, and NBAPA cared a LICK for these kids, they would develop the developmental league into something worthwhile.

enick66
09-14-2010, 12:16 PM
it sounds like Bledsoe should have been nowhere near a college classroom last year.

I think it is pretty safe to say Bledsoe was nowhere near a college classroom last year. I think his GPA was around a 1.0. Bledsoe shouldn't have been on an NCAA basketball court though.

BD80
09-14-2010, 12:52 PM
I think it is pretty safe to say Bledsoe was nowhere near a college classroom last year. I think his GPA was around a 1.0. Bledsoe shouldn't have been on an NCAA basketball court though.

Nice shot! Lots of power and very nicely placed.

If his GPA was around 1.0, it sounds like his tutor and academic advisor will be or have been fired. It takes a village to properly commit academic fraud, and there must have been a breakdown in communications between the basketball office and the professors. I'll bet if you asked Bledsoe's professors to identify Eric in the team photo, most would pick John Wall!

DevilHorns
09-14-2010, 01:03 PM
Cal is so incredibly unlucky. How could this much bad luck happen to one person? I feel so bad for him. Eh, I guess I shouldn't, since he knows it'll be swept under the rug anyway.

dcdevil2009
09-14-2010, 01:38 PM
If the NCAA, NBA, and NBAPA cared a LICK for these kids, they would develop the developmental league into something worthwhile.

Does it really hurt these kids to be on a college campus for a year instead of in somewhere like Sioux Falls or Reno or some other D-League city? I agree that Bledsoe shouldn't have been eligible if all of these allegations are true, but the people who are the biggest victims are the students and professors who are on campus to learn and teach, but have to deal with the distractions created by the "student"-athletes who want no part of the classroom. If anything, I think the current system actually helps kids like Bledsoe who get the benefit of a year on campus to mature, instead of being thrust into the real world with no support system and what barely qualifies as a high school education.

Jderf
09-14-2010, 01:56 PM
If the NCAA, NBA, and NBAPA cared a LICK for these kids, they would develop the developmental league into something worthwhile.


Does it really hurt these kids to be on a college campus for a year instead of in somewhere like Sioux Falls or Reno or some other D-League city? I agree that Bledsoe shouldn't have been eligible if all of these allegations are true, but the people who are the biggest victims are the students and professors who are on campus to learn and teach, but have to deal with the distractions created by the "student"-athletes who want no part of the classroom. If anything, I think the current system actually helps kids like Bledsoe who get the benefit of a year on campus to mature, instead of being thrust into the real world with no support system and what barely qualifies as a high school education.

I have to agree with Ash. I've said it before: some people just don't belong in a classroom, and shouldn't be forced into one. (Not insulting intelligence here, just saying that they don't value education like most of the people on this board do.) I don't think the "distraction" is much of an issue; rather the problem is that kids like Bledsoe (who don't care about education) are preventing the serious student-athletes from getting a scholarship they could really have used.

Also, although Bledsoe obviously benefited from his raised draft-status, I don't think that these players really benefit from their year on campus, maturity-wise. The only thing players like Bledsoe benefit from is the fact that the system is just so easily exploited. I'm fairly confident that, if the NBA had a viable development league, he would choose the pay-check over the scholarship any day.

roywhite
09-14-2010, 02:14 PM
I have to agree with Ash. I've said it before: some people just don't belong in a classroom, and shouldn't be forced into one. (Not insulting intelligence here, just saying that they don't value education like most of the people on this board do.) I don't think the "distraction" is much of an issue; rather the problem is that kids like Bledsoe (who don't care about education) are preventing the serious student-athletes from getting a scholarship they could really have used.

Also, although Bledsoe obviously benefited from his raised draft-status, I don't think that these players really benefit from their year on campus, maturity-wise. The only thing players like Bledsoe benefit from is the fact that the system is just so easily exploited. I'm fairly confident that, if the NBA had a viable development league, he would choose the pay-check over the scholarship any day.

Yeah, we've had this discussion before, and it's an important one. You would think the immediate paycheck would be more enticing to the non-student types, but big-time college basketball has a lot of appeal (and just for the sake of discussion, let's say that the Bledsoe type is not receiving illegal benefits while in college).

Look at Enes Kanter---he was playing for a pro team in Turkey, getting living expenses and apparently a pay check besides that. He was certainly on the NBA radar. Yet his preference is to come and play a year of college basketball rather than playing for pay in Europe. Is that an economically based decision....name recognition, endorsements, etc.? Or just a chance to be a part of a popular team and sport?

My preference is a scholarship/NBA arrangement that permits high school kids to turn pro, but requires a 2-year commitment for those choosing college. With any kind of fair enforcement, it would largely eliminate a total non-student from staying eligible. Don't know what the chances of such a 2-year requirement actually happening are.

OldPhiKap
09-14-2010, 02:29 PM
"More questionable Cal/Kentucky stuff"


Are we at the point where we need to number these threads?



You have to wonder why the NCAA chased Tark but somehow Cal keeps sliding. Maybe it's the hair.

Kedsy
09-14-2010, 02:40 PM
My preference is a scholarship/NBA arrangement that permits high school kids to turn pro, but requires a 2-year commitment for those choosing college. With any kind of fair enforcement, it would largely eliminate a total non-student from staying eligible. Don't know what the chances of such a 2-year requirement actually happening are.

I agree with you that this would be a preferable arrangement to the one we have now, but it wouldn't have prevented the Bledsoe situation. He was not highly regarded enough in high school to go straight to the NBA.

OldPhiKap
09-14-2010, 02:45 PM
My preference is a scholarship/NBA arrangement that permits high school kids to turn pro, but requires a 2-year commitment for those choosing college. With any kind of fair enforcement, it would largely eliminate a total non-student from staying eligible. Don't know what the chances of such a 2-year requirement actually happening are.

FWIW, I recall Coach K saying some time ago that coaches and institutions don't really know what to do with a guy who only plans to be there for a year. Either let them go pro directly from HS, or ask them for a two-year minimum college commitment. That sounds good to me.

BD80
09-14-2010, 02:51 PM
"More questionable Cal/Kentucky stuff"


Are we at the point where we need to number these threads? ...

It should be a regression, counting down to the point where Cal skips out ahead of the angry mob. What number do we start at?

roywhite
09-14-2010, 02:56 PM
It should be a regression, counting down to the point where Cal skips out ahead of the angry mob. What number do we start at?

Well, Cal the Cat probably has 9 lives, and has lost 2 or 3 already. Start somewhere around number 6 and count him down.

He should probably thank Butch Davis and Bruce Pearl for providing a diversion to the sheriff.

OldPhiKap
09-14-2010, 03:07 PM
Well, Cal the Cat probably has 9 lives, and has lost 2 or 3 already. Start somewhere around number 6 and count him down.

He should probably thank Butch Davis and Bruce Pearl for providing a diversion to the sheriff.

Good question -- do they have different investigative staffs for the different sports, or does it all just go into a pool of employees? I'm not really sure how the mechanics of these investigations work.

Lord Ash
09-14-2010, 03:33 PM
It should be a regression, counting down to the point where Cal skips out ahead of the angry mob. What number do we start at?

With the way Kentucky fans excuse Cal, you'd have to start at a VERY high number. After all, it is all the fault of The New York Times/Rick Pitino/jealous fans/the NCAA and all the rest.

Kedsy
09-14-2010, 03:47 PM
After all, it is all the fault of The New York Times/Rick Pitino/jealous fans/the NCAA and all the rest.

You forgot Duke.

Lord Ash
09-14-2010, 04:05 PM
No no, we are the jealous fans who hate Kentucky for their recent incredible successes.

You know, when I see this sort of stuff it always makes me feel proud of what we have as Dukies. We are very lucky.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry, apparently the PA for the NBA is just called the NBPA. That makes a certain amount of sense:)

sagegrouse
09-14-2010, 04:18 PM
"More questionable Cal/Kentucky stuff"


Are we at the point where we need to number these threads?



You have to wonder why the NCAA chased Tark but somehow Cal keeps sliding. Maybe it's the hair.

As Tark said when told that an envelope of cash from a Kentucky assistant to a recruit had accidentally split open at a shipping point (Emery?): "Now I guess they'll have to put Cleveland State on probation for two years."

sagegrouse

Namtilal
09-14-2010, 05:23 PM
This is a complicated issue for me. I enjoy rooting against Kentucky, ever since they broke my heart in '98, but I have no animosity towards the program. I do view Calapari as the evil orchestra conductor who uses others to repeatedly break the rules. However, I cannot find fault in Bledsoe or his family, school, and coaches in Alabama. Yes, they broke the rules, but (in this case at least) I think they did what was best for him.

Now, I can only say that because I believe he did get positive benefits from being part of the university community and the Kentucky basketball program. I do believe that the year he spent on campus will make him more successful and able to handle the life challenges of a super wealthy, famous professional athlete. Even if the NDBL were developed to the point of being a serious alternative to the one-and-done trend, I do not see how it could give the life experiences that a year at a university does.

However, I know that this is not a trend that should be followed. For every Bledsoe who is allowed to move through the system without achieving the standards, there are 10 or 100 young men who just coast on raw talent, get this type of fraudulent help from their high school, but never are able to parlay that into a professional career. I believe in the standards. However, paradoxically, I don't fault anyone who saw a super-talented boy lacking the upbringing and structure to succeed academically and cheated in order to get him where he is today.

Calapari, however, is just a self-serving cheater. He's not like Coach K, who finds diamonds in the rough like Dockery and challenge them to meet the demands of succeeding. It is becoming overwhelmingly suspicious that since he is so closely related to all this repeated fraud, that he is successfully orchestrating it and insulating himself from behind the scenes.

mgtr
09-14-2010, 05:41 PM
It should be a regression, counting down to the point where Cal skips out ahead of the angry mob. What number do we start at?

Start at two, I would hope. Not likely, however.

Stray Gator
09-14-2010, 05:49 PM
This is a complicated issue for me. ... I cannot find fault in Bledsoe or his family, school, and coaches in Alabama. Yes, they broke the rules, but (in this case at least) I think they did what was best for him.

Now, I can only say that because I believe he did get positive benefits from being part of the university community and the Kentucky basketball program. I do believe that the year he spent on campus will make him more successful and able to handle the life challenges of a super wealthy, famous professional athlete. Even if the NDBL were developed to the point of being a serious alternative to the one-and-done trend, I do not see how it could give the life experiences that a year at a university does. ...

Whether that year on campus provides any real benefit as an opportunity for maturation ultimately depends, I believe, on the extent to which the individual student-athlete is required to bear the responsibilities of an ordinary college student that constitute genuine "life experiences." While scholarship basketball players at most major schools, including Duke, enjoy certain advantages in the form of tutoring and advance course registration, those who need to maintain their eligibility are at least required to attend classes and do coursework and take tests; and outside the classroom, I assume they need to attend to many of the mundane day-to-day "obligations" that we would regard as "life experiences," such as doing their laundry, keeping track of their checking accounts, etc. In addition, one might argue that the most significant aspect of personal growth in college results from interaction with other students. I don't know whether and to what extent star basketball players at Kentucky lead lives resembling those of ordinary college students. But I'll confess that I'm skeptical that their one year on campus yields the same "life experience" benefits as players in most programs.

Kedsy
09-14-2010, 05:50 PM
However, paradoxically, I don't fault anyone who saw a super-talented boy lacking the upbringing and structure to succeed academically and cheated in order to get him where he is today.

Really? You don't fault them for cheating?

Namtilal
09-14-2010, 06:32 PM
Really? You don't fault them for cheating?

The school, yes (although it is just overwhelming suspicion against UK, not actual proof yet).

The family and anyone who helped him but didn't personally profit financially from it -- no. Wouldn't you want what you thought was best for your son or any relative, even if he didn't technically qualify? I don't know the players in this drama, but I can imagine some scenarios where family, teachers, and coaches put the best interest of the athlete ahead of NCAA rules. You can't deny that Bledsoe is in the best situation today that could have been hoped for (I mean, getting to back up Baron and throw alley-oops to Griffin...). The players are not stakeholders in the system that relies on them, and in some cases the best interest of the system is not the same as the best interest of the athlete.

Say he was just plain incapable of qualifying -- either due to innate intelligence or an inadequate upbringing. And assume he has a good work ethic, is driven to succeed, and has a solid overall personality despite his academic problems. Can you really judge those who helped him get the best training he could, if they thought it was what was best for the athlete?

That said, the majority of these cases are simply slick agents, runners, and handlers trying to get the athlete in their pocket for personal profit, so I am not advocating abusing the system. Just saying that I don't feel justified in criticizing the family and Bledsoe himself without knowing more. It's the romantic in me that hopes this case was a benevolent scheme to help a troubled youth, and that his current situation makes it worth it. Of course, 99.9% of these cases are about money and the athlete ends up with no career in basketball and no job skills.

Kedsy
09-14-2010, 08:41 PM
The family and anyone who helped him but didn't personally profit financially from it -- no. Wouldn't you want what you thought was best for your son or any relative, even if he didn't technically qualify? I don't know the players in this drama, but I can imagine some scenarios where family, teachers, and coaches put the best interest of the athlete ahead of NCAA rules. You can't deny that Bledsoe is in the best situation today that could have been hoped for (I mean, getting to back up Baron and throw alley-oops to Griffin...). The players are not stakeholders in the system that relies on them, and in some cases the best interest of the system is not the same as the best interest of the athlete.

Well, I would want the best for my son, but does that justify cheating? Let's say my son was playing in a poker game. Should I surreptitiously tell him what cards are in the other players' hands because I want the best for him? I don't want any of the money, so I won't profit from it. It's just that he's my offspring and life's been hard for him, so I want him to win. So what if he doesn't "technically" deserve his winnings? In some cases what's in the best interest of the poker game is not the same as the best interest of the individual card player. So it's cool, right?

Let's face it, cheating is cheating.

Namtilal
09-14-2010, 08:58 PM
Well, I would want the best for my son, but does that justify cheating? Let's say my son was playing in a poker game. Should I surreptitiously tell him what cards are in the other players' hands because I want the best for him? I don't want any of the money, so I won't profit from it. It's just that he's my offspring and life's been hard for him, so I want him to win. So what if he doesn't "technically" deserve his winnings? In some cases what's in the best interest of the poker game is not the same as the best interest of the individual card player. So it's cool, right?

Let's face it, cheating is cheating.

None of this gave Bledsoe an advantage on the court. If his scholarship hadn't been used by Calapari, it wouldn't have gone to a needy prodigy -- since it came from the athletic budget, it would likely have just been unused, although it may have been broken up and given as partial scholarships by non-revenue athletes.

My point -- problematic though it may be -- is that he's a kid who got help getting around NCAA rules, and is now in a great position. If those around him hadn't helped him like this, his future might not be as rosy as it is now. His high school sought to help him first, not obey NCAA rules, and it's hard for me to criticize this.

My argument's biggest problem is the countless highly ranked players who don't make it to the pro game and also don't get an education. And it might be that an agent made a deal with Bledsoe's family, and bought off the teachers for these grades. That would throw a wrench into my bleeding-heart liberal viewpoint on this.

Tappan Zee Devil
09-14-2010, 09:10 PM
None of this gave Bledsoe an advantage on the court. If his scholarship hadn't been used by Calapari, it wouldn't have gone to a needy prodigy -- since it came from the athletic budget, it would likely have just been unused, although it may have been broken up and given as partial scholarships by non-revenue athletes.

My point -- problematic though it may be -- is that he's a kid who got help getting around NCAA rules, and is now in a great position. If those around him hadn't helped him like this, his future might not be as rosy as it is now. His high school sought to help him first, not obey NCAA rules, and it's hard for me to criticize this.

My argument's biggest problem is the countless highly ranked players who don't make it to the pro game and also don't get an education. And it might be that an agent made a deal with Bledsoe's family, and bought off the teachers for these grades. That would throw a wrench into my bleeding-heart liberal viewpoint on this.

uhh - I don't quite see how any of this justifies cheating. Please explain to me how this works because I am obviously missing something in your argument.

Thanks

moonpie23
09-14-2010, 09:20 PM
please....you have GOT to be kidding.......you're condoning cheating as long as you think it's going to "help the kid out"? there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of disadvantaged kids that could benefit from cheating to put them in a better position in life......THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT CHEATING!!!!

the NCAA says you've got to have the credentials to get into college on scholarship....that's the rule....


please, just to be clear, you think this is "ok"...????


http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

77devil
09-14-2010, 09:23 PM
None of this gave Bledsoe an advantage on the court. If his scholarship hadn't been used by Calapari, it wouldn't have gone to a needy prodigy -- since it came from the athletic budget, it would likely have just been unused, although it may have been broken up and given as partial scholarships by non-revenue athletes.

My point -- problematic though it may be -- is that he's a kid who got help getting around NCAA rules, and is now in a great position. If those around him hadn't helped him like this, his future might not be as rosy as it is now. His high school sought to help him first, not obey NCAA rules, and it's hard for me to criticize this.

My argument's biggest problem is the countless highly ranked players who don't make it to the pro game and also don't get an education. And it might be that an agent made a deal with Bledsoe's family, and bought off the teachers for these grades. That would throw a wrench into my bleeding-heart liberal viewpoint on this.

I find this Machavellian logic troubling and presumptuous. You assume that Bledsoe had a real college experience during his less than a year at UK. It is more than likely that outside of the basketball program his involvement with university life was limited at best, and he essentially left school soon after the NCAA tournament.

The fact that he was advantaged by allegedly cheating the system is egregious, but you embrace it. It's a bright line. Either he cheated or not, and no sociological rational is justification.

Jderf
09-14-2010, 09:56 PM
I've tried defending Bledsoe on this board to curious effect; I was called "an anarchist" "with equivocal ethics" and "who always drives 120 mph." So good luck Namtilal, they won't go easy on you.

Surely there are certain situations where "cheating" or breaking the rules is appropriate. Many of our culture's biggest heros are rule breakers. Think tyranny. Think apartheid. Sometimes the body which created the rule is oppressive. Now I'm not saying here and now that the NCAA is an oppressive regime. That would be ridiculous. But due to a particular configuration of rules, there are definitely certain types of athletes who are "oppressed." That is to say, they are prevented from capitalizing legitimately on their own abilities. Now, does that justify cheating in this case? That is open to debate. In fact, it's exactly what the question being asked here should be. But to continue to categorically state that breaking the rules is absolutely never okay - well, that adds nothing to the debate. And worse, it's simply not true.

