This Didn't Take Long . . . UK - Auburn and the NCAA

[4decadedukie]

ESPN reports today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5880507) that Calipari/UK has requested NCAA permission to resubmit Enes Kanter’s amateur-status eligibility case, instead of seeking an appeal, based upon this week’s Cam Newton precedent, specifically contending that Kanter (like Newton) was unaware of any amateurism violation. Kanter was ruled “permanently ineligible” by the NCAA on 11 November, for "receiving benefits above actual and necessary expenses while playing for a club basketball team in Turkey."

. . . and, no, this is not a bad joke (although effective NCAA governance certainly appears to be one).

[JasonEvans]

ESPN reports today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5880507) that Calipari/UK has requested NCAA permission to resubmit Enes Kanter’s amateur-status eligibility case, instead of seeking an appeal, based upon this week’s Cam Newton precedent, specifically contending that Kanter (like Newton) was unaware of any amateurism violation. Kanter was ruled “permanently ineligible” by the NCAA on 11 November, for "receiving benefits above actual and necessary expenses while playing for a club basketball team in Turkey."

. . . and, no, this is not a bad joke (although effective NCAA governance certainly appears to be one).

While making no comment on the potential absurdity of the NCAA's ruling on Newton, the key differences here would appear to be--

1) Newton had no knowledge of any transaction going down while Kanter knew he was getting money, just did not know that getting the money would cause him to lose his eligibility.

and 2) Newton and family never actually received anything (I know the mere solicitation was a violation) while Kanter and family got tens of thousands of dollars.

There is more that make these cases altogether different, but the two items listed above (especially #1) serve to debunk Kentucky's assertion that Kanter and Newton be treated equally.

--Jason "The SEC, where disgusting precedent happens!" Evans

[4decadedukie]

Jason - You're right, there are significant differences, all of which appear to make the UK/Calipari/Kanter rationale even more strained than Auburn's/Newton's. The shamelessness, the temerity, and the ludicrousness of individuals like the Reverend Newton and Coach Calipari makes me wonder if their parents taught them anything about common sense decency.

Warm regards.

[77devil]

While making no comment on the potential absurdity of the NCAA's ruling on Newton, the key differences here would appear to be--

1) Newton had no knowledge of any transaction going down while Kanter knew he was getting money, just did not know that getting the money would cause him to lose his eligibility.

and 2) Newton and family never actually received anything (I know the mere solicitation was a violation) while Kanter and family got tens of thousands of dollars.

There is more that make these cases altogether different, but the two items listed above (especially #1) serve to debunk Kentucky's assertion that Kanter and Newton be treated equally.

--Jason "The SEC, where disgusting precedent happens!" Evans

I'm sure meant to write that it has been presumed that Newton had no knowledge. ;) Surely you don't believe that?

As Wilbon said a couple of days ago, the decision was an agenda driven joke to keep Auburn in the hunt for the BCS championship game, and as I wrote in another post at the time: Can a Kanter reinstatement be far behind?

I agree with you about the meaningful distinctions between the two cases, but I am suspicious by the NCAA decision to permit UK to resubmit. Maybe it's simply trying to allow full due process, perhaps there are other motivations at work. Looking forward to the next ruling and the rationale either way.

[Chitowndevil]

Newton and family never actually received anything

Exactly. This is apples to oranges.

There is no evidence Newton was aware of any violations. There is not even evidence he or his family actually received anything of monetary value.

No one is arguing Kanter was paid, and if one believes statements by his former team, we know exactly how much. The NCAA ruling was that the value of his compensation exceeded a threshold based on cost of living and other expenses. I can't see how one case has any bearing on the other.

[loran16]

Exactly. This is apples to oranges.

There is no evidence Newton was aware of any violations. There is not even evidence he or his family actually received anything of monetary value.

No one is arguing Kanter was paid, and if one believes statements by his former team, we know exactly how much. The NCAA ruling was that the value of his compensation exceeded a threshold based on cost of living and other expenses. I can't see how one case has any bearing on the other.

"The Awareness Standard" is a joke. Really, if the NCAA is correct on Newton, then I don't see how a player couldn't simply play for whoever and let his dad do any negotiating, while maintaining purposeful ignorance.

As for how they have bearing, think of it this way. If Kanter wasn't paying his own bills, which I'd bet his parents were taking care of, you COULD ARGUE THAT HE probably didn't know that the amount being paid to him was more than would be necessary for his support. Which brings us straight to the Auburn ruling.

Note: the Newton ruling did NOT stand upon whether Newton got paid. It standed on that the place asking for his eligibility, Auburn, didn't pay, and that Newton didn't know of his father's plan. You could argue the same thing with Kanter, with Kentucky taking the place of Auburn.


Jason - You're right, there are significant differences, all of which appear to make the UK/Calipari/Kanter rationale even more strained than Auburn's/Newton's. The shamelessness, the temerity, and the ludicrousness of individuals like the Reverend Newton and Coach Calipari makes me wonder if their parents taught them anything about common sense decency.

Warm regards.

Can we stop with this? I hate Calipari. He's clearly in the past shown no problem recruiting people who were clearly going to be ineligible with the hope that no one would notice.

THIS WASN'T SUCH A CASE. There is nothing unethical about taking an extra scholarship that would otherwise go unused, using it on a player with questionable eligibility, and letting the player's eligibility be decided by the NCAA preseason. Unlike the Bledsoe and Rose situations, he wasn't trying to sneak anything by anyone here.

Plenty of things to slam Calipari for. This isn't one of them.

[tecumseh]

The key difference is if they allow Kanter to play they run the risk of being caught in a tight squeeze down the line. I am sure IF they could have forseen what would come down they would have ruled Newton ineligible before the season started but now you have the top team in the nation and he is the key player and the NCAA is stuck in a no win situation.

[loran16]

The key difference is if they allow Kanter to play they run the risk of being caught in a tight squeeze down the line. I am sure IF they could have forseen what would come down they would have ruled Newton ineligible before the season started but now you have the top team in the nation and he is the key player and the NCAA is stuck in a no win situation.

Pfft, the NCAA got itself into this mess. They could've just ruled that they didn't have enough evidence yet to deal with eligibility, and that they were still looking into the pay for play scheme.

By admitting that Newton's father was trying to get payment and STILL giving him eligibility, they opened up a huge can of worms and a big double standard. Just a joke.