Sounds like Sandy Bell, and the compliance office would have their work cut out for them if Shabazz picks UK. I'm not sure if I would want the headache that could come with him.

I lean that way myself. Especially for a one year rental.

I have been told more will come out if he goes Nike.

 

Could it hurt long term? Sure but it isn't like adidas is putting their name on it. Will be hard to trace anything back to them as the source if the NCAA starts digging...

 

If you're John Calipari or Sandy Bell or UK...do you roll the dice with Shabazz?

I'm also in the camp that doesn't want Shabazz as I have said numerous times.

I'm also in the champ that doesn't want Shabazz as I have said numerous times.

 

I want Shabazz. Not sure I want his baggage.

If you're John Calipari or Sandy Bell or UK...do you roll the dice with Shabazz?

 

As long as you are confident none of the dirt leads back to you, take him...

As long as you are confident none of the dirt leads back to you, take him...

 

But the dirt doesn't necessarily have to lead back to you in order for the NCAA to take action, right?

 

Isn't the fact that they're investigating Shabazz (they are investigating this, right?) basically the red flag of warning for any teams trying to recruit him?

But the dirt doesn't necessarily have to lead back to you in order for the NCAA to take action, right?

 

Isn't the fact that they're investigating Shabazz (they are investigating this, right?) basically the red flag of warning for any teams trying to recruit him?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, GT, but I think all he's saying is that as long as the dirt isn't on YOU, you take the risk. He's just saying he'd be worth the risk if he was cleared to play or not, as long as the team he goes to isn't in some way guilty of violations.

I'm also in the camp that doesn't want Shabazz as I have said numerous times.

 

I keep jumping back and forth.

But the dirt doesn't necessarily have to lead back to you in order for the NCAA to take action, right?

 

Isn't the fact that they're investigating Shabazz (they are investigating this, right?) basically the red flag of warning for any teams trying to recruit him?

 

 

You can look at it like that but pretty much it's like this.....

 

If he ends up at Kentucky, is it going to look bad on Kentucky that his visits to Duke and North Carolina were paid for? Don't see how Kentucky looks bad in that. Like GT said, if the Shabazz dirt is unrelated to UK then stay on him. As

long as there is no wrong doing on UK's part its going to be hard for them to get in trouble. Bazz on the otherhand my be punished and may have to sit out or pay back anything the NCAA would declare as impermissable benefits but other than that suit up and play ball. I know its never that easy and its always grey instead of black and white, but if a talent like that wants to play at Kentucky you have to take him.

 

 

 

If he was that filthy dirty does Duke, Kansas, and UCLA all stay on him the way they have? Some of you are acting like Kentucky's playing russian roulette by themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, GT, but I think all he's saying is that as long as the dirt isn't on YOU, you take the risk. He's just saying he'd be worth the risk if he was cleared to play or not, as long as the team he goes to isn't in some way guilty of violations.

 

I'm pretty sure that's what GT was saying. But my response was more about how the NCAA dealt with Memphis/Derrick Rose. Rose was declared ineligible because of the SAT score, therefore Memphis had to forfeit its 38 wins that season. So what I'm saying is that if Shabazz is found to have done something wrong, doesn't it stand to reason that UK could get punished, even if they are not responsible for any of the dirt?

Correct me if I'm wrong, GT, but I think all he's saying is that as long as the dirt isn't on YOU, you take the risk. He's just saying he'd be worth the risk if he was cleared to play or not, as long as the team he goes to isn't in some way guilty of violations.

 

The problem is the Derrick Rose situation. The NCAA clears him, UK plays him, then the NCAA decides he was ineligible (for reasons unrelated to ANY college) and vacates your season.

 

If it becomes an Enes situation (NCAA doesn't clear him, and you never play him) then all is fine.

The problem is the Derrick Rose situation. The NCAA clears him, UK plays him, then the NCAA decides he was ineligible (for reasons unrelated to ANY college) and vacates your season.

 

If it becomes an Enes situation (NCAA doesn't clear him, and you never play him) then all is fine.

 

This

If I'm UK and I have done nothing wrong I take Bazz.

Not sure why Adidas would be so upset with Bazz going to UK though. Yes, it's a Nike school. It's also a place for Bazz to become a SUPERSTAR. If he goes to UCLA then he'll still be a big name player, but not on the same level as if he went to UK. Suck it up for a year, and your client's worth will grow exponentially. It would be better for Adidas in the long run.

 

Look at Wall. He went to a Nike school and then joined up with Reebok in the NBA. Pretty sure they made out better than if he had went to a Reebok school (I don't even know a Reebok school to give an example).

The dude from Rivals seem to think Bazz is going to UCLA. Who knows.....