Atlanta Duke
09-14-2010, 10:14 PM
NYT was on the Bledsoe story previously and is back for more

Kentucky May Get Just What It Did Not Want From Calipari


As questions continue to arise in Lexington, a new president has to decide whether having a successful program adds up to accepting recruits who ace Algebra III before taking Algebra II.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/sports/ncaabasketball/15hoops.html?_r=1&ref=sports

If Cal is the coach when a season's record is vacated for three programs does that make him a Triple Crown winner?

Tappan Zee Devil
09-14-2010, 10:29 PM
I've tried defending Bledsoe on this board to curious effect; I was called "an anarchist" "with equivocal ethics" and "who always drives 120 mph." So good luck Namtilal, they won't go easy on you.

Surely there are certain situations where "cheating" or breaking the rules is appropriate. Many of our culture's biggest heros are rule breakers. Think tyranny. Think apartheid. Sometimes the body which created the rule is oppressive. Now I'm not saying here and now that the NCAA is an oppressive regime. That would be ridiculous. But due to a particular configuration of rules, there are definitely certain types of athletes who are "oppressed." That is to say, they are prevented from capitalizing legitimately on their own abilities. Now, does that justify cheating in this case? That is open to debate. In fact, it's exactly what the question being asked here should be. But to continue to categorically state that breaking the rules is absolutely never okay - well, that adds nothing to the debate. And worse, it's simply not true.

uhhh

we are not talking about apartheid here. We are talking about Universities that need to be true to their own academic standards. They have no obligation to provide a conduit to professional athletics to kids who can not meet their normal academic srandards with NO chance to graduate because s/he improves their athletic teams. If they do, then they have willfully prostituted themselves and deserve NO pity.

Perhaps the professional leagues need to provide an alternative route - but the collages have no obligation to play along with them to provide a free training/evaluation system. I do think that the NBA needs to provide an alternative path for b'ball players who do not want (or can't) go to collage - but they don't and that does not put an obligation on colleges to provide that service to the NBA.

Jim

Lord Ash
09-14-2010, 10:32 PM
Man... the rumored 100k for Kanter, the rumored 200k payoff for Davis, and now the Bledsoe thing... and all of this in ONE season? Cal has been awful busy.

Amazing stuff.

Jderf
09-14-2010, 10:38 PM
uhhh

we are not talking about apartheid here. We are talking about Universities that need to be true to their own academic standards. They have no obligation to provide a conduit to professional athletics to kids who can not meet their normal academic srandards with NO chance to graduate because s/he improves their athletic teams. If they do, then they have willfully prostituted themselves and deserve NO pity.

Perhaps the professional leagues need to provide an alternative route - but the collages have no obligation to play along with them to provide a free training/evaluation system. I do think that the NBA needs to provide an alternative path for b'ball players who do not want (or can't) go to collage - but they don't and that does not put an obligation on colleges to provide that service to the NBA.

Jim

uhhh

I actually agree with absolutely everything in your post. I specifically said it would be ludicrous to compare the NCAA and apartheid. I was just trying to make the point that the situation (not the NCAA) is oppressive (in a way) to certain athletes. The NCAA gets swindled, but a lot of these kids get swindled too.

The NCAA has zero fault here. Zero. And it should not have to be their responsibility. But it should not be the kids responsibility either. Just trying to campaign for sympathy.

roywhite
09-14-2010, 10:40 PM
Man... the rumored 100k for Kanter, the rumored 200k payoff for Davis, and now the Bledsoe thing... and all of this in ONE season? Cal has been awful busy.

Amazing stuff.

Oh, no; he doesn't get involved in this sort of stuff. Some bad luck.

From the NYT article:

That information is expected to be forwarded to the N.C.A.A., which will determine whether Calipari can pull off an unprecedented triple crown — having seasons vacated at three universities.

Calipari is quick to tell anyone who raises questions that he was not directly implicated. The UMass scandal centered on Marcus Camby’s receiving improper benefits from an agent and the Memphis case from questions about Derrick Rose’s standardized test score.

RoyalBlue08
09-14-2010, 10:56 PM
I don't know anyone that went to U of K. I don't know anyone who roots for them. And I got to wondering, I wonder what the average Kentucky fan thinks about Cal and they way their program is currently being run. So I went to the rivals Kentucky message board. (Now I realize this may not be a very scientific sampling of Kentucky fans, but as I said, I don't have access to one.) I was blown away. They consensus (and I don't use that word lightly) is that the national media is on a Kentucky/Cal witch hunt. All of these stories are born out of either jealousy of their success (that is a direct quote) or a need from reporters to make up stories when there is nothing else going on in the world of sports. I only spent 5 minutes, but I couldn't find a single post that was at all negative towards Cal. Frightening.

OldPhiKap
09-14-2010, 10:56 PM
Oh, no; he doesn't get involved in this sort of stuff. Some bad luck.


At what point does deniability cease to be plausible?

The NCAA gets on Rick Majerus for sharing a pizza with his players -- but Cal can slip and slide like this?

At some point, even June Cleaver called BS on Eddie Haskell.

BD80
09-14-2010, 11:04 PM
Man... the rumored 100k for Kanter, the rumored 200k payoff for Davis, and now the Bledsoe thing... and all of this in ONE season? Cal has been awful busy.

Amazing stuff.

When Cal is questioned, he will claim that he was just amazingly oblivious.

The Bledsoe matter smells just like the Rose SAT exam issue. How can you NOT see the unbelievable academic improvement? Even assuming Cal was not behind it, he HAD to see the warning signs!

Seems to me that once Cal gets interested in a kid that can't qualify, things happen and the kid gets qualified. Turns out that cheating occurs. I would bet that not only did Calipari know about the cheating, his people orchestrated the cheating.

No reason to punish Bledsoe, let him get on with his life. The academic institution of UK had little if anything to do with Eric.

Drop a friggin bomb on UK's athletic program for allowing this kind of crap, nay, for INVITING this kind of crap by hiring Calipari.

roywhite
09-14-2010, 11:11 PM
I don't know anyone that went to U of K. I don't know anyone who roots for them. And I got to wondering, I wonder what the average Kentucky fan thinks about Cal and they way their program is currently being run. So I went to the rivals Kentucky message board. (Now I realize this may not be a very scientific sampling of Kentucky fans, but as I said, I don't have access to one.) I was blown away. They consensus (and I don't use that word lightly) is that the national media is on a Kentucky/Cal witch hunt. All of these stories are born out of either jealousy of their success (that is a direct quote) or a need from reporters to make up stories when there is nothing else going on in the world of sports. I only spent 5 minutes, but I couldn't find a single post that was at all negative towards Cal. Frightening.

Ah, you've found Catspause....

It might as well be called a Peek Down the Rabbit Hole; it's truly a different world and it's population goes over 20,000 when big UK hoops news happens.

The only good thing I can say about their fanbase is that it make our light blue neighbors seem a little more sane.

DevilHorns
09-14-2010, 11:18 PM
When Cal is questioned, he will claim that he was just amazingly oblivious.

The Bledsoe matter smells just like the Rose SAT exam issue. How can you NOT see the unbelievable academic improvement? Even assuming Cal was not behind it, he HAD to see the warning signs!

Seems to me that once Cal gets interested in a kid that can't qualify, things happen and the kid gets qualified. Turns out that cheating occurs. I would bet that not only did Calipari know about the cheating, his people orchestrated the cheating.

No reason to punish Bledsoe, let him get on with his life. The academic institution of UK had little if anything to do with Eric.

Drop a friggin bomb on UK's athletic program for allowing this kind of crap, nay, for INVITING this kind of crap by hiring Calipari.

He took Algebra III before Algebra II and aced it. He cannot be oblivious to that. If you are a coach of a team and one of your star recruits is barely academically ineligible and then they miraculously make the mark, you investigate it just to make sure everything is in place. You look at the transcript. And you see that he took Algebra III before Algebra II and aced it.

I wonder if he has said anything publicly about this yet. I want to see if he tries the whole oblivious excuse again.

sagegrouse
09-14-2010, 11:19 PM
The Bledsoe matter smells just like the Rose SAT exam issue. How can you NOT see the unbelievable academic improvement? Even assuming Cal was not behind it, he HAD to see the warning signs!

Seems to me that once Cal gets interested in a kid that can't qualify, things happen and the kid gets qualified. .

Riffing on the years ago Tarkanian comment above about Kentucky, I would bet that heads will roll for the Bledsoe incident, such as the Director of Admissions at UK and the compliance officer in the athletic department.

sagegrouse

Oriole Way
09-15-2010, 01:18 AM
He took Algebra III before Algebra II and aced it. He cannot be oblivious to that. If you are a coach of a team and one of your star recruits is barely academically ineligible and then they miraculously make the mark, you investigate it just to make sure everything is in place. You look at the transcript. And you see that he took Algebra III before Algebra II and aced it.

I wonder if he has said anything publicly about this yet. I want to see if he tries the whole oblivious excuse again.

Calipari will simply say that the NCAA Clearinghouse cleared him to and the UK Admissions office accepted him into the university. 100% chance he will play dumb and claim he assumed Bledsoe was good to go and that it is not his responsibility to follow up on transcripts, but hopefully sometime soon he will have to be accountable for all of these suspicious situations.

I just hope, for now, that Kanter is ruled ineligible.

johnb
09-15-2010, 06:16 AM
In the NYT article, the former principal at Bledsoe's hs says he "will take to his grave" the circumstances behind the algebra mess. To me, that can only mean he knew that adults cheated for the guy. it also reminds me that Bledsoe is from Birmingham, AL, and--please clarify if I betray an unfair bias--I can imagine that the guy was exposed to some pretty poor education throughout his life. it wouldn't sanction cheating, but if he's like most guys from his elementary school, he simply wouldn't have the academic skills at age 18 to pass courses at a major university.

We're in a privileged position at Duke. When we admit athletic kids from bad high schools, we're picking extremely motivated kids who often end up doing fine. At the same time, we have regularly bent our own admissions rules to get players. It's a bit like the preferential treatment to the kids of billionaires, and we'd simply not be a top 10 bbqll school if we held our players to the same academic standards as we hold just about everyone else. For every Battier or Langdon--who would've gotten in if they were not basketball players-- we have guys whose hs transcripts would be shockingly mediocre to most people on this board. I think that's ok, and it certainly isn't NCAA cheating, but there are well-informed people who would say that our treatment of athletes is not wholly different from Kentucky's in that there are different sets of rules at each step of the process and that this preferential treatment is uncalled for.

MarkD83
09-15-2010, 06:36 AM
we'd simply not be a top 10 bbqll school if we held our players to the same academic standards as we hold just about everyone else.

Once, the players are at Duke they are held to the same academic standard and there have been some players that have been declared academically ineligible after the fall of their freshman year.

Duvall
09-15-2010, 06:57 AM
For every Battier or Langdon--who would've gotten in if they were not basketball players-- we have guys whose hs transcripts would be shockingly mediocre to most people on this board. I think that's ok, and it certainly isn't NCAA cheating, but there are well-informed people who would say that our treatment of athletes is not wholly different from Kentucky's in that there are different sets of rules at each step of the process and that this preferential treatment is uncalled for.

Perhaps, but those people are laughably wrong.

There's a world of difference between accepting players with real grades that do have the academic skills to pass courses at a major university, but whose grades and scores just don't rise to the level that Duke is able to demand of other applicants, and accepting any plausibly deniable fake credentials that come your way, like transcripts from diploma mills like Laurinburg Prep, or Derrick Rose's inexplicably improved SAT score, or Eric Bledsoe's remarkably implausible night school grades.

Some people may not care for either approach, and that's fine. But it's simply absurd to pretend that they are the *same* approach.

basket1544
09-15-2010, 07:36 AM
Well, Cal the Cat probably has 9 lives, and has lost 2 or 3 already. Start somewhere around number 6 and count him down.

He should probably thank Butch Davis and Bruce Pearl for providing a diversion to the sheriff.

Didn't Tennessee get slammed when Kentucky was being investigated in the late 1980s? Or am I just remembering something similar to Tark's quote?

JasonEvans
09-15-2010, 09:17 AM
There have been plenty of interesting comments and opinions in this thread. Let me see if I can add one that may add to the excellent conversation.

I have heard the arguments that the people at Bledsoe's school were only trying to help him be eligible, which allowed him to go to college and get exposure and get quickly into the NBA. They say Bledsoe is better off today as a result of the cheating.

My response is -- if these people really wanted to help Eric Bledsoe, they would have made him a better student, not taught him that his athletic skills allow him to skirt the rules and cheat.

Here is a thought-- what about younger kids in Birmingham or elsewhere who look up to Bledsoe. I am sure there were young basketball prodigies who saw Bledsoe back when he was in high school and thought, "if I work really hard, maybe someday I will be as good as him!"

Wouldn't it send a powerful message to those kids if their "hero" was declared academically ineligible? Every time a prominent player (either in HS or college) is forced to miss time because he neglected his academics I think (perhaps foolishly) that there are kids who follow that player's career who are being taught that working hard at academics matters just as much as working hard at athletics.

Now, think about the message that was sent to kids who knew Bledsoe when they heard he was going to college. I am sure that some of these kids knew that Bledsoe did not work hard in school. Heck, some of them may have even known that his grades were terrible and may have suspected that the school "took care of him" to ensure he would be eligible.

As for Calipari, I think most of you know how I feel about him. He's a disgusting cheater. His continued denials that he knew anything are total BS and we all know it. He is impossible to defend. This kind of thing continually happens at his programs and I would be beyond embarrassed to have him as the coach of my team. Kentucky fans should be ashamed that they stooped this low. ASHAMED!

Is this what they want to see again?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hOiJzjVoeolDxM:http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo151/68Tiger/kentucky-shame.jpg&t=1

--Jason "Kentucky is the elite-- they can win without cheating. Pathetic!" Evans

Merlindevildog91
09-15-2010, 09:34 AM
We went to Catspause last night as well, just to nose around, and the level of disbelief is, well, unbelievable. The New York Times has nothing better to do, lots of people ace Algebra 3 before they take Algebra 2, even if they are marginal students, etc., etc., etc. My learned colleague who said the UK people made our neighbors in chapel hill look sane is entirely correct.

If these allegations are true, I hope the compliance people at UK lose their jobs, I hope the Alabama high school people are barred from EVER having any dealings with education again, I hope UK is stripped of every victory from last season. The people that take advantage of kids like Bledsoe ought to be put in the lowest circle of hades.

I had a friend whose daughter was sought out by pretty much every powerhouse DI basketball school you can name, until she hurt her knee so badly her competitive sports career ended permanently. Had this happened to Eric Bledsoe his senior year, where would he have been? What is the career path for a very tall, half-educated kid who hasn't had any breaks in life? Is his high school principal looking out for him then? Would the readers of Catspause pass the hat for his education? I hardly think so. Turning a blind eye to his educational needs and possible issues because he can complement John Wall is just wrong.

The NCAA needs to beef up compliance, or hire some New York Times reporters to do their dirty work.

BD80
09-15-2010, 10:32 AM
... I had a friend whose daughter was sought out by pretty much every powerhouse DI basketball school you can name, until she hurt her knee so badly her competitive sports career ended permanently. Had this happened to Eric Bledsoe his senior year, where would he have been? ...

Let's see, at Duke, Coach K has honored his scholarship offer to the injured player (Erik Meeks?).

I wonder what Cal would do? Burn a scholarship for 4 years on a kid that can't play? Does ANYONE believe he would?

JasonEvans
09-15-2010, 10:52 AM
lots of people ace Algebra 3 before they take Algebra 2, even if they are marginal students.

The Kentucky fans who believe that are the ones who have truly sold their souls. I feel for someone who can make that much of a illogical leap into the netherworld.

I suppose I can understand the "I don't believe Cal knew anything about it. The Clearinghouse cleared him to play" defense or even the "these people in Birmingham were just trying to make sure this kid got his chance to go to college" argument...

...but anyone who reads the facts in those articles and actually says that no cheating occurred is someone who would believe 2+2=5 if Kentucky said so.

--Jason "I love the principal of the school saying he will take the real story to his grave-- if that is not an admission of wrongdoing, I don't know what is" Evans

roywhite
09-15-2010, 11:06 AM
The Kentucky fans who believe that are the ones who have truly sold their souls. I feel for someone who can make that much of a illogical leap into the netherworld.

I suppose I can understand the "I don't believe Cal knew anything about it. The Clearinghouse cleared him to play" defense or even the "these people in Birmingham were just trying to make sure this kid got his chance to go to college" argument...

...but anyone who reads the facts in those articles and actually says that no cheating occurred is someone who would believe 2+2=5 if Kentucky said so.

--Jason "I love the principal of the school saying he will take the real story to his grave-- if that is not an admission of wrongdoing, I don't know what is" Evans


There are three very prominent recruits that Cal has been involved with where question marks about their eligibility were known to exist---Derrick Rose at Memphis, Eric Bledsoe, and most recently Enes Kanter.

Each was/is an impact player. To say that a head coach would not be very familiar with the details of transcript, test scores, professional history (for Kanter) just doesn't pass any basic test of plausibility.

Common sense tells us that:
of course, Cal knew about Rose's SAT difficulties and alternate scores
of course, Cal knew about Bledsoe's grade problems and what was being done to boost them
of course, Cal knew about Kanter's status with the Turkish professional team.

Yet, Cal and the darkest True Blue Wildcat fans seek to deny this??

camion
09-15-2010, 11:09 AM
The Kentucky fans who believe that are the ones who have truly sold their souls. I feel for someone who can make that much of a illogical leap into the netherworld.

I suppose I can understand the "I don't believe Cal knew anything about it. The Clearinghouse cleared him to play" defense or even the "these people in Birmingham were just trying to make sure this kid got his chance to go to college" argument...

...but anyone who reads the facts in those articles and actually says that no cheating occurred is someone who would believe 2+2=5 if Kentucky said so.

2+2=5 (for very large values of 2)

--Jason "I love the principal of the school saying he will take the real story to his grave-- if that is not an admission of wrongdoing, I don't know what is" Evans

Not a wise thing for the principal to say. People with real investigative power might take notice.



This text because text inside the quote block doesn't count and post wasn't allowed.

Duvall
09-15-2010, 11:14 AM
None of this gave Bledsoe an advantage on the court. If his scholarship hadn't been used by Calapari, it wouldn't have gone to a needy prodigy -- since it came from the athletic budget, it would likely have just been unused, although it may have been broken up and given as partial scholarships by non-revenue athletes.

Actually, it probably would have gone to one of the Kentucky players forced out by Calipari to make room for his first recruiting class.

Merlindevildog91
09-15-2010, 11:32 AM
Let's see, at Duke, Coach K has honored his scholarship offer to the injured player (Erik Meeks?).

You are correct. Coach K did honor Erik Meek's scholarship after he was hit by a car and limited in his basketball abilities.

