Serious Question for UK Fans

[futurecoach]

Ok after all this with John Wall I can understand how people would say oh it's not Cal's fault, Cal didn't know etc.. etc... But, my question for UK fans is, at what point does it becomes Calipari's responsibility to know? I mean say this doesn't come out until next summer and UK is stripped of a final four because of it. At what point should it be Cal's responsibility to know who the players he signs have dealt with? Or is it always the players fault and Cal is just an innocent victim?

 

It's just now this is the fourth big time player on one of Calipari's team to have serious eligibility issues.

 

If UK wins a title or two, most fans would care less how they achieved it.

 

If UK wins a title or two and then have to vacate them, they will blame someone that's not Calipari because "he didn't know."

 

Honestly, I see more UK fans getting upset if they have to vacate wins and North Carolina passes them on the All-Time wins list.

 

The article says UK has been looking into it for a few months. UK also got one of the other best pg's in the Nation in Bledsoe. So I think the risk of getting him and hoping he does become eligible to play, was worth taking. If the NCAA says he can play, then UK is in great shape. If the NCAA says he can't play, UK still has a great young pg in Bledsoe. It was a risk that was worth to take.

 

As for the Rose situation, do you honestly think any big time program would not have played Rose that year? I mean the NCAA cleared him to play, so do you honestly think a coach would not play him and say well the NCAA cleared him to play but I am still not going to play him. No any coach would have played a guy if he was cleared by the NCAA. I honestly think that situation helps UK out some, because I am sure with what happened, they will make sure the NCAA knows for sure that he is cleared to play and that it wouldn't change. With the things that has happened in the past, has probably helped in making sure that it probably won't happen again.

[jvdfc]

The article says UK has been looking into it for a few months. UK also got one of the other best pg's in the Nation in Bledsoe. So I think the risk of getting him and hoping he does become eligible to play, was worth taking. If the NCAA says he can play, then UK is in great shape. If the NCAA says he can't play, UK still has a great young pg in Bledsoe. It was a risk that was worth to take.

 

As for the Rose situation, do you honestly think any big time program would not have played Rose that year? I mean the NCAA cleared him to play, so do you honestly think a coach would not play him and say well the NCAA cleared him to play but I am still not going to play him. No any coach would have played a guy if he was cleared by the NCAA. I honestly think that situation helps UK out some, because I am sure with what happened, they will make sure the NCAA knows for sure that he is cleared to play and that it wouldn't change. With the things that has happened in the past, has probably helped in making sure that it probably won't happen again.

 

Nuff said. :thumb:

[The Professor]

I was not aware of the clarification. Thanks.

 

I root for UK. I don't drink the blue Kool-Aid however. I don't think there is some media conspiracy to bring down the UK Hoops Empire. I don't think the NCAA rigs the tourney brackets against UK. All of which have been threads started here on BGP.

 

I just try and look at it from neutral standpoint. When they do well, I give them credit. But if there is a hint of smoke, I will question it before it becomes fire.

 

I have said all along there is no way Sandy Bell signs off on the Calipari hire if there were any hint of inpropriety. And I'm sure she's been equally busy with the recruitment of Wall. If there was any question, she would have him held out of activities and practice.

 

Like I said, Calipari is going to recruit a style and personality of players to UK the fanbase, media, and public aren't used to. And as long as they win, it won't be questioned by the fan base.

On the part I have bolded, it sure appeared that way in the 2003 NCAA tourney. UK was the #1 overall seed of the four #1 seeds, but they were sent far away from home as a reward, and had to play in Minnesota. They defeated Wisconsin in a hard fought game (in which Bogan's was injured) and had to play the Wade-led Marquette team two days later. Both games were basicly in those two school's back yard.

 

Some reward for being #1 seed.:irked:

 

If UNC or Duke had been the overall #1 seed they would probably have their first two games in state.

[ScarHeel]

I feel like I say this every 3 months or so, but here goes again:

 

These issues are more frequent b/c the NBA changed the rules on when players are eligible for the draft. Let's just look at the last two cases for Cal. Rose was ruled eligible by the NCAA and after the season was over they decided he didn't take his test that qualified him. Who had more to gain from Rose becoming eligible? Rose and his family or Cal? I seriously doubt Cal has any knowledge he didn't take the test. Wall will be ruled eligible by the NCAA. His issues have to do w/ an AAU coach who was at one point an agent. Again these palyers and "advisors" have way more to gain than the coaches. Cal knows the microscope is on him. So he can either start recruiting like Duke and whining to the refs every call all whille not playing past the 1st weekend of the NCAA's b/c they aren't athletic enough, or recruit great athletes not all that interested in 4 years of schooling. Right now b/c he came from Memphis they are taking as many 5 stars as he can get and giving it a try. I'm glad he is. If the NBA doesn't make a change to the rule this will go on forever. These kids are mostly poor and they don't understand until it's too late what it takes to become eligible. They get to a point where their advisors have to get them eligible somehow. They risk too much money not too.

 

Nice post. :thumb:

[gchs_uk9]

If UNC or Duke had been the overall #1 seed they would probably have their first two games in state.

 

That is why the new arena in Louisville is important for UK. Duke and Carolina get what amounts to home games because there are about seven arenas in North Carolina capable of hosting the NCAA tournament. Those sites draw good crowds and the NCAA keeps going back. The NCAA doesn't put games in Kentucky because the arenas are no longer as good here (not for long); because of that, Kentucky (and Louisville) have to travel further for tournament games.

