10 hours ago, Randy Parker said:

Stansbury said that no one on the UK coaching staff, nor anyone else in the program, was aware that he was ineligible.  He also stated it was an issue with grades.

If this is true, someone at UK or the NCAA or both really dropped the ball. 

Yep. Not a shock.

9 hours ago, All State Baseball said:

Yep. Sounds like NCAA dropped it on this case if true. 

Sounds like UK did too. They probably have a full time academic advisor/compliance person. Should not have happened and it's really unfortunate to punish the player and WKU.

3 hours ago, 9068 said:

it's really unfortunate to punish the player

I've seen this sentiment a few times on Twitter but now on here.  Why is it unfortunate for a player to be held accountable for their poor academic record?  If that's what this is all about, I don't know how anyone would feel bad for the player who didn't meet a relatively low standard to begin with.

If we want to talk about Kentucky not knowing, that's a whole other conversation, but I don't understand how it's unfortunate for the player.

3 hours ago, 9068 said:

Sounds like UK did too. They probably have a full time academic advisor/compliance person. Should not have happened and it's really unfortunate to punish the player and WKU.

I assume you mean to "retroactively" punish the player. If you do not believe he should have been punished at all, then he ceases to be a college athlete.

5 hours ago, bugatti said:

I assume you mean to "retroactively" punish the player. If you do not believe he should have been punished at all, then he ceases to be a college athlete.

It seems to me that if he was truly ineligible at UK the University bears the brunt of some type of punishment more than 3500 dollars. If you play an ineligible player there seems to be no big punishment for the offending school or team. That this even happened is an embarrassment to the University and the basketball program. The HC at WKU is being punished more than the HC at the offending school.

8 hours ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

I've seen this sentiment a few times on Twitter but now on here.  Why is it unfortunate for a player to be held accountable for their poor academic record?  If that's what this is all about, I don't know how anyone would feel bad for the player who didn't meet a relatively low standard to begin with.

If we want to talk about Kentucky not knowing, that's a whole other conversation, but I don't understand how it's unfortunate for the player.

Agreed.  How did he not know his grades?  My two college kids know their grades and one is a student athlete.  Granted there are some professors that are not timely turning in grades, but I would think you would only be ineligible if there was a grade in the book.  Now why a college that pays tutors and compliance personal to hold the athletes hands did not know about it is a whole other issue.

21 hours ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

I don't root against WKU, but can't say I root for them either.

Not talking about WKU. 

So UK cheated by playing an ineligible player and only got a $3500 fine? Not to mention, WKU gets a more harsh deal for something they had literally nothing to do with.

And people wonder how the rich stay rich, smh. 

On 11/29/2022 at 10:53 AM, TheDeuce said:

So UK cheated by playing an ineligible player and only got a $3500 fine? Not to mention, WKU gets a more harsh deal for something they had literally nothing to do with.

And people wonder how the rich stay rich, smh. 

Right, WKU getting punished by not being able to play him while UofK just pays a fine. Hard to figure out the NCAA reasoning. If the kids grades are good at WKU then let him play.

I feel like there is more to the story that we most likely will never know. And if I were to assume, it is a protection for Allen. What would UK stand to gain to knowingly throw an ineligible player on the court in sporadic / mop up minutes?

The whole saga is odd.

1 hour ago, bugatti said:

I feel like there is more to the story that we most likely will never know. And if I were to assume, it is a protection for Allen. What would UK stand to gain to knowingly throw an ineligible player on the court in sporadic / mop up minutes?

The whole saga is odd.

My exact thoughts from the get go.

How does the NCAA know something about the player that the University, the coaching staff or the player themselves does not know?  What magic is in play here? 

If ineligible player was played in a game, does that not bring the issue of forfeited games by Kentucky into play? 

Echoing above - very odd.

 

On 12/3/2022 at 9:57 PM, Bluegrasscard said:

How does the NCAA know something about the player that the University, the coaching staff or the player themselves does not know?  What magic is in play here? 

If ineligible player was played in a game, does that not bring the issue of forfeited games by Kentucky into play? 

Echoing above - very odd.

 

It's UK. Nothing bad, illegal, or unethical has ever or will ever happen in their basketball program.