BD80
09-15-2010, 11:53 AM
You are correct. Coach K did honor Erik Meek's scholarship after he was hit by a car and limited in his basketball abilities.

IIRC (which SELDOM happens), it was not certain that Eric would be able to WALK again when Coach K informed him that he still had a scholarship to Duke. Eric would often say how much that meant to him and how it drove him in rehab to deserve the scholarship.

4decadedukie
09-15-2010, 12:05 PM
I've tried defending Bledsoe on this board to curious effect; I was called "an anarchist" "with equivocal ethics" and "who always drives 120 mph." So good luck Namtilal, they won't go easy on you.

Surely there are certain situations where "cheating" or breaking the rules is appropriate. Many of our culture's biggest heros are rule breakers. Think tyranny. Think apartheid. Sometimes the body which created the rule is oppressive. Now I'm not saying here and now that the NCAA is an oppressive regime. That would be ridiculous. But due to a particular configuration of rules, there are definitely certain types of athletes who are "oppressed." That is to say, they are prevented from capitalizing legitimately on their own abilities. Now, does that justify cheating in this case? That is open to debate. In fact, it's exactly what the question being asked here should be. But to continue to categorically state that breaking the rules is absolutely never okay - well, that adds nothing to the debate. And worse, it's simply not true.


I believe you may significantly complicate and badly confuse relatively simple ethics when you introduce society-wide issues (oppressiveness, tyranny, apartheid, etc.) to the current UK - Bledsoe - Calipari situation. A key, distinguishing characteristic seems to be that SELFLESS rule breaking for the COMMON GOOD clearly differs from greedy, selfish cheating principally for the INDIVIDUAL'S benefit. To illustrate, Dr. King (and his family) made huge sacrifices (obviously, including forfeiting his life) to ensure civil rights and personal liberties for everyone in the United States, whereas Bledsoe (and his agents, family, supporters, coaches, and Kentucky, and so forth) probably intentionally deceived the NCAA only to benefit Bledsoe, his family, his entourage, and Kentucky Basketball/Calipari.

Simply started, there is a mammoth difference between selfless rule breaking and self-interested duplicity.

JasonEvans
09-15-2010, 12:21 PM
I believe you may significantly complicate and badly confuse relatively simple ethics when you introduce society-wide issues (oppressiveness, tyranny, apartheid, etc.) to the current UK - Bledsoe - Calipari situation. A key, distinguishing characteristic seems to be that SELFLESS rule breaking for the COMMON GOOD clearly differs from greedy, selfish cheating principally for the INDIVIDUAL'S benefit. To illustrate, Dr. King (and his family) made huge sacrifices (obviously, including forfeiting his life) to ensure civil rights and personal liberties for everyone in the United States, whereas Bledsoe (and his agents, family, supporters, coaches, and Kentucky, and so forth) probably intentionally deceived the NCAA only to benefit Bledsoe, his family, his entourage, and Kentucky Basketball/Calipari.

Simply started, there is a mammoth difference between selfless rule breaking and self-interested duplicity.

I think that logically and reasonably bringing Dr. King into a bulletin board conversation is the polar opposite of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law). Props!

--Jason "congrats, 4decadedukie, you automatically win via the King Corollary" Evans

jimsumner
09-15-2010, 12:24 PM
You are correct. Coach K did honor Erik Meek's scholarship after he was hit by a car and limited in his basketball abilities.

Umm, folks, this is pretty far from the original topic.

But, for the record.

Eric Meek was hit by a car while a senior in high school and did suffer serious injuries. Injuries that healed.

Meek never took an injury redshirt, played 122 games at Duke and averaged 10.3 ppg and 8.3 rpg as a senior. He was a second-round NBA draft pick but elected to play in the Euro leagues.

Not exactly the poster child for someone whose career was ruined by injuries.

roywhite
09-15-2010, 12:30 PM
Umm, folks, this is pretty far from the original topic.

But, for the record.

Eric Meek was hit by a car while a senior in high school and did suffer serious injuries. Injuries that healed.

Meek never took an injury redshirt, played 122 games at Duke and averaged 10.3 ppg and 8.3 rpg as a senior. He was a second-round NBA draft pick but elected to play in the Euro leagues.

Not exactly the poster child for someone whose career was ruined by injuries.

Since we've branched out, I'll go a little further.

Here are Meek''s career stats (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/players/statlines.php?playerid=256)

If Coach K had a do-over, I think he might have redshirted Eric as a freshman; Meek didn't play much at all, and was probably hampered somewhat by his recovery from injuries. By the time he was a senior, as Jim notes, he was productive inside player.

jimsumner
09-15-2010, 12:54 PM
Since we've branched out, I'll go a little further.

Here are Meek''s career stats (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/players/statlines.php?playerid=256)

If Coach K had a do-over, I think he might have redshirted Eric as a freshman; Meek didn't play much at all, and was probably hampered somewhat by his recovery from injuries. By the time he was a senior, as Jim notes, he was productive inside player.

I agree with the conjecture. Remember, Meek was a freshman when Laettner was a senior and Parks was a fellow freshman. The original plan was to redshirt Meek but the transfer of Crawford Palmer to Dartmouth changed that.

What hurt Meek as a freshman was the accident-induced inability to play/run/lift for much of the summer prior to his arrival at Duke. He fell behind and had a hard time catching up.

Ironically, Duke planned to redshirt Meek for the 1994-95 season, using Parks, Newton, Moore and Beard as their post options. This would have given Meek a season without Parks. But Beard developed mono and Duke decided they couldn't gamble, so they brought Meek back. Then Beard got miffed and decided to transfer.

And that season just got worser and worser. But not because of Meek, who played quite well.

A note of clarification about Meek's accident. He wasn't in an automobile. He was jogging on the edge of a road, when he was hit by a car driven by an inattentive driver. As a life-long runner, this still scares me, so much that I go to great lengths to avoid running by the side of a road. Any road.

Merlindevildog91
09-15-2010, 01:28 PM
and my concern is, that young stars like Bledsoe who are coddled do not have the life skills necessary to equip them properly for life should a massive injury occur to them.

If Erik Meek had never played a minute of college basketball, but left Duke after four years with a degree, I suspect he could have made his way in life. I doubt the same could have been said for Eric Bledsoe, unless he took out a Lloyd's of London insurance policy on his basketball career.

jimsumner
09-15-2010, 02:58 PM
and my concern is, that young stars like Bledsoe who are coddled do not have the life skills necessary to equip them properly for life should a massive injury occur to them.

If Erik Meek had never played a minute of college basketball, but left Duke after four years with a degree, I suspect he could have made his way in life. I doubt the same could have been said for Eric Bledsoe, unless he took out a Lloyd's of London insurance policy on his basketball career.

Agree with your point.

Just don't think Meek was an especially good example.

College football programs--Duke included--lose players every year to career-ending injuries. They can stay in school--their scholarships don't count towards the 85 limit--work with the program in a non-playing capacity, get their degrees and move on with their lives.

For example, Mike Cappetto, Randez James and Garrett Utt currently are listed as undergraduate assistants at Duke.

dukebluelemur
09-15-2010, 03:16 PM
For those of you who see nothing wrong with telling talented young athletes that their skills entitle them to live by a different set of rules, I ask, how many more Gilbert Arenas, Ben Rothlisburger, Michael Vick types do we need?

loran16
09-15-2010, 03:20 PM
For the record, yes Kentucky should have noticed the grade discrepancies, but no I don't think they should be punished.

The NCAA Clearinghouse checked out Bledsoe apparently twice and found him fine both times. I mean cmon...at that point, UK should be immune from liability unless they found out something new.

(Why Kentucky fans are complaining that Thamel is biassed or that the academic records should've remained confidential is beyond me. I mean, cmon people...leaks happen to journalists all the time.)

tommy
09-15-2010, 03:27 PM
I believe you may significantly complicate and badly confuse relatively simple ethics when you introduce society-wide issues (oppressiveness, tyranny, apartheid, etc.) to the current UK - Bledsoe - Calipari situation. A key, distinguishing characteristic seems to be that SELFLESS rule breaking for the COMMON GOOD clearly differs from greedy, selfish cheating principally for the INDIVIDUAL'S benefit. To illustrate, Dr. King (and his family) made huge sacrifices (obviously, including forfeiting his life) to ensure civil rights and personal liberties for everyone in the United States, whereas Bledsoe (and his agents, family, supporters, coaches, and Kentucky, and so forth) probably intentionally deceived the NCAA only to benefit Bledsoe, his family, his entourage, and Kentucky Basketball/Calipari.

Simply started, there is a mammoth difference between selfless rule breaking and self-interested duplicity.

POTD. Great one.

SilkyJ
09-15-2010, 03:40 PM
For the record, yes Kentucky should have noticed the grade discrepancies, but no I don't think they should be punished.

The NCAA Clearinghouse checked out Bledsoe apparently twice and found him fine both times. I mean cmon...at that point, UK should be immune from liability unless they found out something new.


I would normally agree here, and call this a double standard, but for a guy who has had repeated brush-ups with the NCAA and is somehow constantly involved or nearby shady dealings that happen with his programs, I would be OK with the NCAA levying some punishment. Calimari can't keep squidding away like this unscathed.

I would liken it to the Ben Roethlisberger situation where charges were never filed, but he has exhibited a pattern of behavior and been involved or nearby enough shady stuff that Gooddell decided enough was enough and he needed to send a message. I believe it was the first time he suspended someone under the code of conduct rule who had not been charged, but Gooddell decided that if it walks like a duck...


Agree with your point.

Just don't think Meek was an especially good example.

College football programs--Duke included--lose players every year to career-ending injuries. They can stay in school--their scholarships don't count towards the 85 limit--work with the program in a non-playing capacity, get their degrees and move on with their lives.

For example, Mike Cappetto, Randez James and Garrett Utt currently are listed as undergraduate assistants at Duke.

Not to get too off topic, but Jim, a question if I may: I was aware that if a player already on the roster had a career-ending injury they could keep their scholly, not count against the limit, etc.

But what about someone who has verballed and what about someone who has signed an LOI? I could see a coach keeping their end of the bargain and honoring the scholly, but would the NCAA allow the coach/program to do that AND have it not count against the limit.

(I did a quick google search on this but couldn't dig anything up...)

dcdevil2009
09-15-2010, 04:39 PM
I had a friend whose daughter was sought out by pretty much every powerhouse DI basketball school you can name, until she hurt her knee so badly her competitive sports career ended permanently. Had this happened to Eric Bledsoe his senior year, where would he have been? What is the career path for a very tall, half-educated kid who hasn't had any breaks in life? Is his high school principal looking out for him then?

Wouldn't he be in the exact same place he was if he hadn't been playing basketball, except with a high school diploma (although not education)? I strongly doubt the reason that Bledsoe wasn't doing well in school was because he was focusing too much on basketball. In actuality, I think basketball was one of the few reasons he was still in school. I'm not defending the principal for his lack of integrity for Bledsoe's preferential treatment, but aren't we kidding ourselves by assuming people would have been there "looking out for him" (even if looking out for themselves too) if he was just an average kid growing up in rural Arkansas?

tecumseh
09-15-2010, 11:07 PM
I am not so sure that Roethlisberger was treated with that much privilege growing up. By all accounts he was a pretty decent kid in high school. I think that is more of a case too much too soon. He was the youngest ever Super Bowl winner and won two at a young age and the toast of the town....and the amazing thing is he never really worked that hard at being a QB. Total aside but watch out NFL Big Ben looks like he is finally working at his job.

dukebluelemur
09-16-2010, 12:48 AM
Guys blog is pretty harsh on Kentucky: Link (http://kentsterling.com/2010/09/14/kentucky-basketball-and-eric-bledsoes-grade-fraud-greed-and-stupidituh-oh-kentucky-basketball-is-in-trouble/).

But mostly its notable for the utterly inspired analogy: " Bad luck seems to follow Cal around like filth followed Pigpen..."

CrazyNotCrazie
09-16-2010, 05:47 AM
It's interesting to note that there was extensive discussion on this board in Spring 2009 about Duke's potential recruitment of Bledsoe. I did a quick scan of some of the threads from back then and it seems like there was a lot of enthusiasm amongst the fan base for Duke to sign him, but we backed off because of hesitation about his grades. Obviously, just because Duke stops recruiting someone due to academics and he signs with another school doesn't mean someone is cheating - we hold ourselves to higher academic standards and this happens constantly, usually with kids who are completely clean. But I do wonder how much of this mess Duke's staff was aware of before they wisely decided to remove themselves from the situation.

BD80
09-16-2010, 08:21 AM
It's interesting to note that there was extensive discussion on this board in Spring 2009 about Duke's potential recruitment of Bledsoe. I did a quick scan of some of the threads from back then and it seems like there was a lot of enthusiasm amongst the fan base for Duke to sign him, but we backed off because of hesitation about his grades. Obviously, just because Duke stops recruiting someone due to academics and he signs with another school doesn't mean someone is cheating - we hold ourselves to higher academic standards and this happens constantly, usually with kids who are completely clean. But I do wonder how much of this mess Duke's staff was aware of before they wisely decided to remove themselves from the situation.

IIRC it went deeper than that. There were concerns about his grades, but enthusiasm that he was IMPROVING his grades at his new school, because he wasn't really a bad student but had just not adequately applied himself at the old school. Many of us (me included) were willing to believe the best of Eric because Duke was interested in him. Of course, we didn't know the details - the changed grades, the BYU on-line course, Algebra 3 preceding Algebra 2. I do believe that our staff conducted something called "due diligence."

Maybe it is easier for Duke to conduct due diligence because it only brings in 2-5 new students onto its basketball team per year. Poor Cal has the bad luck of having to replace his entire team each year. How can a basketball office with a budget that is merely in the tens of millions of dollars be expected to check out five to ten players each year? (OK we all know that the actual budget is in the hundreds of millions, but the booster payments to players and their families aren't on the "official" books, just the set of books that determine seating preferences and access to Cal).

I am also amused at the wailing from UK faithful about Bledsoe's "privacy" with respect to grades. There certainly was plenty of information available about his grades when he signed with UK, and even before when he was being portrayed as a kid who had completely turned his academics around. Funny thing, once you make an issue public, you lose "confidentiality." I understand that UK wants the good to be public and the bad to be confidential, but it just don't work that way.

JasonEvans
09-16-2010, 09:35 AM
Ok, first of all, there is no way Kentucky is going to go on probation for this mess nor is Cal going to get hit hard for it. I have no inside info, but at this time there appears to be nothing directly linking Calipari or Kentucky to this high school mess. Sure, we can point out that there always seems to be smoke around Calipari and where there's smoke, there's fire. But the reality is that he ain't gonna get popped for this one.

So, does it matter?

Yup, and here is how. If the NCAA determines that grades were improperly changed and that Bledsoe was ineligible for the 2009-10 season, then Kentucky's 35 wins from last year are coming off the books. It would be just like what happened at Memphis after Rose's SAT cheating came to light -- wins get erased.

Now, there is no Final Four appearance to delete thanks to West Virginia, but there are few schools that cherish every regular season win the way Kentucky does. That is because Kentucky and North Carolina have been battling neck and neck for about a decade or two over the title of winningest college basketball program of all time.

Coming into 2009, the standings were:


Kentucky - 1988 wins
UNC - 1984 (4 behind)
Kansas - 1970 (18 behind)
Duke - 1877 (111 behind)
Syracuse - 1753 (235 behind)


After last season, when Carolina barely finished above .500, the standings were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_with_the_most_victories_in_NCAA_Divi sion_I_men%27s_college_basketball)--


Kentucky - 2023 wins
UNC - 2004 (19 behind)
Kansas - 2003 (20 behind)
Duke - 1912 (111 behind)
Syracuse - 1783 (240 behind)


Kentucky's 35 wins last year helped them to open up a little more ground on everyone (except Duke). It was especially significant because it really gave them a working margin over Carolina.

Ahh, but look at how the list changes if the NCAA were to void 34 of last year's wins (Bledsoe did not play in the Dec 29th win over Hartford because of an injured ankle) because Bledsoe was ineligible.


UNC - 2004 wins
Kansas - 2003 (1 behind)
Kentucky - 1989 (15 behind)
Duke - 1912 (92 behind)
Syracuse - 1783 (221 behind)


It remains to be seen what action, if any, the NCAA takes here. Bledsoe being cleared by the Clearinghouse could come into play in mitigating a punishment, but recall that Rose was cleared by the Clearinghouse and Memphis still saw all of its season wiped off the books. It is worth noting that Memphis was warned mid-way through the season that there might be a problem with Rose's SAT but chose to play him anyway while I doubt any such warning was given to Kentucky here.

It will be interesting to watch. At least this shows that there could be a somewhat meaningful impact to the Bledsoe situation ;)

--Jason "whew, this post took some time... it better earn me some pitchforks - ha!" Evans

gumbomoop
09-16-2010, 10:14 AM
Ok, first of all, there is no way Kentucky is going to go on probation for this mess nor is Cal going to get hit hard for it. I have no inside info, but at this time there appears to be nothing directly linking Calipari or Kentucky to this high school mess. Sure, we can point out that there always seems to be smoke around Calipari and where there's smoke, there's fire. But the reality is that he ain't gonna get popped for this one.

So, does it matter?

Yup, and here is how. If the NCAA determines that grades were improperly changed and that Bledsoe was ineligible for the 2009-10 season, then Kentucky's 35 wins from last year are coming off the books.

I had to do a double take on your post, thinking either I misread, or simply didn't understand your meaning of "hit hard."

I assume vacating 35 wins would be a "significant" hit, even if not "hard" enough. But I guess you mean (1) it's not nearly as significant as probation for the school [perhaps UK should henceforth be referred to as a school rather than university......], and (2) it doesn't directly [immediately?] affect Calipari.

If I understand your argument [and the win-numbers stuff is intriguing], and if the wins are vacated, it seems to me this is a big hit to UK's and Cal's ever-diminishing reputations. But true, not as hard as it might conceivably be.

If I've misunderstood, set me straight.

JasonEvans
09-16-2010, 12:27 PM
I had to do a double take on your post, thinking either I misread, or simply didn't understand your meaning of "hit hard."

I assume vacating 35 wins would be a "significant" hit, even if not "hard" enough. But I guess you mean (1) it's not nearly as significant as probation for the school [perhaps UK should henceforth be referred to as a school rather than university......], and (2) it doesn't directly [immediately?] affect Calipari.

If I understand your argument [and the win-numbers stuff is intriguing], and if the wins are vacated, it seems to me this is a big hit to UK's and Cal's ever-diminishing reputations. But true, not as hard as it might conceivably be.