[gchs_uk9]

They defeated Wisconsin in a hard fought game (in which Bogan's was injured) and had to play the Wade-led Marquette team two days later. Both games were basicly in those two school's back yard.

 

Some reward for being #1 seed.:irked:

 

Marquette was a number six seed that had to beat the #3 seed Missouri and the #2 seed Pittsburgh just to get to that game. The NCAA was far from making it hard for Kentucky (or easy for Marquette) in that tournament. If the tournament played out like it is expected, Marquette would have been sitting at home. Instead Marquette beat Pitt by three points and had to play Kentucky "two days later." It was the same for both teams. Obviously Bogans injury hurt, but couldn't it have hurt just the same if the game was against Hawaii in New York City? You can't blame the NCAA for upsets that happen.

 

And to add to that, it's 336 miles from Milwaukee to Minneapolis. A similar number would be from Lexington to either Detroit, Chicago, or Pittsburgh. Would we consider those sites the "backyard" of Kentucky?

[Les]

On the part I have bolded, it sure appeared that way in the 2003 NCAA tourney. UK was the #1 overall seed of the four #1 seeds, but they were sent far away from home as a reward, and had to play in Minnesota. They defeated Wisconsin in a hard fought game (in which Bogan's was injured) and had to play the Wade-led Marquette team two days later. Both games were basicly in those two school's back yard.

 

Some reward for being #1 seed.:irked:

 

If UNC or Duke had been the overall #1 seed they would probably have their first two games in state.

 

Shouldn't the OVERALL No. 1 seed be able to be a sixth seeded team?:ohbrother:

[jvdfc]

Shouldn't the OVERALL No. 1 seed be able to be a sixth seeded team?:ohbrother:

 

Yea, they should be able to be. :lol:

[Log Mountain Boy]

Shouldn't the OVERALL No. 1 seed be able to be a sixth seeded team?:ohbrother:

 

There is really no shame in losing to Dwayne Wade. Plus with Bogans hurt it played a factor (I don't know if UK would have won, but I do believe it would have been closer).

[Big Game Player]

Not really worried until that time comes. If it does then I'll base my blame on the information at the time and not sit here and pre-blame someone.

[CatsCatsCats]

Ok after all this with John Wall I can understand how people would say oh it's not Cal's fault, Cal didn't know etc.. etc... But, my question for UK fans is, at what point does it becomes Calipari's responsibility to know? I mean say this doesn't come out until next summer and UK is stripped of a final four because of it. At what point should it be Cal's responsibility to know who the players he signs have dealt with? Or is it always the players fault and Cal is just an innocent victim?

 

It's just now this is the fourth big time player on one of Calipari's team to have serious eligibility issues.

 

Excellent question HT721. For me though, I think to recruit the best players in the country you are going to get some baggage. For every Kevin Durant that just comes to play without any drama or behind the scenes things you have a Derrick Rose. I don't really care one way or the other. UK is going to be under a huge microscope and I think things like the Wall ineligibility thing are going to be brought out earlier than they normally would.

 

I love that Cal is at UK and I think he is going to do great things. He may or may not bring any National Championships or Final Fours, but he is putting UK basketball back on the map. He is bringing in the best of the best, and that includes "One-and-Done" type guys. They are a huge risk/reward, but I see no other option at this time. Before Cal, UK was not at the current level of a Duke or Kansas, etc., he is trying to bring them back. If UK gets in trouble, we get in trouble.

[The Professor]

Shouldn't the OVERALL No. 1 seed be able to be a sixth seeded team?:ohbrother:

Yes they should.

And I think they would have won if not for Bogan's injury. Plus when he tried to play injured it made things worse, threw the whole team off balance IMO. UK would have probably been better off if Bogan's had remained on the bench for the game.

[Randy Parker]

Marquette was a number six seed that had to beat the #3 seed Missouri and the #2 seed Pittsburgh just to get to that game. The NCAA was far from making it hard for Kentucky (or easy for Marquette) in that tournament. If the tournament played out like it is expected, Marquette would have been sitting at home. Instead Marquette beat Pitt by three points and had to play Kentucky "two days later." It was the same for both teams. Obviously Bogans injury hurt, but couldn't it have hurt just the same if the game was against Hawaii in New York City? You can't blame the NCAA for upsets that happen.

 

And to add to that, it's 336 miles from Milwaukee to Minneapolis. A similar number would be from Lexington to either Detroit, Chicago, or Pittsburgh. Would we consider those sites the "backyard" of Kentucky?

 

Wrong. Marquette was the 3 that beat the 6 Missouri.

 

Kentucky did not lose that game b/c of Bogans' injury IMO. They lost b/c D. Wade was unstoppable & Tubby didn't have the team ready.

 

UK was not the only #1 that got the shaft. Oklahoma was #1 in the East, and was rewarded by getting to play in New York, in the same bracket w/ #3 seed Syracuse. Syracuse goes on to win the East and later the NCAA title.

 

Both Marquette & Wisconsin (which was a very tough win for UK) had the location advantage over UK that year, though we were #1 overall entering the tournament. That should not happen to the #1 overall seed in the tournament, and it wouldn't if that team was UNC or Duke.