If I've misunderstood, set me straight.

By "hit hard" I meant something that would impact Cal or Kentucky's future. To be honest, aside from maybe taking away a Final Four appearance, I don't think penalties that affect the past mean all that much. It is not like we can wipe the memory of all those victories from the minds of the Memphis fans who enjoyed them.

So, my point was I did not think anything that happened with Bledsoe would impact Kentucky going forward-- no probation, no seasons banned from the tournament, no scholarship restrictions. Stuff that affects how you actually perform in games and how your season turns out are the sanctions that matter. If it only affects the past, most fans hardly give it a second thought.

--Jason "sorry I was not more clear-- does that make sense?" Evans

SilkyJ
09-16-2010, 03:28 PM
--Jason "whew, this post took some time... it better earn me some pitchforks - ha!" Evans

Great post! But pining for Tridents?! You're better than that!

I know you were just joking. Great post and great point. That #1 All Time status is REALLY important to the UK fanbase...as is making sure everyone knows about the Nationwide conspiracy against them.

Indoor66
09-16-2010, 04:11 PM
Great post! But pining for Tridents?! You're better than that!

Is that chewing gum?

SilkyJ
09-16-2010, 04:19 PM
Is that chewing gum?

I don't understand why we keep calling them pitchforks. The Blue Devil doesn't carry a pitchfork, he carries a Trident!

(Although I suppose the original Blue Devils carried some sort of bolt action rifle.)

gumbomoop
09-16-2010, 08:40 PM
If it only affects the past, most fans hardly give it a second thought.

--Jason "sorry I was not more clear-- does that make sense?" Evans

I understand now. It does seem, however, that, as SilkyJ says in post #73, if the #1 all-time victory lead is so important to UK fanbase, then this particular scenario about the past - 35 past wins vacated - would also be about the present and future; i.e., UK suddenly falls behind.

I admit to hoping your prediction about these vacated wins comes true. If it does, it's not hard for me to imagine that Cal's reputation will take a hit, as will UK's. While the fanbase might cry foul, and become ever more paranoid, I'd also think that those at UK who care about the school's academic reputation - "We've become a joke " - would seek the UK president's ear.

Although such a scenario as you predict might not quite be the "Calipari is a train wreck waiting to happen - and now it's happened" moment, it would surely be fascinating listening to UK fans singing the no-smoking-gun song.

Newton_14
09-16-2010, 09:05 PM
Ok, first of all, there is no way Kentucky is going to go on probation for this mess nor is Cal going to get hit hard for it. I have no inside info, but at this time there appears to be nothing directly linking Calipari or Kentucky to this high school mess. Sure, we can point out that there always seems to be smoke around Calipari and where there's smoke, there's fire. But the reality is that he ain't gonna get popped for this one.

So, does it matter?

Yup, and here is how. If the NCAA determines that grades were improperly changed and that Bledsoe was ineligible for the 2009-10 season, then Kentucky's 35 wins from last year are coming off the books. It would be just like what happened at Memphis after Rose's SAT cheating came to light -- wins get erased.

Now, there is no Final Four appearance to delete thanks to West Virginia, but there are few schools that cherish every regular season win the way Kentucky does. That is because Kentucky and North Carolina have been battling neck and neck for about a decade or two over the title of winningest college basketball program of all time.

Coming into 2009, the standings were:


Kentucky - 1988 wins
UNC - 1984 (4 behind)
Kansas - 1970 (18 behind)
Duke - 1877 (111 behind)
Syracuse - 1753 (235 behind)


After last season, when Carolina barely finished above .500, the standings were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_with_the_most_victories_in_NCAA_Divi sion_I_men%27s_college_basketball)--


Kentucky - 2023 wins
UNC - 2004 (19 behind)
Kansas - 2003 (20 behind)
Duke - 1912 (111 behind)
Syracuse - 1783 (240 behind)


Kentucky's 35 wins last year helped them to open up a little more ground on everyone (except Duke). It was especially significant because it really gave them a working margin over Carolina.

Ahh, but look at how the list changes if the NCAA were to void 34 of last year's wins (Bledsoe did not play in the Dec 29th win over Hartford because of an injured ankle) because Bledsoe was ineligible.


UNC - 2004 wins
Kansas - 2003 (1 behind)
Kentucky - 1989 (15 behind)
Duke - 1912 (92 behind)
Syracuse - 1783 (221 behind)


It remains to be seen what action, if any, the NCAA takes here. Bledsoe being cleared by the Clearinghouse could come into play in mitigating a punishment, but recall that Rose was cleared by the Clearinghouse and Memphis still saw all of its season wiped off the books. It is worth noting that Memphis was warned mid-way through the season that there might be a problem with Rose's SAT but chose to play him anyway while I doubt any such warning was given to Kentucky here.

It will be interesting to watch. At least this shows that there could be a somewhat meaningful impact to the Bledsoe situation ;)

--Jason "whew, this post took some time... it better earn me some pitchforks - ha!" Evans

Great post! If I understand the rule correctly, I don't think it matters that Bledsoe did not play in the Hartford game. I believe they would still have to give that one up too. In the UNC scandal, they could not allow the suspect players to travel with the team as doing so would cause a forfeit if any of those suspect players ended up being ruled ineligible.

Should we pull for Kentucky to keep the wins to preven chapel hell from retaking the lead??

moonpie23
09-16-2010, 09:48 PM
Should we pull for Kentucky to keep the wins to preven chapel hell from retaking the lead??

great, booz....thanks a bunch...i had a very productive day today and now i come home to this!! i really didn't need this conflict..

railing against the holes is the RULE.....under very strained circumstances would it be the exception, howEVER.......uk is really bloated with super ego presently. (maybe due to the ying of unc's debacle to their yang of bringing in cal and his soon-to-be-vacated karma.)

so, while i would love to see the tarholes kept down, having the cats get their litterbox emptied would not make me sad.....keep in mind, it wouldn't be attributed to unc doing anything GOOD....only uk doing something BAD...

http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_4.gif

sleepybear
09-16-2010, 10:20 PM
Should we pull for Kentucky to keep the wins to preven chapel hell from retaking the lead??


It also puts Duke 35 games closer so we have to pull for UKs wins to be voided. Hell if Cal stays around a few years we may even surpass the cats in wins.

Newton_14
09-16-2010, 10:26 PM
It also puts Duke 35 games closer so we have to pull for UKs wins to be voided. Hell if Cal stays around a few years we may even surpass the cats in wins.

Ok, you and MoonPie have convinced me! Proceed with taking the 35 kitty kat wins away at once! I am in!:)

JasonEvans
09-16-2010, 11:47 PM
I say take the wins away and move Duke closer to the top.

It is also worth noting that removing the wins from Kentucky could lead to something even better-- Kansas passing both UNC and Kentucky in the all-time wins chase. I think that is quite likely this year. Though I do not expect Kansas to be as good as they have been in some recent seasons, they could be a couple wins better than UNC.

-Jason "it is gonna be hard for Duke to catch up-- even at 8 more wins per year (which would be a lot), we are talking about a decade to catch up" Evans

DukeDiva
09-17-2010, 09:08 AM
McShady has a pretty good player broker system going on here. I mean really...he recruits a lot of guys that can't get on campus anywhere else because of grades etc. and displays their strengths only to sell them to the highest bidder. In return he gets deemed the recruiting king and of course the finder fee for showcasing this great talent. :eek:

PADukeMom
09-17-2010, 02:07 PM
-Jason "it is gonna be hard for Duke to catch up-- even at 8 more wins per year (which would be a lot), we are talking about a decade to catch up" Evans

It won't be as long as you think as long as Cal is involved with will inevitably lead to Kentucky having to vacate wins. It would be even better if Ole Huck gets caught with his hand in the ticket jar.

CLW
09-17-2010, 02:18 PM
For what it is worth, Kentucky boards are indicating Enes has been cleared to PRACTICE.

They read that as he will be cleared to play. I'm not so sure. What harm can it do the NCAA if they let the kid practice with a team while they review the documents from Turkey?

My initial reaction to the situation would be that Enes was declared inelligible for the entire season. Now my gut tells me he will likely be suspended for several games but not the entire season.

The Bledsoe deal also smells but I'm not sure if the NCAA will actually be able to "catch" Cal. The guy is a used car salesman but smart enough to know not to get directly involved and to just look the other way.

Kentucky will likely be hearing from the NCAA in a few years for "lack of institutional control" will get the hammer layed down on them (and deservedly so) but unfortunately Cal will be long gone to some other program and/or the NBA.

IMHO, penalties need to go to both the program and the coach. I.E. a sanction that says any school that hires a Pete Carroll/Calipari will also be placed on probation for the same # of years as the school they just left.

roywhite
09-17-2010, 09:13 PM
Wiederer: Don't be fooled; Calipari is bad for college basketball (http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/09/16/1031144?sac=Sports)

Pretty good article by Wiederer in Fayetteville Observer.


If basketball talent and coaching prowess were the only things we took into account, it would not be a stretch to start penciling UK into the Final Fours in Houston in 2011 or New Orleans in 2012 or even Atlanta in 2013, assuming Coach Cal's recruiting wizardry continues.

But this is about way more than basketball. And once again, a program Calipari is leading has magnetized a powerful magnifying glass. Usually when this happens, that magnifying glass brings to light a whole lot of grime.

The really entertaining part is the reader comments section, where Big Blue Nation tries their best to respond to these allegations.

4decadedukie
09-18-2010, 07:28 AM
An excellent, perceptive Wiederer observations. It only surprises me that so many Wildcats somehow believed that Cal's well documented methods, ethics and results would magically disappear in Kentucky.

Faison1
09-18-2010, 07:46 AM
Wiederer: Don't be fooled; Calipari is bad for college basketball (http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/09/16/1031144?sac=Sports)

Pretty good article by Wiederer in Fayetteville Observer.



The really entertaining part is the reader comments section, where Big Blue Nation tries their best to respond to these allegations.

Holy Smokes! That's a LOT of Kentucky fans that responded to his article! Do they not have newspapers in the Bluegrass State? Surely, UK fans have heard all of these allegations....because the way they responded makes me think Dan's article was the first they've read about the Bledsoe stuff.

As much as I can't stand UNC fans, UK fans are worse. Can you imagine living in Kentucky and having to listen to them all the time?

CLW
09-18-2010, 09:54 AM
Holy Smokes! That's a LOT of Kentucky fans that responded to his article! Do they not have newspapers in the Bluegrass State? Surely, UK fans have heard all of these allegations....because the way they responded makes me think Dan's article was the first they've read about the Bledsoe stuff.

As much as I can't stand UNC fans, UK fans are worse. Can you imagine living in Kentucky and having to listen to them all the time?

Being born and raised in Kentucky , I can tell you that their fan base is rabid. The fan base (Big Blue Nation) has become almost like a dirty politician's "truth squad". There could be video of Coach Cal handing that Davis kid a bag of cash and they would scream "entrapment" and the like.

You think that the fan base and University would have learned their lesson after the Sutton era. However, clearly its a win at any cost attitude.

Of course when the hammer finally does come down (and Cal leaves for greener pastures), they will all claim that they always hated Coach Cal.

cspan37421
09-18-2010, 09:56 AM
IANAL, but it would be interesting to know if, when the NCAA clears someone to play college sports (ha, first time wrote "pay"!), is that clearing qualified in any manner. Do they reserve the right to revoke it ex post facto if they later find evidence that the player's academics on which the clearing had been based were fraudulent, or that the player failed to disclose gifts received from agents, etc. Do they reserve the right to revoke it? Does revocation depend on whether the kid's eligibility was jeopardized before or after being cleared?

I think some fans find it quite frustrating that the NCAA clears someone, then after the fact, they weren't eligible. Bilas has spoken (more eloquently) to this.

I don't have much of a problem declaring someone ineligible after the fact if the NCAA had the wool pulled over its eyes by the player. I don't mind the wins being vacated if the violations occurred while the kid was in college*, or, if they occurred in high school, that the college knew or should have known.

If the violations occurred before the kid entered a college program, and the college didn't know and had no reason to suspect the player had jeopardized their eligibility (e.g., it wasn't a case of massive jump in grades or scores, or if the player shows up in a Bentley), then I view vacating wins as excessive. I'm not sure what the punishment should be, if any, but it probably should just be with the player. I think we all know such a case that fits this bill.

* - I can still see an exception if the player accepted gifts clearly outside the team and school system - if it didn't involve a booster, if the team had no way of knowing, no reason to suspect, etc., why punish the rest of the team for something out of their control?

4decadedukie
09-18-2010, 10:29 AM
If the violations occurred before the kid entered a college program, and the college didn't know and had no reason to suspect the player had jeopardized their eligibility (e.g., it wasn't a case of massive jump in grades or scores, or if the player shows up in a Bentley), then I view vacating wins as excessive.

I understand your point; however, with respect, it seems to me that relevant question is only whether the athlete was a legitimate intercollegiate player (when the full facts are uncovered). If he was not, regardless of the extent of his duplicity or the university's due diligence, I believe wins must be vacated. Beyond that, if the university knew -- or if it should have known and therefore was tacitly complicit in the fraud -- additional sanctions are likely required. To do other than that would be tempt a college to be "willfully unaware" and thus always to avoid penalties by alleging "ignorant innocence." IMHO, this is precisely what the Kentucky faithful now claim re Calipari, Bledsoe, Davis, Kanter, and so forth.

JasonEvans
09-20-2010, 09:24 AM
Jerry Tipton at the Lexington Herald-Leader writes a somewhat depressing column (http://www.kentucky.com/2010/09/19/1440675/uk-notebook-cm-newton-defends.html) where he talks about CM Newton's reaction to the flurry of "stuff" to happen at Kentucky recently. Newton was hired as AD at Kentucky in the wake of earlier scandals and said then that Kentucky did not need to operate in a gray area. He was the guy who hired the always honest (but never flashy) Tubby Smith as head coach. So, what does Newton say today?


"Everybody operates in the gray area now."

When your voice of reason, the moral compass for the athletic department essentially says it is OK to cheat because everyone is doing it, you have truly lost your way.

I want to go on record now-- if Duke has some disappointing seasons and it is suggested that the way to get back on top is to compromise our standards and delve into the "gray areas" of recruiting and academic fraud, I will stand up loudly and say NO!!! Not here!

I think I will not be alone in that.

I also found it amusing in Tipton's article that he brings up something I was talking about earlier in this thread, the impact of wins being vacated if Bledsoe is ruled ineligible. But, Tipton mentions something different than the all-time wins race. He recall the big hoopla last year when UK was the first school to reach 2000 total wins and remarks that voiding the 35 Bledsoe wins would take Kentucky under the 2000 win mark.


Already a joke circulating has this coming season's slogan being UK2K2.

--Jason "supposedly, the Birmingham School Board will issue their report on Bledsoe this week-- should be interesting" Evans

JasonEvans
09-20-2010, 10:55 AM
Interesting comment from Gary Parish (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13965268/five-for-friday-coaching-headaches-from-coast-to-coast) on this stuff...


I think it's insane that the NCAA can clear a student-athlete, tell a school he's OK to play, then come back a year later when issues are uncovered and hold the school responsible for playing the student-athlete unless it's also uncovered that the school was somehow involved in academic fraud. It's the equivalent of a cop telling you it's OK to drive 70, then watching you drive 70, then coming back and saying he just found out the speed limit is actually 60 so he's going to have to give you a ticket. Like I said, totally insane.

What do ya'll think about this notion? If it is shown that UK had nothing to do with and knew nothing about Bledsoe's grades being fudged by folks at his high school, should that absolve UK of any penalty in the matter? Hmmmm.

The great pity is that the NCAA is now powerless to punish Beldsoe because he has moved on to the pros. I am willing to bet that he knew his grades had been changed (or completely made-up as the Algebra III before Algebra II may indicate). If he was still in school, this would be easy-- make him ineligible for the coming season. It is the fact that he has left that makes it difficult.

That said, I still think that Kentucky should have looked at that transcript and said, "wait a second-- something does not make sense here!" Calipari and his staff should have known they were putting their season in peril even though Bledsoe had been cleared by the Clearinghouse. There is no question that Kentucky spent more time studying his transcript and grades than the Clearinghouse did. Maybe that does argue for Kentucky being penalized.

--Jason "Anyone disagree?" Evans

OldPhiKap
09-20-2010, 11:30 AM
Interesting comment from Gary Parish (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13965268/five-for-friday-coaching-headaches-from-coast-to-coast) on this stuff...



What do ya'll think about this notion? If it is shown that UK had nothing to do with and knew nothing about Bledsoe's grades being fudged by folks at his high school, should that absolve UK of any penalty in the matter? Hmmmm.

The great pity is that the NCAA is now powerless to punish Beldsoe because he has moved on to the pros. I am willing to bet that he knew his grades had been changed (or completely made-up as the Algebra III before Algebra II may indicate). If he was still in school, this would be easy-- make him ineligible for the coming season. It is the fact that he has left that makes it difficult.

That said, I still think that Kentucky should have looked at that transcript and said, "wait a second-- something does not make sense here!" Calipari and his staff should have known they were putting their season in peril even though Bledsoe had been cleared by the Clearinghouse. There is no question that Kentucky spent more time studying his transcript and grades than the Clearinghouse did. Maybe that does argue for Kentucky being penalized.

--Jason "Anyone disagree?" Evans

It's hard to say. William Avery's grades were much better when he left Augusta public schools and went to Oak Hill. Was it a change in location that made the difference? Or a year's maturity? Or something else?

Who knows.

This is the problem with hiring Cal though -- the microscope will hover over UK until he is gone. Just like Tark at Vegas.

sagegrouse
09-20-2010, 12:26 PM
That said, I still think that Kentucky should have looked at that transcript and said, "wait a second-- something does not make sense here!" Calipari and his staff should have known they were putting their season in peril even though Bledsoe had been cleared by the Clearinghouse. There is no question that Kentucky spent more time studying his transcript and grades than the Clearinghouse did. Maybe that does argue for Kentucky being penalized.

--Jason "Anyone disagree?" Evans

Plausible deniability is, I suppose, when a person says he didn't know about something that was wrong -- e.g. the CEO of a large company re fradulent behavior dow in the organization or, somewhat famously, when 86 YO Admiral Hyman Rickover told a criminal court that he could not remember alleged shady events that occurred years before.

How the heck can a school with the resources of Kentucky claim it couldn't see a problem with something as fishy as Bledsoe's transcript? First is the "Lazarus effect" that occurred when his grades improved amazingly. Then all the nonsense with his math courses. Kentucky only recruits and signs five players a year, and it has a large admission staff and athletic compliance staff. The NCAA should just say, "No way, UK," to this kind of behavior.

Plausible deniability? Hunh! This is "implausible deniability."

sagegrosue

Turtleboy
09-20-2010, 12:40 PM
Interesting comment from Gary Parish (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13965268/five-for-friday-coaching-headaches-from-coast-to-coast) on this stuff...



What do ya'll think about this notion? If it is shown that UK had nothing to do with and knew nothing about Bledsoe's grades being fudged by folks at his high school, should that absolve UK of any penalty in the matter? Hmmmm.I am no defender of the NCAA or Kentucky, but if they cleared him they cleared him. They are the arbiters of who is or isn't eligible. If they are understaffed they need to hire more investigators. Something tells me they have the money.

So what if UK spent more time studying the transcript? The NCAA is the final authority. It's not a question of who spent the most time.

roywhite
09-20-2010, 12:48 PM
Plausible deniability is, I suppose, when a person says he didn't know about something that was wrong -- e.g. the CEO of a large company re fradulent behavior dow in the organization or, somewhat famously, when 86 YO Admiral Hyman Rickover told a criminal court that he could not remember alleged shady events that occurred years before.

How the heck can a school with the resources of Kentucky claim it couldn't see a problem with something as fishy as Bledsoe's transcript? First is the "Lazarus effect" that occurred when his grades improved amazingly. Then all the nonsense with his math courses. Kentucky only recruits and signs five players a year, and it has a large admission staff and athletic compliance staff. The NCAA should just say, "No way, UK," to this kind of behavior.

Plausible deniability? Hunh! This is "implausible deniability."

sagegrosue

Discussion of Calipari's "plausible deniability" reminds me of the testimony of Michael Corleone. Another guy who believed in having "buffers".

Classic clip from the movie (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthegodfather2corleonetestimony.html)

Kedsy
09-20-2010, 12:51 PM
Interesting comment from Gary Parish (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13965268/five-for-friday-coaching-headaches-from-coast-to-coast) on this stuff...

What do ya'll think about this notion? If it is shown that UK had nothing to do with and knew nothing about Bledsoe's grades being fudged by folks at his high school, should that absolve UK of any penalty in the matter? Hmmmm.

The great pity is that the NCAA is now powerless to punish Beldsoe because he has moved on to the pros. I am willing to bet that he knew his grades had been changed (or completely made-up as the Algebra III before Algebra II may indicate). If he was still in school, this would be easy-- make him ineligible for the coming season. It is the fact that he has left that makes it difficult.

That said, I still think that Kentucky should have looked at that transcript and said, "wait a second-- something does not make sense here!" Calipari and his staff should have known they were putting their season in peril even though Bledsoe had been cleared by the Clearinghouse. There is no question that Kentucky spent more time studying his transcript and grades than the Clearinghouse did. Maybe that does argue for Kentucky being penalized.

--Jason "Anyone disagree?" Evans

From a legal standpoint, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you know the speed limit is 60 and the cop says it's OK to do 70, but then you get a ticket, you have to pay the ticket. You could possibly argue entrapment, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I don't think Kentucky would have a good entrapment argument here.

Then there is the issue of negligence. If you do something improper, and you knew or should have known it was improper, then in a legal action you'll usually have to pay the consequences. I think that's the key here. If a bank makes an error in your favor and you know it (or should have known it) and then the bank realizes its error and asks for money back, does anyone think it's OK to say, "but I already spent it so I don't owe it to you"? You have to give it back and if you don't it's stealing. If it's proven you knew (or should have known) it wasn't yours and you spent it, you have a decent chance of facing criminal charges even if you pay it back later. In my opinion, the Kentucky situation is no different.

Now if they didn't know, and if they could not reasonably have known, then they should be cleared. I don't think that's the case here, but who knows what the NCAA will think?

OldPhiKap
09-20-2010, 01:08 PM
From a legal standpoint, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you know the speed limit is 60 and the cop says it's OK to do 70, but then you get a ticket, you have to pay the ticket. You could possibly argue entrapment, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I don't think Kentucky would have a good entrapment argument here.

Then there is the issue of negligence. If you do something improper, and you knew or should have known it was improper, then in a legal action you'll usually have to pay the consequences. I think that's the key here. If a bank makes an error in your favor and you know it (or should have known it) and then the bank realizes its error and asks for money back, does anyone think it's OK to say, "but I already spent it so I don't owe it to you"? You have to give it back and if you don't it's stealing. If it's proven you knew (or should have known) it wasn't yours and you spent it, you have a decent chance of facing criminal charges even if you pay it back later. In my opinion, the Kentucky situation is no different.

Now if they didn't know, and if they could not reasonably have known, then they should be cleared. I don't think that's the case here, but who knows what the NCAA will think?

You also have the issue of estoppel -- that if you rely on someone's word to your detriment, that person cannot come back later and hammer you for it. (Black's Law Dictionary, feel free to quote me on that). If the body which determines eligibility cleared him to play, that makes him an eligible player.

If Cal or KY knew there was something screwy, that would be one thing. But given that it's taken this long for anyone to even raise the issue, it's a little hard for me to slam Cal or KY for it. Especially since there is so much other low-hanging fruit.

Kedsy
09-20-2010, 01:35 PM
You also have the issue of estoppel -- that if you rely on someone's word to your detriment, that person cannot come back later and hammer you for it. (Black's Law Dictionary, feel free to quote me on that). If the body which determines eligibility cleared him to play, that makes him an eligible player.

If Cal or KY knew there was something screwy, that would be one thing. But given that it's taken this long for anyone to even raise the issue, it's a little hard for me to slam Cal or KY for it. Especially since there is so much other low-hanging fruit.

There's a good faith element in estoppel that would prevent Kentucky from asserting it if the university knew the player should have been ineligible. I'm not saying it's clear cut here, but if the university knew (or should have known) the NCAA's ruling was incorrect, I don't think it can rely on that ruling without risk if the NCAA later reverses itself.

roywhite
09-20-2010, 01:39 PM
You also have the issue of estoppel -- that if you rely on someone's word to your detriment, that person cannot come back later and hammer you for it. (Black's Law Dictionary, feel free to quote me on that). If the body which determines eligibility cleared him to play, that makes him an eligible player.

If Cal or KY knew there was something screwy, that would be one thing. But given that it's taken this long for anyone to even raise the issue, it's a little hard for me to slam Cal or KY for it. Especially since there is so much other low-hanging fruit.


Not to belabor this issue, but I believe talk and concerns about Bledsoe's eligibility and high school transcript have been around since his senior year in high school.

JasonEvans
09-20-2010, 02:20 PM
I am no defender of the NCAA or Kentucky, but if they cleared him they cleared him. They are the arbiters of who is or isn't eligible. If they are understaffed they need to hire more investigators. Something tells me they have the money.

So what if UK spent more time studying the transcript? The NCAA is the final authority. It's not a question of who spent the most time.

The NCAA, which is controlled by its member organizations, does not have a well-funded investigative division nor does the academic Clearinghouse have unlimited resources.

The way the NCAA functions, with regard to compliance, is to largely rely on member institutions to police themselves. There are more than 1200 members of the NCAA. With tens of thousands of athletes to examine every year, the burden of ensuring academic compliance cannot be solely on the Clearinghouse. It must fall more to the universities than to the NCAA police.

It is with that knowledge that the NCAA does not treat Clearinghouse acceptance as the final word on academic eligibility. Every school is well aware that it could be retroactively discovered that a player (even one given the stamp of approval by the Clearinghouse) was ineligible and that the school could suffer some kind of sanction for it.

In the case of Eric Bledsoe, it is now clear that anyone who carefully examined his transcript could see something was amiss. Algebra III before Algebra II... for a kid who struggled mightily in school and was certainly not a math genius?!?! How could that not raise alarm bells? And to get an A in that class? It is extremely suspicious. Who knows, perhaps this is the reason Duke and many other elite schools did not offer scholarships to Bledsoe.

It is possible that Kentucky did not look closely at the transcript. Maybe they just glanced at it and assumed it was correct. Certainly the vast majority of transcripts do not require extra scrutiny. Well, if that is the case then Kentucky will learn it needs to pay closer attention, to look extra hard.

Look, if this was merely a case of a grade being changed, I might feel there was nothing Kentucky could do about it and agree that the Wildcats were being unfairly punished (assuming they are punished at all for this). But the III before II and the suspicious A on the transcript take it to another level if you ask me.

--Jason "just one guy's opinion-- I am certain members of the Big Blue Nation will disagree ;) " Evans

OldPhiKap
09-20-2010, 02:20 PM
Not to belabor this issue, but I believe talk and concerns about Bledsoe's eligibility and high school transcript have been around since his senior year in high school.

I do not follow recruiting very closely, Roy, and will defer to you on that point. OPK

BD80
09-20-2010, 03:45 PM
Not to belabor this issue, but I believe talk and concerns about Bledsoe's eligibility and high school transcript have been around since his senior year in high school.

If I am a coach after a top 100 recruit, and the recruit is KNOWN to be ineligible after his junior year, I am going to pay attention to his courses and his grades.

This is NOT asking every school to fully vet every player it recruits. But Bledsoe was KNOWN to have serious academic issues. It is NOT asking too much for UK to have investigated his transcript and his courses. The BYU online course really stinks in m mind.

I would like to know the titles of the two Algebra courses, it could well be that they are more parallel courses that could be taken in either order. I still have trouble believing a kid with Bledsoe's academic indifference aced both classes.

This thing will all blow over when Bledsoe steps in to prove he turned things around academically by publishing his grades and attendance records from his two semesters at UK. I am certain he continued to perform at a high level and with the dedication he displayed in his senior year at high school. Just as I am certain that Cal would NEVER consider taking a student/athlete that would risk the sacred reputation of the University of Kentucky, even for the chance at a national championship.

just a lemma
09-20-2010, 03:51 PM
I do not follow recruiting very closely, Roy, and will defer to you on that point. OPK

There were concerns that Bledsoe would not make the grades needed to be eligible. The fact that he was a poor student was common knowledge.

I do not recall there being concerns about the legitimacy of his grades at the time.

As much as I believe that Cal is dirty, I do not think that we should be in such a hurry to punish him for the portions that have thus far been exposed. If he keeps up his presumed shadiness, he will be caught red-handed soon enough.

More importantly, I am shocked that the NCAA keeps on approving ineligible athletes to play for Cal. Shouldn't the eligibility of Cal's recruits be under extra NCAA scrutiny? As much as I like the idea of Cal being caught and banished forever, wouldn't it be much better to prevent his transgressions in the first place? The seniors on the teams whose seasons Cal ended with ineligible recruits will never get to re-play the NCAA tournament.

Somewhere in the Talmud a rabbi recommends that you should always close the door to your home when you leave. The logic is that if you leave the door wide ajar for all to see, then you are creating temptations for people who are susceptible. That is, your actions have caused another to sin in that case. At this point, I am more miffed at the NCAA for leaving the door wide open for Cal to work his shady magic.

Turtleboy
09-20-2010, 05:08 PM
The NCAA, which is controlled by its member organizations, does not have a well-funded investigative division nor does the academic Clearinghouse have unlimited resources.Who does?




It is with that knowledge that the NCAA does not treat Clearinghouse acceptance as the final word on academic eligibility. Every school is well aware that it could be retroactively discovered that a player (even one given the stamp of approval by the Clearinghouse) was ineligible and that the school could suffer some kind of sanction for it. You've fought my ignorance on that one. I did not know that.


In the case of Eric Bledsoe, it is now clear that anyone who carefully examined his transcript could see something was amiss. Algebra III before Algebra II... for a kid who struggled mightily in school and was certainly not a math genius?!?! How could that not raise alarm bells? And to get an A in that class? It is extremely suspicious. Who knows, perhaps this is the reason Duke and many other elite schools did not offer scholarships to Bledsoe.

It is possible that Kentucky did not look closely at the transcript. Maybe they just glanced at it and assumed it was correct. Certainly the vast majority of transcripts do not require extra scrutiny. Well, if that is the case then Kentucky will learn it needs to pay closer attention, to look extra hard.I agree that the whole thing stinks to high heaven. I just didn't know that a pass from the clearinghouse was conditional.


Look, if this was merely a case of a grade being changed, I might feel there was nothing Kentucky could do about it and agree that the Wildcats were being unfairly punished (assuming they are punished at all for this). But the III before II and the suspicious A on the transcript take it to another level if you ask me.Absolutely.

4decadedukie
09-20-2010, 05:14 PM
There is also the important question of a PATTERN of questionable recruitments and other abuses.

The critical, underlying problem with Kentucky and Calipari is not any single dubious recruitment or practice. Rather, it is an ever lengthening series of problematic incidents (at several universities, not just Kentucky), which leads to the conclusion that UK/Calipari is “willfully uninformed” and then attempting to use their alleged ignorance to claim innocence. The essential fact is complicity with ethical and/or with legal/regulatory breaches (imposed by statute or by the NCAA) need not include explicit actions; an atmosphere of non-compliance can also be created through intentional unawareness alone.

Jderf
09-20-2010, 05:31 PM
There is also the important question of a PATTERN of questionable recruitments and other abuses.

The critical, underlying problem with Kentucky and Calipari is not any single dubious recruitment or practice. Rather, it is an ever lengthening series of problematic incidents (at several universities, not just Kentucky), which leads to the conclusion that UK/Calipari is “willfully uninformed” and then attempting to use their alleged ignorance to claim innocence. The essential fact is complicity with ethical and/or with legal/regulatory breaches (imposed by statute or by the NCAA) need not include explicit actions; an atmosphere of non-compliance can also be created through intentional unawareness alone.

I was wondering about this earlier. Is there any dividing line (or litmus test or threshold) that a university must cross in order to be smacked with the "lack of institutional control" violation? When does a university (or coach) stop being the victim of players' poor decisions and start being responsible for looking the other way too often? Where do Kentucky and Calipari stand on this spectrum? I assume there has to be more to it than just looking guilty one too many times.

JasonEvans
09-20-2010, 10:53 PM
I was wondering about this earlier. Is there any dividing line (or litmus test or threshold) that a university must cross in order to be smacked with the "lack of institutional control" violation? When does a university (or coach) stop being the victim of players' poor decisions and start being responsible for looking the other way too often? Where do Kentucky and Calipari stand on this spectrum? I assume there has to be more to it than just looking guilty one too many times.

The standards for "Lack of Institutional Control" are quite high as it is probably the most serious infraction a university can incur. If you want to know more about it, here is a 6-page document (http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/instctl.pdf)from the Pac 10 that talks about it extensively.

The document makes it clear that the path to LOIC is that your compliance officials are not doing their job and are probably willfully looking the other direction. It states the ways to fall prey to LOIC often involve--


A person with compliance responsibilities fails to establish a proper system for
compliance or fails to monitor the operations of a compliance system
appropriately.

A person with compliance responsibilities does not take steps to alter the
system of compliance when there are indications the system is not working.

The institution fails to make clear, by its words and its actions, that those
personnel who willfully violate NCAA rules, or who are grossly negligent in
applying those rules, will be disciplined and made subject to discharge.

A head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within
the program the coach supervises or fails to monitor the activities of assistant
coaches regarding compliance.

A director of athletics or any other individual with compliance responsibilities
fails to investigate or direct an investigation of a possible significant violation of
NCAA rules or fails to report a violation properly.

The last item there is the thing I was talking about earlier in the thread regarding the responsibility of schools to police themselves. That is a really big deal to the NCAA. If you cheat and your compliance folks find out about it but do nothing, you are in biiig trouble.

The item about the head coach failing to maintain an atmosphere of compliance could come into play with Calipari if he is repeatedly found guilty of breaking various rules. So far, I think he is far from that level of danger because he has strong deniability on both the stuff at Memphis as well as Kentucky.

--Jason "I still just cannot believe how much the Kentucky folks defend Cal" Evans

JStuart
09-21-2010, 06:50 AM
The standards for "Lack of Institutional Control" are quite high as it is probably the most serious infraction a university can incur. If you want to know more about it, here is a 6-page document (http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/instctl.pdf)from the Pac 10 that talks about it extensively.

The document makes it clear that the path to LOIC is that your compliance officials are not doing their job and are probably willfully looking the other direction. It states the ways to fall prey to LOIC often involve--

The last item there is the thing I was talking about earlier in the thread regarding the responsibility of schools to police themselves. That is a really big deal to the NCAA. If you cheat and your compliance folks find out about it but do nothing, you are in biiig trouble.

The item about the head coach failing to maintain an atmosphere of compliance could come into play .....



Maybe it deserves its own thread, but how does this affect UNC in your -humble as always- opinion, Jason? Inquiring minds want to know!
JStuart

JasonEvans
09-21-2010, 08:44 AM
Maybe it deserves its own thread, but how does this affect UNC in your -humble as always- opinion, Jason? Inquiring minds want to know!
JStuart

I have not heard anything that leads me to believe that UNC's compliance officers, head coaches, or AD have turned a blind eye to the problems they have had. In fact, Carolina appears to have been very proactive about dealing with this stuff.

Lets take this to the worst possible place for Carolina and say that Butch Davis knew about the cheating and even encouraged it. Even that is probably not enough for LOIC unless it was shown that other senior members of the Athletic Department also knew about it and condoned it.

--Jason "I am only an amateur at this stuff, so other opinions are welcome and may prove to be more accurate" Evans

ArnieMc
09-21-2010, 10:38 AM
This is NOT asking every school to fully vet every player it recruits.Why not? Scholarships are worth several bucks. Vacated seasons are probably worth a bunch of bucks. Why not spend a few extra bucks to make sure that the scholarship goes to a worthy student-athlete?

Jderf
09-21-2010, 11:10 AM
I understand your point; however, with respect, it seems to me that relevant question is only whether the athlete was a legitimate intercollegiate player (when the full facts are uncovered). If he was not, regardless of the extent of his duplicity or the university's due diligence, I believe wins must be vacated.

Just curious, but would you argue that Duke's Maggette season should be vacated, since he was retroactively declared ineligible when he played for us (even though Duke was not implicated)? Or do you see a difference in the situations?

uh_no
09-21-2010, 11:15 AM
Just curious, but would you argue that Duke's Maggette season should be vacated, since he was retroactively declared ineligible when he played for us (even though Duke was not implicated)? Or do you see a difference in the situations?

you've opened a can of worms on this one.....

sagegrouse
09-21-2010, 11:20 AM
Just curious, but would you argue that Duke's Maggette season should be vacated, since he was retroactively declared ineligible when he played for us (even though Duke was not implicated)? Or do you see a difference in the situations?

OK --I'll rise to the, bait. This seems like the thousandth time that this question has been raised on DBR, some by well-intentioned Duke fans and some by persons of unknown motivation. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

a. Maggette accepted a few bucks beyond actual expenses while on an AAU team when he was about 16. The magnitude of the violation, had it been revealed when he showed up at Duke, might have merited a suspension for a couple of games.

b. After Maggette had left Duke for the NBA, Duke learned of the circumstances and brought them to the attention of the NCAA.

c. The NCAA investigated and absolved Duke of any wrong-doing.

d. Maggette was never declared ineligible.


Can anyone else add to or correct this record?

sagegrouse

Jderf
09-21-2010, 11:45 AM
OK --I'll rise to the, bait. This seems like the thousandth time that this question has been raised on DBR, some by well-intentioned Duke fans and some by persons of unknown motivation. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

a. Maggette accepted a few bucks beyond actual expenses while on an AAU team when he was about 16. The magnitude of the violation, had it been revealed when he showed up at Duke, might have merited a suspension for a couple of games.

b. After Maggette had left Duke for the NBA, Duke learned of the circumstances and brought them to the attention of the NCAA.

c. The NCAA investigated and absolved Duke of any wrong-doing.

d. Maggette was never declared ineligible.


Can anyone else add to or correct this record?

sagegrouse

Benefit of the doubt appreciated. Was he never declared ineligible? Wasn't aware of that detail. And obviously taking cash is different from academic fraud, so the situations don't quite draw a parallel anyway. Should probably have just let the thought drop.

4decadedukie
09-21-2010, 02:10 PM
Just curious, but would you argue that Duke's Maggette season should be vacated, since he was retroactively declared ineligible when he played for us (even though Duke was not implicated)? Or do you see a difference in the situations?

Since you asked me, I will offer an opinion, with the strong caveat that I do NOT know all of the germane facts. IF -- and I believe this is untrue -- Maggette was in fact declared ineligible for the entire season, then I would suggest that vacating would be appropriate. However, it is my unlearned opinion that Corey was NOT declared illegible.

gumbomoop
09-21-2010, 04:52 PM
With tens of thousands of athletes to examine every year, the burden of ensuring academic compliance cannot be solely on the Clearinghouse. It must fall more to the universities than to the NCAA police.

It is with that knowledge that the NCAA does not treat Clearinghouse acceptance as the final word on academic eligibility. Every school is well aware that it could be retroactively discovered that a player (even one given the stamp of approval by the Clearinghouse) was ineligible and that the school could suffer some kind of sanction for it.

I have intermittently followed this thread, and a few days back posted a couple of times. I find this a fascinating case, difficult to know UK's culpability for sure, but real suspicious, enough to say that the circumstantial evidence points to bad faith on the part of several parties in Birmingham and Lexington. It seems bloody obvious.

Several other posters also seem to be able to parse the possibilities with admirable clarity; but, alas, to no clear consensus.

Here I focus on one of several of JasonEvans's posts, because he [again] seems to be onto something crucial here. [Allow me first to acknowledge Turtleboy's post #105, wherein Turtleboy also went carefully through JasonEvans's post #101.]

Acknowledging, too, JasonEvans's somewhat self-deflating signature in his post#110 - "I am only an amateur at this stuff, so other opinions are welcome and may prove to be more accurate" - I choose to ignore this signature, as it appears to cast a little doubt on Jason's more assured statements in his post #101, which is in the tag quote above. So, on to that tag quote, and particularly the emboldened passages.

IF [JasonEvans is correct that] (1) the compliance burden does not as a matter of (2) NCAA policy, (3) rest solely, and therefore (4) not in fact ultimately, on the Clearinghouse, about which (5) every member institution is well aware, and thus (6) understands the policy-logic of both (7) retroactive discovery and (8) subsequent sanctions ..........

AND IF the NCAA's new investigation finds that academic fraud was committed .........

THEN is it or is it not possible for UK to escape sanctions of some (serious) sort?

CameronBornAndBred
09-21-2010, 05:10 PM
Regardless of the potential for the clearinghouse to be held accountable, the fact is that Bledsoe was an elite recruit that the school was paying attention to closer than many other athletes that were being recruited. If it was some track athlete that nobody was going to hear from again, I could see how he could slip by...but Bledsoe has been under someone's microscope for a few years before he even enrolled. For the Kentucky administration (and even more so the coaching staff) to NOT look closely at his transcript and vet him well is their own damn fault, and they should suffer for it. If anything, they knew the clearinghouse loophole would be there to fall back on, and took the chance that nobody would go back and ask questions.

roywhite
09-21-2010, 05:50 PM
Regardless of the potential for the clearinghouse to be held accountable, the fact is that Bledsoe was an elite recruit that the school was paying attention to closer than many other athletes that were being recruited. If it was some track athlete that nobody was going to hear from again, I could see how he could slip by...but Bledsoe has been under someone's microscope for a few years before he even enrolled. For the Kentucky administration (and even more so the coaching staff) to NOT look closely at his transcript and vet him well is their own damn fault, and they should suffer for it. If anything, they knew the clearinghouse loophole would be there to fall back on, and took the chance that nobody would go back and ask questions.

Or...they knew what the situation was, were involved in trying to get an acceptable transcript by whatever means, and tried to push things through.

That's just my speculation, but I find it as plausible as any other explanation.

OldPhiKap
09-21-2010, 06:11 PM
Bledsoe has been under someone's microscope for a few years before he even enrolled.

Doesn't that cut both ways, though? Couldn't an institution reasonably conclude that this kid had been through careful scrutiny, and if they said he was eligible -- so be it?

(Again, not wanting to be stuck defending Ky or Cal -- I just think there are easier and more direct targets than this)

Indoor66
09-21-2010, 06:24 PM
Doesn't that cut both ways, though? Couldn't an institution reasonably conclude that this kid had been through careful scrutiny, and if they said he was eligible -- so be it?

Except that ultimate responsibility falls on the school. Can they play dumb and say Bush did it?

roywhite
09-21-2010, 06:27 PM
Except that ultimate responsibility falls on the school. Can they play dumb and say Bush did it?

Southern Cal tried that, and it didn't work.

CameronBornAndBred
09-21-2010, 06:34 PM
Doesn't that cut both ways, though? Couldn't an institution reasonably conclude that this kid had been through careful scrutiny, and if they said he was eligible -- so be it?

(Again, not wanting to be stuck defending Ky or Cal -- I just think there are easier and more direct targets than this)
I don't think the NCAA clearinghouse would look at anything until they got the paperwork, it's not their job to go out and follow recruits as they come up through the recruiting process. To them, Bledsoe is a countless face in a crowd of many...but to the schools recruiting him he is a star that they will go out of their way to pay attention to. I have a hard time buying the thought that they didn't look at transcript closely. I mean hell, he is after all a student! Doesn't every student applicant get their grades / course load scrutinized? Somebody is sitting at a desk somewhere thinking "Sally didn't do as well as Jim in Spanish 2...so Sally goes to state and Jim comes to us."

BD80
09-21-2010, 06:48 PM
I don't think the NCAA clearinghouse would look at anything until they got the paperwork, it's not their job to go out and follow recruits as they come up through the recruiting process. To them, Bledsoe is a countless face in a crowd of many...but to the schools recruiting him he is a star that they will go out of their way to pay attention to. I have a hard time buying the thought that they didn't look at transcript closely. I mean hell, he is after all a student! Doesn't every student applicant get their grades / course load scrutinized? Somebody is sitting at a desk somewhere thinking "Sally didn't do as well as Jim in Spanish 2...so Sally goes to state and Jim comes to us."

But Sally's transcript shows she got an "A" in Spanish III!

And then she got an "A" in Spanish II!

Kedsy
09-21-2010, 07:10 PM
IF [JasonEvans is correct that] (1) the compliance burden does not as a matter of (2) NCAA policy, (3) rest solely, and therefore (4) not in fact ultimately, on the Clearinghouse, about which (5) every member institution is well aware, and thus (6) understands the policy-logic of both (7) retroactive discovery and (8) subsequent sanctions ..........

AND IF the NCAA's new investigation finds that academic fraud was committed .........

THEN is it or is it not possible for UK to escape sanctions of some (serious) sort?

Assuming all that stuff is true, it's hard to see the difference between this case and the Derrick Rose case at Memphis. If the NCAA declares him ineligible in retrospect, one would think the penalties would be similar.

OldPhiKap
09-21-2010, 09:18 PM
I see that I'm swimming upstream, in a river I don't wish to possess.

At some point, an institution has to be able to rely on the NCAA to either say a kid can play, or that he cannot. The NCAA makes a #$$% of a lot more off of college sports than the athletes do -- even at Kentucky.

I am more than happy to pile on Cal, and think there is plenty of ammo to do it. I just don't see this as a particularly strong issue. If it was so clear that this kid wasn't eligible, it would have been picked up by someone before he was already there and gone. I think there is some 20-20 hindsight being applied here.

Again, pile on by all means. But this post-hoc attack could happen to any school.

JasonEvans
09-21-2010, 11:02 PM
AND IF the NCAA's new investigation finds that academic fraud was committed .........

THEN is it or is it not possible for UK to escape sanctions of some (serious) sort?

I am no NCAA investigator, but I believe the precedent is fairly clear here. If the NCAA finds that Eric Bledsoe's high school record was forged or altered in some way to make him eligible, he would be declared retroactively ineligible for at least a portion of, if not the entire 2009-2010 season. As a result, Kentucky's wins in those games would be voided. There are numerous cases like this and the NCAA tends to act the same each time. Coach Cal knows about this intimately because this is exactly what happened to Memphis when Rose cheated on the SAT.

As for additional sanctions against Kentucky, I think that would be highly unlikely unless something about the investigation shows that--

1) Someone at Kentucky took part in the scheme to inflate Bledsoe's grades
or 2) Someone at Kentucky was aware of the scheme and did not report it

--Jason "this won't be the scandal that takes down Cal, of that I feel very confident" Evans

Deslok
09-21-2010, 11:41 PM
2 thoughts:
1) If its a simple matter of grade forging(or whatever you want to call it) at his high school, then Kentucky really bears no responsibility for the events that occurred. They may need to throw out the wins from last year as a result of using an ineligible player, but aside from that, I would expect no punishment for the school in any other way as a school can not be expected to be aware enough of a kid to know if his teachers/counselors/administrators are manufacturing grades for the student. And note, I say may need to throw out the wins, as it would actually be a fairly similar situation to Magette with us, and them not having any way of knowing at the time. And a sudden rise in grades is not an automatic red flag, as I know of many situations where students were bordering on the brink of ineligibility and suddenly they realize the work that they'd slacked off on needs to get done, and the grades rise correspondingly.
2) There is the Algebra 2/3 issue. If, in fact, that courses really cannot be taken by a nonexceptional(in the positive sense of the word, because it appears Bledsoe may have been exceptional in the other direction) student out of order, then this is something that should have raised flags by the UK compliance/admissions department. You then have something that an external observer can see is clearly not right - and questions should have been asked upon receiving that transcript. If no questions were asked, then UK failed to do due diligence in its processes, and they permitted an athlete who was ineligible to compete, when they should have been aware of his lack of grades. Then I think you are guaranteed that the season gets tossed out, and some minor other penalties are given to UK, but the much bigger PR damage, along with knowing that the NCAA is pretty much telling UK "That's the 3rd time for the coach you hired, and not the first by a long stretch on the school, behave or the hammer will fall"

gumbomoop
09-21-2010, 11:41 PM
Coach Cal knows about this intimately because this is exactly what happened to Memphiswhen Rose cheated on the SAT.

As for additional sanctions against Kentucky, I think that would be highly unlikely unless......

--Jason "this won't be the scandal that takes down Cal, of that I feel very confident" Evans

When I asked about/referred to "serious sanctions," I was too vague. The scenario you envision, and which is supported by several other posters, "ends" with roughly 35 wins "vacated." IMO, that is "serious," and while not yet scandalous enough to take Cal down, it's a major embarrassment, given his rep and predictions/warnings that UK would live to regret hiring him. So, I wasn't asking about anything "additional" beyond vacated wins.

If the situation exactly mirrors what happened to Memphis, then I can see [though the mind fairly boggles.....] that this still [!!] wouldn't "take down Cal" in the sense of getting him fired and/or banned for awhile from college coaching; but it strikes me that it would, at a minimum, "take him down" yet another big notch in terms of a widely-felt and publicly-expressed disgust at his - repeated - very shady behavior.

BD80
09-22-2010, 09:16 AM
...

--Jason "this won't be the scandal that takes down Cal, of that I feel very confident" Evans

I don't think Watergate would have been enough to take down Cal.

You know he has a bag packed, forwarding address cards half filled in and a listing prepared for his house. Wouldn't surprise me if he could be completely removed from Kentucky in the time it takes a blogger to type "Calipari."

I can see his assistants, and the UK compliance personel, and the UK athletic department all feling like the Three Stooges when they realize they volunteered because everyone else in line stepped backward. The NCAA investigators will show up and everyone will be saying: "Coach Cal? Well, he was just here a minute ago."

Cal still reminds me of "Professor" Harold Hill:


No, the fellow sells bands, Boys bands.
I don't know how he does it but he lives like a king and he dallies
and he gathers and he plucks and shines and when the man dances, ...
The piper pays him! Yes sir ,yes
sir,yes sir, yes sir, when the man dances, ...
The piper pays him!

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2769/JWJTD00Z.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/luke_winn/05/28/memphis/calipari-allegations.jpg

Where will Cal land next? "Wherever the people are as green as the money... "

PADukeMom
09-22-2010, 09:48 AM
I see that I'm swimming upstream, in a river I don't wish to possess.

At some point, an institution has to be able to rely on the NCAA to either say a kid can play, or that he cannot. The NCAA makes a #$$% of a lot more off of college sports than the athletes do -- even at Kentucky.

Again, pile on by all means. But this post-hoc attack could happen to any school.

Not going to bash you at all but I do disagree. It is the coach's & school's responsibility for know everything about a kid they are recruiting.
To hold the NCAA responsible is off target a bit. Do you realize how many student atheletes at all levels of the NCAA in all sports pass through the NCAA's review process? It would be a Herculean task to get each individual player cleared in time for their seasons to start. The NCAA is trusting, at times too trusting, of schools to vet their recruits.
I have also just realized I can not spell. How many more hours until 5 on Friday afternoon????

gumbomoop
09-22-2010, 10:13 AM
The possibility does exist that UK could escape sanctions of some sort. However, those possibilities in no way affect the possibilities of escaping sanctions of another sort. :confused:

You're right. And I appreciate the humor with which you have pointed out my needlessly complex phrasing. I gotta write real carefully. I should have written, more straightforwardly, "If X, and if Y, then is it possible for UK to escape all serious sanctions?"

My guess is that the answer may be, "Well, you wouldn't think so, but since it's the NCAA, anything's possible."

4decadedukie
09-22-2010, 11:47 AM
Not going to bash you at all but I do disagree. It is the coach's & school's responsibility for know everything about a kid they are recruiting.
To hold the NCAA responsible is off target a bit.

I agree; while the NCAA may "certify," the individual university’s admissions and compliance officials are principally responsible, since – in the final eventually – the institution, not the NCAA, is accountable for adherence to policies and regulations (its own, its conference’s, the NCAA’s, and so forth).

JasonEvans
09-24-2010, 10:26 AM
Major news on the Bledsoe situation will be released at 4pm today (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/birmingham_calls_friday_school.html). The Birmingham School Board will issue their report then.

-Jason

Jderf
09-24-2010, 10:47 AM
Not going to bash you at all but I do disagree. It is the coach's & school's responsibility for know everything about a kid they are recruiting.
To hold the NCAA responsible is off target a bit. Do you realize how many student atheletes at all levels of the NCAA in all sports pass through the NCAA's review process? It would be a Herculean task to get each individual player cleared in time for their seasons to start. The NCAA is trusting, at times too trusting, of schools to vet their recruits.
I have also just realized I can not spell. How many more hours until 5 on Friday afternoon????

Gotta agree with DukeMom on this one. Wasn't Duke in the hunt for Bledsoe last year back when "we had no true point guard and our season was doomed?" Duke had every reason to go after him hard. We "needed" him a lot more than Kentucky did, since they already got Wall. (I know this turned out to be false thanks to some kid from Illinois... I forget his name.) Yet we still backed off from him for some reason.

Now I know that this inference is a bit of a jump, but I can't help but speculate that the academic questions might have had something to do with it. Actually, I think a lot of people at the time were saying it was an academic issue, but can't remember if it was an article or just rumors on the board. But if Duke had a problem with it, why didn't Kentucky?

COYS
09-24-2010, 11:09 AM
Gotta agree with DukeMom on this one. Wasn't Duke in the hunt for Bledsoe last year back when "we had no true point guard and our season was doomed?" Duke had every reason to go after him hard. We "needed" him a lot more than Kentucky did, since they already got Wall. (I know this turned out to be false thanks to some kid from Illinois... I forget his name.) Yet we still backed off from him for some reason.

Now I know that this inference is a bit of a jump, but I can't help but speculate that the academic questions might have had something to do with it. Actually, I think a lot of people at the time were saying it was an academic issue, but can't remember if it was an article or just rumors on the board. But if Duke had a problem with it, why didn't Kentucky?

If I'm not mistaken, there was no hard evidence (articles, etc.) that academic reasons stood behind Duke's refusal to offer Bledsoe a scholarship. Coach K's policy has been to offer kids scholarships only after the admissions department has had a chance to review the kids' transcripts, test scores, etc. and is confident that the student will be admitted if he commits to Duke. Many credible posters on the board hinted that the fact that K never offered a scholarship was likely linked to Bledsoe's academic record.

Class of '94
09-24-2010, 11:48 AM
Here is a link to an espn article about Cal and his belief that Enes Kanter will play for Kentucky at some point this year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5608992

It appears that the basis of of his belief is in the fact that Enes supposedly didn't sign any contract; however, if it was found that Enes was paid 100K for salary and expenses, it shouldn't matter if he didn't sign a contract; and IMO he should be considered a paid professional player.

Jderf
09-24-2010, 12:01 PM
Here is a link to an espn article about Cal and his belief that Enes Kanter will play for Kentucky at some point this year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5608992

It appears that the basis of of his belief is in the fact that Enes supposedly didn't sign any contract; however, if it was found that Enes was paid 100K for salary and expenses, it shouldn't matter if he didn't sign a contract; and IMO he should be considered a paid professional player.

Interesting article. One curious quote:

"Obviously, one side wants him back," Calipari said. "There's four million reasons they want him back."

Well, actually, both sides want him back. Calipari makes the rhetorical move of pointing out that the Turkish club has an interest in keeping Kanter in Europe (and that therefore everything they say is suspect!) without pointing out the obvious: that he has just as much of an interest in keeping him here. Hopefully, though, the receipts and records will settle the issue and not hearsay.

NSDukeFan
09-24-2010, 01:34 PM
Interesting article. One curious quote:

"Obviously, one side wants him back," Calipari said. "There's four million reasons they want him back."

Well, actually, both sides want him back. Calipari makes the rhetorical move of pointing out that the Turkish club has an interest in keeping Kanter in Europe (and that therefore everything they say is suspect!) without pointing out the obvious: that he has just as much of an interest in keeping him here. Hopefully, though, the receipts and records will settle the issue and not hearsay.

I wonder how many reasons there are for Cal wanting him to stay.

BD80
09-24-2010, 03:58 PM
Interesting article. One curious quote:

"Obviously, one side wants him back," Calipari said. "There's four million reasons they want him back."

...

Well, Kanter isn't going to be paying the Turkish club to play is he? The Turkish club wants the OPPORTUNITY to pay Kanter $4 million to play.

This begs the question, since there is no "amateur" status in Europe (you either get paid or you don't), what has changed between last year and this year with respect to the relationship between Kanter and the Turkish club? How do they have any rights or expectations with respect to Kanter unless there was a contract? Isn't the act of agreeing to a contract enough to terminate one's amateur status in the eyes of the NCAA? How does the Turkish club come up with a sum certain of $4 million?

Cal's comment makes be more certain there was something between the Turkish club and Kanter.

JasonEvans
09-24-2010, 04:02 PM
Well, Kanter isn't going to be paying the Turkish club to play is he? The Turkish club wants the OPPORTUNITY to pay Kanter $4 million to play.


I think you misunderstand. I believe the Turkish team would get a $4 million transfer fee if Kanter signs with another team in Europe. It is not that they want to pay him, they want him to play for someone else in a professional league, which would trigger a windfall for them.

At least I think that is how it works. It is possible that I am wrong.

--Jason "I am betting the NCAA takes a while to figure this one out" Evans

BD80
09-24-2010, 04:27 PM
I think you misunderstand. I believe the Turkish team would get a $4 million transfer fee if Kanter signs with another team in Europe. It is not that they want to pay him, they want him to play for someone else in a professional league, which would trigger a windfall for them.

At least I think that is how it works. It is possible that I am wrong.

--Jason "I am betting the NCAA takes a while to figure this one out" Evans

Can't Cal just have a booster pay the transfer fee?

grossbus
09-24-2010, 05:47 PM
Any word from Birmingham?

Duke of Nashville
09-24-2010, 05:54 PM
Any word from Birmingham?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2010-09-24-eric-bledsoe-grades_N.htm

"The board went into executive session about the report during a meeting Friday afternoon. It wasn't clear whether members would release the findings publicly since a board lawyer says the report includes information covered by privacy laws."

CLW
09-24-2010, 08:06 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2010-09-24-eric-bledsoe-grades_N.htm

"The board went into executive session about the report during a meeting Friday afternoon. It wasn't clear whether members would release the findings publicly since a board lawyer says the report includes information covered by privacy laws."

A little cash under the table goes a long way for "Extra Credit".

Jderf
09-24-2010, 08:27 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2010-09-24-eric-bledsoe-grades_N.htm

"The board went into executive session about the report during a meeting Friday afternoon. It wasn't clear whether members would release the findings publicly since a board lawyer says the report includes information covered by privacy laws."

"Superintendent Craig Witherspoon said a teacher claims Bledsoe completed makeup work to justify a higher grade in an algebra course during the 2008-2009 school year. The mark was switched from an "C" to an "A" after that.

Witherspoon said an investigation found no documentation to justify the improvement. But, he says, an investigation didn't prove that it was improper, either."

If this was the case, why didn't we find out immediately? Why did we have to wait until now? Why didn't Bledsoe just come out and say, "I did extra credit?"

4decadedukie
09-25-2010, 12:50 AM
Bledsoe’s fraudulent academic qualifications - the stink extends to the Birmingham Schools


I am attempting to synopsize significant elements of ESPN’s recent report re Eric Bledsoe’s high school academic qualification to play intercollegiate basketball at KU last season (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5612393).

Reported Facts:
- The Birmingham School Board hired a law firm to review Bledsoe's academic work; the firm submitted their report today.
- It indicated Bledsoe completed “makeup work” to justify a C being modified to an A in Algebra (III) – Note: it has been previously reported that without this grade change Bledsoe would not have been scholastically qualified by the NCAA.
- Investigators found no documentation to justify the upgrade.
- The report reveals the grade was altered without credible reasons.
- Further, the report states the instructor changed Bledsoe's grades "far more frequently than those of any other students in his class."

moonpie23
09-25-2010, 01:24 AM
and what? what does it mean? it looks like the whole thing is being stalled on the technicality of the teacher just saying, "i think he did enough to receive an A"...

so, what now? it looks over...

http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_4.gif

gumbomoop
09-25-2010, 01:26 AM
FYI - Further analysis of what ESPN's Eamonn Brennan characterizes as a "strange, profoundly weird" decision.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/15704/the-strange-ruling-on-eric-bledsoes-grades

Enjoy.

Well, no, that's not quite the apt word.

4decadedukie
09-25-2010, 06:40 AM
and what? what does it mean? it looks like the whole thing is being stalled on the technicality of the teacher just saying, "i think he did enough to receive an A"...

so, what now? it looks over...

http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_4.gif


May I respectfully suggest that it is doubtful that any single transgression is likely to cause Calipari to be instantaneously terminated by Kentucky (he is too clever and experienced in underhandedness -- which is not quite the same thing as true, insightful intelligence -- to be caught doing something so blatant or so illegal that he will be immediately fired). Rather, the unremitting series embarrassing narrow escapes (Bledsoe today, Kanter tomorrow . . . ) -- all of which have to make honest, perceptive, influential individuals increasing uneasy that their beloved commonwealth and university looks ever-worse -- may eventually seal is downfall. This could be somewhat like President Nixon’s impeachment and resignation; no single dubious act was the cause, but the growing magnitude of his obvious deceitfulness eventually compelled the American people (through the Congress) to demand his dismissal (admittedly, the gravity of the two greatly differ, but the principles may be similar).

Of course, should UK should win a National Championship (or even make a Final Four), this becomes much more difficult.

LSanders
09-25-2010, 06:42 AM
OK ... I no longer live in the Triangle, and frankly, keeping up with the UNC football mess has not been high on my priority list. But, if I understand the basics, UNC players (1) developed a "friendship" with one of the tutors, i.e., allowed her to hang out with them at some bar, and (2) got too much help on various papers. Do I have that right?

As a result, players have been suspended, the school/program is on shaky ground, and Butch Davis may be looking for a job.

Meanwhile ... in Good-'Ol-Boy-Ville, aka, Alabama, an esteemed law firm was hired to investigate whether Eric Bledsoe's extraordinarily unimpressive transcript had to be fraudulently altered to make him even bare-minimally eligible to meet the rigorous academic standards at the U of KY (Jelly).

Among the law firm's conclusions: (1) the grade was fraudulently change (a fact upon which everyone agrees), (2) the teacher involved could provide no credible evidence of sound reasoning for the change (again, basic agreement all around), and (3) the investigators discovered the teacher in question had a verifiable history of altering E. Bledsoe's grades (ditto).

BUT ... Because the investigative team failed to produce either a Polaroid of said teacher leaning over Bledsoe's transcript with a bottle of white-out in one hand and a wad of cash in the other - or, alternately - a photocopy from the time when the teacher Xeroxed her butt with "I changed ..." written on one cheek and "... Eric Bledsoe's grades" on the other, the school board decided it was nothing more than business-as-usual there in the "Heart of Dixie," right?

The icing on this urinal cake is that the NCAA is expected to turn a blind eye and merely rubber stamp this finding.

So, am I to conclude that UNC's basic mistake was in making players go to class and providing outside (albeit improper) help when needed instead of simply doing the KY-Jelly shuffle and waiting until the end so the F's could be changed to A's?

I hope other schools are taking notes on the proper way to commit academic fraud. Remember ... At the U of K [motto: "Ethics is just another we don't know how to spell"], they take pride in doing things right!

BTW ... Just when I thought I'd reached the bottom of the "well of disdain" where the Jellies were concerned, they managed to use the stench of celebration at the CatsPause, et al, to add a few more feet to the hole.

"Well" done, Lads!!

Jderf
09-25-2010, 10:59 AM
FYI - Further analysis of what ESPN's Eamonn Brennan characterizes as a "strange, profoundly weird" decision.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/15704/the-strange-ruling-on-eric-bledsoes-grades

Enjoy.

Well, no, that's not quite the apt word.

Gary Parrish throws in his opinion, too. (http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/24803782/2) I particularly enjoyed reading the Kentucky reactions in the comments on the bottom. There are some classic cases of doublethink.

wehrmachtoberst
09-26-2010, 10:20 AM
This only goes to show what $$ will buy here in Ky. UK is so corrupt that it stinks. Let's see, you have no proof, no evidence hat he did any work to even merit a grade change. No proof at all. Seems to me this is a no brainer, that the NCAA should step in and nulify the entire season because they have not been offered PROOF that he did the work in order to get the grade change. Without that change he is ineligible and therefore would not be able to lay last yr, which would erase their wins....Hmmm Sounds so very simple to me...Looks like Cali-cheater is at it again.

I am SO GLAD that we have in Durham a coach who instructs the game with honor. A coach who is in a class all by himself. He takes a kid and develops them into stars. Takes a kid under his wing and molds him into a better player...I for one would think that every coach out there would want to mold themselves after Coach K. I know I would..

gumbomoop
09-26-2010, 12:52 PM
May I respectfully suggest that it is doubtful that any single transgression is likely to cause Calipari to be instantaneously terminated by Kentucky (he is too clever and experienced in underhandedness -- which is not quite the same thing as true, insightful intelligence -- to be caught doing something so blatant or so illegal that he will be immediately fired). Rather, the unremitting series embarrassing narrow escapes (Bledsoe today, Kanter tomorrow . . . ) -- all of which have to make honest, perceptive, influential individuals increasing uneasy that their beloved commonwealth and university looks ever-worse -- may eventually seal is downfall.

Of course, should UK should win a National Championship (or even make a Final Four), this becomes much more difficult.

Good points here. This latest episode passes neither the smell test nor the laugh test. To almost all observers now familiar with the details that have been published, it's clear that academic fraud occurred.

Almost all, that is, outside the Commonwealth of UK. It's unclear just now how influential those relatively few honest, perceptive folks within Kentucky can be in the near term. As is obvious to anyone who reads UK fans' commentary on their beloved Cats, to say they've imbibed the kool-aid is an understatement of considerable proportions. Many, many fans, including me [and you] are fanatics in support of their own, but UK fanatics are, in the main, utterly incapable of anything even in the cosmos of even-handed analysis of UK bball issues.

To them, these recent Kanter/Bledsoe/Terrence Jones controversies are proof not that Calipari cuts corners [to put it as mildly as possible], but that the rest of the bball world is out to get them. Their circle-the-wagons paranoia is a wonder to behold, as, I'm pretty confident, those DBR posters who live in Kentucky will attest [and in fact have so attested].

Since UK fans have lost the senses both of smell and humor, but have not lost the sense of entitlement [with which, fair's fair, Duke and UNC fans are afflicted], the thing likely to send Calipari packing is the failure of his fascinating experiment with one-done recruiting.

He's had to totally rebuild the team from last year's exciting group. Unlike a few posters here [the PG thread], I'm still very, very impressed with Knight. Sure, I think KI is even more exciting than Knight, but Knight is excellent, right now. The one time I saw Kanter - that US v. international all-star game - he was easily the best big. Miller and Liggins were much more fluid than last year, in UK's Canadian exhibitions [hardly a fair test, I am aware, given mediocre competition]. Jones and Lamb can play. Having said all that, I wouldn't expect them to get to the Four Four, much less win it all, but they have a real chance.

Calipari's best chance is keeping 1 or 2 of Knight/Kanter/Jones around for a second year, to team with his likely 3d-straight #1 class. As 4decadedukie notes, the possibility that loyal, but also honest, perceptive UK insiders could become influential enough to persuade the uber-fanatical fan base of the wisdom of ending the Calipari embarrassment, reduces to zero if his one-done approach produces a NC in the next 3 years.

For, the UK fan base currently practices a laughable "willing suspension of disbelief." We all do it, generally without being consumed by this practice. But Cat fans, and it seems the entire Comminwealth of Kentucky, having their/its entitlement impeded, is pretty much consumed by paranoia and fantasy.

RoyalBlue08
09-26-2010, 09:56 PM
Calipari's best chance is keeping 1 or 2 of Knight/Kanter/Jones around for a second year, to team with his likely 3d-straight #1 class. As 4decadedukie notes, the possibility that loyal, but also honest, perceptive UK insiders could become influential enough to persuade the uber-fanatical fan base of the wisdom of ending the Calipari embarrassment, reduces to zero if his one-done approach produces a NC in the next 3 years.



Well, if the NBA decides to lockout the players next season, I doubt any underclassmen will declare for the draft. If that happens, Kentucky will have a whole load of guys trying to stay eligible and waiting for the NBA.

Kedsy
09-26-2010, 10:28 PM
Well, if the NBA decides to lockout the players next season, I doubt any underclassmen will declare for the draft. If that happens, Kentucky will have a whole load of guys trying to stay eligible and waiting for the NBA.

Well, the NBA owners won't make that decision until well after the date that underclassmen have to pull out of the draft. Plus, this past year the Kentucky underclassmen reputedly stopped going to class fairly early on, which meant they couldn't have come back to school if they wanted to. I think the lockout/declaration for draft scenario will be a lot more complicated than you seem to be painting here.

Dr. Rosenrosen
09-26-2010, 11:51 PM
Well, the NBA owners won't make that decision until well after the date that underclassmen have to pull out of the draft. Plus, this past year the Kentucky underclassmen reputedly stopped going to class fairly early on, which meant they couldn't have come back to school if they wanted to. I think the lockout/declaration for draft scenario will be a lot more complicated than you seem to be painting here.

I hear there is a tutor available who could help the UK freshmen find their way to their sophomore year. ;)

BD80
09-27-2010, 08:19 AM
Well, if the NBA decides to lockout the players next season, I doubt any underclassmen will declare for the draft. If that happens, Kentucky will have a whole load of guys trying to stay eligible and waiting for the NBA.


I hear there is a tutor available who could help the UK freshmen find their way to their sophomore year. ;)

On a completely unrelated note: UK has just hired a retired high school Algebra teacher from Alabama, and has made him the highest paid "educator" in the history of the state. It appears that he will accompany the basketball team on all away game as part of the players' "extra credit." Full details to be released later today.

And, because I know many will insist on a link:

http://CourierTimes/CalipariFraudContinues (http://guineapigfun.com/specialvideo.html)

Indoor66
09-27-2010, 10:29 AM
On a completely unrelated note: UK has just hired a retired high school Algebra teacher from Alabama, and has made him the highest paid "educator" in the history of the state. It appears that he will accompany the basketball team on all away game as part of the players' "extra credit." Full details to be released later today.

And, because I know many will insist on a link:

http://CourierTimes/CalipariFraudContinues (http://guineapigfun.com/specialvideo.html)

Link relates to Rick Rolling - not Calipari Fraud

Kedsy
09-27-2010, 10:40 AM
Link relates to Rick Rolling - not Calipari Fraud

He knows. He chose not to use a smilie for diabolical reasons of his own.

JasonEvans
09-27-2010, 01:02 PM
Link relates to Rick Rolling - not Calipari Fraud

Dude, you are not supposed to reveal a RickRoll!!

--Jason "I could see that Rickroll coming" Evans

tommy
10-13-2010, 07:51 PM
Interesting update on the Kanter situation in the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/sports/ncaabasketball/13kentucky.html

The GM of the Turkish team states that Kanter's father was the one who "negotiated the terms of his son's salary."

Only thing that bugged me about the GM is his declining the NYT's request to see the bank statements and other docs he says he gave to the NCAA, on grounds that the club had promised the NCAA not to share them until the NCAA makes a decision as to Kanter's eligibility. If true, why make that promise? If not true, why not lay the documents on the table for the NYT?

And on a funny note, funny because it's may as well just be assumed at this point with Calipari's recruits, is the GM's quote that “Enes has a good basketball potential yet academically, he is not gifted as much.”

lotusland
01-19-2011, 10:18 AM
Cal unloaded on Jones just before the 2-minute mark in the loss to Bama. Better lip readers than I surmised that Cal called Terrence a "selfish MF". It was oddly timed b/c Jones led the comeback from 20 down to get UK back in the game. On the preceding play Jone passed to a shooter who missed and Liggins committed an over-the-back foul. I watched it a couple of times a could not tell what Jones did wrong. Cal walked on the court, got in his face and kept yelling at him during the ensuing free-throws. Jones just stood there looking a little shell shocked and PO'd.

After the game Cal tweeted:

@UKCoachCalipari Sometimes you don't realize in the moment that what you're saying is on national TV. The BBN deserves better and so do my players.

@UKCoachCalipari First of all I want to apologize for my language at the end of the game. I got caught up in the emotion of the game, but that's no excuse.

According to Cats Pause there is also an apology on Facebook. I don't do FB or Twitter so I'll have to take their word for it. You can watch the exchange if you have ESPN3 at just before the 2 minute mark.

should_be_working
01-19-2011, 10:56 AM
Cal unloaded on Jones just before the 2-minute mark in the loss to Bama. Better lip readers than I surmised that Cal called Terrence a "selfish MF". It was oddly timed b/c Jones led the comeback from 20 down to get UK back in the game. On the preceding play Jone passed to a shooter who missed and Liggins committed an over-the-back foul. I watched it a couple of times a could not tell what Jones did wrong. Cal walked on the court, got in his face and kept yelling at him during the ensuing free-throws. Jones just stood there looking a little shell shocked and PO'd.

After the game Cal tweeted:

@UKCoachCalipari Sometimes you don't realize in the moment that what you're saying is on national TV. The BBN deserves better and so do my players.

@UKCoachCalipari First of all I want to apologize for my language at the end of the game. I got caught up in the emotion of the game, but that's no excuse.

According to Cats Pause there is also an apology on Facebook. I don't do FB or Twitter so I'll have to take their word for it. You can watch the exchange if you have ESPN3 at just before the 2 minute mark.

I watched the end of the game and it was ugly for sure. Cal followed jones out on the the floor berating him with f-bombs the whole way. Calling your player (a freshman by the way) a selfish MFer is ridiculous, especially given how well he was playing in their comeback. I'm sure Jones' parents are thrilled with the tutelage their son is getting.

UrinalCake
01-19-2011, 11:02 AM
Yeah, Jones is a selfish MF, but Calipari bringing in one-and-done's every year so he can keep his multi-million dollar coaching job is something he must do for other people's benefit.

</sarcasm>

should_be_working
01-19-2011, 11:13 AM
For anyone wanting to see the exchange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0moTOcCAJI

El_Diablo
01-19-2011, 11:28 AM
Cal continued his criticism after the game:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=310180333


"We had no business being in the game the way we played," he said. "Then all of a sudden we have the ball in a one-point game and had a chance to win. I'm learning, who do I go to? We went to the wrong guys."

. . .

The [last] play was designed for Lamb to catch the ball, take a couple of dribbles and shoot from the neighborhood of NBA 3-point range.

"That was to go to Doron, so the other guy just said, 'I'm doing this myself' and kind of grabbed it," Calipari said. "But that was for Doron, and Doron was open."

The first bolded comment was directed at...Knight maybe? I don't know, he's the one who turned it over the play before (when it was a 1-point game).

But as for the second bolded comment, way to stay classy there and dump on your selfish player to the media rather than take care of it behind closed doors. Nevermind the fact that Jones didn't even "grab[] it" from Doron's path...Lamb was 10 feet away, was not open, and would not have caught that pass once it was thrown short. So blame the inbounder for throwing it to the wrong guy, not the guy who caught it. What should Jones do at that point? Let it bounce past him for a turnover? :confused:

PADukeMom
01-19-2011, 12:11 PM
I am not a fan of Cal by any means. I've stated my disdain for him many times on this board. I can't fault him too badly for things said in the heat of the game battle.
Did I just defend Cal?????

lotusland
01-19-2011, 12:48 PM
I am not a fan of Cal by any means. I've stated my disdain for him many times on this board. I can't fault him too badly for things said in the heat of the game battle.
Did I just defend Cal?????

Agree but it seemed a little over the top for 1 possible mistake. If Jones had been playing like a "selfish MF" the whole game why was he still in? Isn't playing time the carrott and the stick? We're always speculating that a player is "in the doghouse" when their MPG decrease. While we don't know the reason for sure I'm sure the player is aware. Why berate a player but leave him in the game?

flyingdutchdevil
01-19-2011, 12:59 PM
Agree but it seemed a little over the top for 1 possible mistake. If Jones had been playing like a "selfish MF" the whole game why was he still in? Isn't playing time the carrott and the stick? We're always speculating that a player is "in the doghouse" when their MPG decrease. While we don't know the reason for sure I'm sure the player is aware. Why berate a player but leave him in the game?

You seem to be questioning a lot of respectable coaches' in-game methods. Cal isn't the first - and surely not the last - to aggressively chew out players during game time. The key difference? Modern technology allowing the camera to change shots very quickly, Kentucky being high profile again, Cal being a highly polarized figure, his complete lack of attempting to cover his mouth, and this particular play being key for the game.

Basically, Cal got caught and most coaches don't. But I digress - I'm smiling a little inside.

should_be_working
01-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Maybe I'm extremely naive, but to me there is a distinct difference between, yelling/cursing in the huddle, chewing out a kid, and running onto the court, pointing at the kid and calling him a selfish MFer all the while refusing to take him out of the game. Maybe its just me, but that does not seem alright to me.

Channing
01-19-2011, 01:44 PM
maybe I'm being naive, but I always thought the top notch coaches use foul language to help teach and to fire up a team, not to belittle players. For example, our very own coach K has been used to drop an F bomb, but I have never seen it directed at a player, and certainly not at a player in a belittling manner (perhaps a "you need to pick up your F'n game" as opposed to "you selfish MF").

I have seen guys like K, Izzo, and Dixon get fired up and animated in a huddle, and even single out players, but all with the goal of (apparently) firing up the player or the team. When Duke players REALLY screw up they seem to just get pulled and coach K doesn't waste game time dealing with them - an assistant usually goes over and has some words with the player.

To see Cal just lose his mind at a player with no goal other than lambasting the kid, and not even doing it in the huddle, was pretty awful. I wonder if Lorenzo Romar would have done that ???

lotusland
01-19-2011, 01:52 PM
Maybe I'm extremely naive, but to me there is a distinct difference between, yelling/cursing in the huddle, chewing out a kid, and running onto the court, pointing at the kid and calling him a selfish MFer all the while refusing to take him out of the game. Maybe its just me, but that does not seem alright to me.

That was my thought too. Certainly not the most egregious slip up ever made by a coach though - I don't think Bob Knight could criticize Cal for that one with a straight face. What I don't understand is why Cal didn't just dock Jones' paycheck for the infraction;)

PADukeMom
01-19-2011, 01:59 PM
So in everyone's opinion, where does Cal's rant rank as opposed to throwing a chair?

IDK what Cal said & didn't say. Quite frankly I don't care about UK does. I've seen K get very "animated" (yea that's the way I'd word it) towards one of our players & okay I am in full agreement as to whatever K had to say/do to get a player motivated.

I will fully admit that I yell at players during a game. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I screamed "you're 6'10"...REBOUND ALREADY or Mason if you put that ball on the court one more time you are going to run 50 laps after the game" I'd be rich.

JasonEvans
01-19-2011, 03:55 PM
... running onto the court, pointing at the kid and calling him a selfish MFer all the while refusing to take him out of the game.

Well, it is not like Cal has other forwards he can play instead of TJones. Even playing 4 guards, as Ky is mostly doing this year, they can hardly afford to put Jones on the bench because they have nobody else all that good in the paint. Josh Harrellson has done a nice job working hard for rebounds, but he is not any kind of offensive threat, certainly not in the same caliber as Jones. The only frontcourt backup is Eloy Vargas, who plays all of 10 minutes per game on the season (and far less in competitive games).

The SEC sucks enough so that Kentucky will do well, but Cal will again be reloading next season. Jones is forecast as a mid-high lottery pick and Brandon Knight looks to be a mid-first rounder right now. I suspect both will turn pro. At least Lamb is likely to come back. Of course, reloading is never a problem for Cal as he has another studly class coming in. If he can ever get a few of them to stick around for 2 or 3 seasons, he might actually have a team that can make a deep run in March.

-Jason "I still wish Jones were at UDub... they'd be awesome with him!" Evans

rasputin
01-19-2011, 04:32 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6037431

Gewebe14
01-19-2011, 04:47 PM
maybe I'm being naive, but I always thought the top notch coaches use foul language to help teach and to fire up a team, not to belittle players. For example, our very own coach K has been used to drop an F bomb, but I have never seen it directed at a player, and certainly not at a player in a belittling manner (perhaps a "you need to pick up your F'n game" as opposed to "you selfish MF").

I have seen guys like K, Izzo, and Dixon get fired up and animated in a huddle, and even single out players, but all with the goal of (apparently) firing up the player or the team. When Duke players REALLY screw up they seem to just get pulled and coach K doesn't waste game time dealing with them - an assistant usually goes over and has some words with the player.

To see Cal just lose his mind at a player with no goal other than lambasting the kid, and not even doing it in the huddle, was pretty awful. I wonder if Lorenzo Romar would have done that ???

This may be a little sugar coated. K has lots of qualities; a clean mouth is not one of them. And, yes, he swears at his players and chews them out constantly. I knew some people on the team in school. That being said, I don't think he would ever do what cal did there.

Starter
01-19-2011, 04:50 PM
Krzyzewski had some pretty choice words for Greg Newton in a locker room that had John Feinstein in it. I'm not saying that wasn't justified, but maybe we don't know enough about Terrence Jones to say that it wasn't in this case either.

Kfanarmy
01-19-2011, 05:18 PM
You seem to be questioning a lot of respectable coaches' in-game methods. Cal isn't the first - and surely not the last - to aggressively chew out players during game time. The key difference? Modern technology allowing the camera to change shots very quickly, Kentucky being high profile again, Cal being a highly polarized figure, his complete lack of attempting to cover his mouth, and this particular play being key for the game.

Basically, Cal got caught and most coaches don't. But I digress - I'm smiling a little inside.

I disagree. and apparently we have a slight disagreement in the definition of respectable. I don't think the key difference is getting caught and, saying someone isn't the first murderer, in my opinion, doesn't lessen their crime. I certainly hope it isn't anywhere near normal to follow your players back onto the court/playing field screaming and hurling expletives at the top of your lungs. Its one thing to meltdown on the sidelines, but quite another to purposely make your players look bad. Shouldn't happen and he should be sanctioned by the school and the parents. Based on msg board reactions, a significant number of UK fans didn't appreciate the language their children were witness to either.

Kfanarmy
01-19-2011, 05:19 PM
Krzyzewski had some pretty choice words for Greg Newton in a locker room that had John Feinstein in it. I'm not saying that wasn't justified, but maybe we don't know enough about Terrence Jones to say that it wasn't in this case either. two completely different environs.

Starter
01-19-2011, 05:27 PM
two completely different environs.

I guess. Feinstein's in the room, you have to at least think it gets in the book. It did, in detail. If anything, Calipari would be less likely to believe that his specific, explicit words would get out.

JasonEvans
01-20-2011, 12:10 AM
To me, the most significant part of this incident is how Jones responds. He looks utterly unmoved and disinterested to me on the tape I have seen of it. That says that Cal is not getting through to him at all.

Maybe cursing like a drunken sailor at a kid is not the best way to get his attention, huh?

-Jason "I wonder if TJones will turn pro or stick around Kentucky for another season?" Evans

Bob Green
01-20-2011, 12:14 AM
Maybe cursing like a drunken sailor at a kid is not the best way to get his attention

What? Drunken Sailors curse? I think I resemble that remark.

Bob "Sailor is always capitalized" Green

camion
01-20-2011, 07:33 AM
To me, the most significant part of this incident is how Jones responds. He looks utterly unmoved and disinterested to me on the tape I have seen of it. That says that Cal is not getting through to him at all.

Maybe cursing like a drunken sailor at a kid is not the best way to get his attention, huh?

-Jason "I wonder if TJones will turn pro or stick around Kentucky for another season?" Evans

Is that a rhetorical signature?

wsb3
01-20-2011, 08:51 AM
two completely different environs.


Krzyzewski had some pretty choice words for Greg Newton in a locker room that had John Feinstein in it. I'm not saying that wasn't justified, but maybe we don't know enough about Terrence Jones to say that it wasn't in this case either.

Agreed...Big difference between the locker room and the floor, and who would not have cussed Greg Newton?cool:

Channing
01-20-2011, 09:25 AM
This may be a little sugar coated. K has lots of qualities; a clean mouth is not one of them. And, yes, he swears at his players and chews them out constantly. I knew some people on the team in school. That being said, I don't think he would ever do what cal did there.

K swears all the time. And he chews out players who deserve it. But I don't think I have ever seen him belittle a player (certainly not in public) just because he is upset. When he chews a player our, it usually seems to be because he is pointing out something the player did wrong and wants the player to improve.

Something like: "you need to get you @#$# back on defense - we can't give up easy layups because you decided not to run" not "you are a MFer"

PADukeMom
01-20-2011, 09:40 AM
To me, the most significant part of this incident is how Jones responds. He looks utterly unmoved and disinterested to me on the tape I have seen of it. That says that Cal is not getting through to him at all.

-Jason "I wonder if TJones will turn pro or stick around Kentucky for another season?" Evans

Jason I totally agree with you. I finally saw the clip & Jones has this blank, unemotional look on his face. It is like I see your lips moving but I'm not listening to a word you are saying.

Then last night we had K go over to hug a kid who was basically residing in Camp Snoopy for the past few games.

moonpie23
01-20-2011, 09:45 AM
language....ugh, could we just drop the pretense that harsh language is somehow a horrible thing? how elizabethan is that?

using expletives is an art form.......they're only words.....

just turn the filter on around the kids...it's funny (but not funny at ALL ) when your 3 yr old say's MF...specially at grandma....

4decadedukie
01-20-2011, 07:23 PM
What? Drunken Sailors curse? I think I resemble that remark.

Bob "Sailor is always capitalized" Green


Amen, shipmate . . . the fact is, my ancient, at sea vocabulary was -- at best -- rather profane.

4decadedukie
01-20-2011, 07:34 PM
There is a wise leadership maxim: praise publicly, criticize in privately. While we have all seen Coach K angry, I believe there is a significant difference between vulgarly berating an individual publicly and being critical of aspects of his athletic performance.

ipatent
01-20-2011, 08:42 PM
Calipari turns the school into a farm team for the NBA with a new cast of mercenaries each year, then complains when one of his one and done players puts himself ahead of the team. I'd say he is reaping what he sowed.

OldPhiKap
01-20-2011, 11:34 PM
I dislike Cal as much (if not more) than anyone, but I think this is overblown. K, as well as his coach/mentor Bob Knight, have been known to use some salty language. Maybe not caught on national TV (primarily because, back in the day, you didn't have that many games on national TV and did not have the internet to make these things go viral) but I don't think we're in a position to criticize here.

Cal is a slime for many reasons. Let's stick to those.

$.02

Orange&BlackSheep
01-21-2011, 12:01 AM
I dislike Cal as much (if not more) than anyone, but I think this is overblown. K, as well as his coach/mentor Bob Knight, have been known to use some salty language. Maybe not caught on national TV (primarily because, back in the day, you didn't have that many games on national TV and did not have the internet to make these things go viral) but I don't think we're in a position to criticize here.

Cal is a slime for many reasons. Let's stick to those.

$.02

I don't see why this discussion about cursing. Perhaps it is an issue for some readers, but I think I can assure you that dropping an f-bomb in practice does not offend anyone's sensibilities who are present.

The issue is PUBLIC BELITTLING just because you are angry. To me this event is completely indicative of a "leader" who does not stand removed from the people he leads. He is in the trenches with them as an equal. And I think we see from the sideline demeanor of his teams that they feel very comfortable disregarding him when they see fit. And why not? They are all equals with one of them arbitrarily assigned the position of leader since he is older and the originator of the "dribble drive" offense. You know, the one where you recruit the best athletes and have them dribble past the person guarding them?

Kfanarmy
01-21-2011, 09:20 AM
language....ugh, could we just drop the pretense that harsh language is somehow a horrible thing? how elizabethan is that?

using expletives is an art form.......they're only words.....

just turn the filter on around the kids...it's funny (but not funny at ALL ) when your 3 yr old say's MF...specially at grandma....

Perhaps someone who is around the three year old believes it is elizabethan for others to think "harsh language is somehow a horrible thing"... just a possibility. If we don't want our kids to do something, we probably believe it is wrong.

moonpie23
01-21-2011, 11:04 AM
Perhaps someone who is around the three year old believes it is elizabethan for others to think "harsh language is somehow a horrible thing"... just a possibility. If we don't want our kids to do something, we probably believe it is wrong.

nyet...there are proper age level/situation-appropriate conditions that a three year old's lack of self control would make it improper.

i certainly can't control my 3 yr old using MF in any particular situation other than trying to keep her from hearing it during her development of self control years.
Children are GOING to hear bad language......teaching them when it's inappropriate is the job of the parent....

i will not mind her using those words in the right situations...(hopefully, in context, and after she's like....oh......30..)

JG Nothing
01-21-2011, 11:23 AM
I dislike Cal as much (if not more) than anyone, but I think this is overblown. K, as well as his coach/mentor Bob Knight, have been known to use some salty language. Maybe not caught on national TV (primarily because, back in the day, you didn't have that many games on national TV and did not have the internet to make these things go viral) but I don't think we're in a position to criticize here.

Cal is a slime for many reasons. Let's stick to those.

$.02

I agree. If stepping on the court is what makes this situation different than the way other coaches (like K) dress down players on the bench, then it is simply a difference in degree not kind. The fact that Calipari had to follow his player out on the court to yell at him says more about the lack of respect and discipline on his team. Jones should not walk away when his coach is speaking, yelling, or whatever at him.

LSanders
01-21-2011, 01:21 PM
I don't see why this discussion about cursing. Perhaps it is an issue for some readers, but I think I can assure you that dropping an f-bomb in practice does not offend anyone's sensibilities who are present.

The issue is PUBLIC BELITTLING just because you are angry. To me this event is completely indicative of a "leader" who does not stand removed from the people he leads. He is in the trenches with them as an equal. And I think we see from the sideline demeanor of his teams that they feel very comfortable disregarding him when they see fit. And why not? They are all equals with one of them arbitrarily assigned the position of leader since he is older and the originator of the "dribble drive" offense. You know, the one where you recruit the best athletes and have them dribble past the person guarding them?

Amen to everything you wrote.

The cursing is classless, but Calimari + classlessness = redundancy.

To me, this incident further cements Calimari as the anti-K. In K's world, absolute trust is paramount. As he puts it, when the pressure is the greatest, you must have 100% assurance you are being told the truth. What level of trust do you estimate that Crisco-haired buffoon earns by stalking onto the court and humiliating his players?

lotusland
01-21-2011, 01:40 PM
... What level of trust do you estimate that Crisco-haired buffoon earns by stalking onto the court and humiliating his players?

The best that money can buy;)

4decadedukie
01-21-2011, 01:44 PM
Does it really hurt these kids to be on a college campus for a year instead of in somewhere like Sioux Falls or Reno or some other D-League city? I agree that Bledsoe shouldn't have been eligible if all of these allegations are true, but the people who are the biggest victims are the students and professors who are on campus to learn and teach, but have to deal with the distractions created by the "student"-athletes who want no part of the classroom. If anything, I think the current system actually helps kids like Bledsoe who get the benefit of a year on campus to mature, instead of being thrust into the real world with no support system and what barely qualifies as a high school education.

I understand your point regarding Calipari’s “one and dones,” who are frequently academically under-qualified, as well as entirely unmotivated, to pursue serious collegiate work. Nevertheless, that point entirely neglects the sometimes-critical matter of opportunity cost. Many major universities are severely enrollment-constrained; therefore, when a freshman is accepted and matriculated, it necessarily means that some other perhaps more-deserving -- but less basketball-talented -- youngster will not attend.

For obvious reasons, Duke and Kentucky are difficult to compare intellectually and scholastically, and I am reluctant to do so. However, based on years of undergraduate admissions involvement as a Duke AAAC volunteer, I can assure you that EVERY ONE of the approximately 1,700 positions in our Class of 2015 is highly coveted, and no “extra spots” are available or provided.

Kfanarmy
01-21-2011, 11:12 PM
nyet...i will not mind her using those words in the right situations...(hopefully, in context, and after she's like....oh......30..)
That about says it all I guess.