I'll love it a lot more than them clearing him, then coming back and saying, oh wait... just kidding, you have to forfeit the whole season because you played a kid we told you was good to go.

 

Of course it should be done in a timely manner, and if they can't do it before a prospective student's freshman season starts, then they should hire more investigators.

 

You seem to have all the answers. Hit them up with a resume... :thumb:

Is this really about a kid raising his ACT from a 17 to a 19?? That's nothing for a kid to do, especially if he has issues with testing, ADD, etc.?

You seem to have all the answers. Hit them up with a resume... :thumb:

 

Of course I do. Ask my wife!

Every school that recruited him should face the same sanctions or loss of games then.

He didn't PLAY for them, this is not a tough concept.

Since that is the precedent that has been established by the NCAA, I agree.

 

Not sure I agree with the precedent though. In the case of Marcus Camby, I agree that wins should have been stripped, because the incident occurred while he was under Cal's authority. No arguments on that one from me. If this had happened with Bledsoe while @ UK, I would agree wins need to be taken. Or if with Maggette while @ Duke, I would say the same.

 

I don't see why the school should be penalized for something that a teenager did while he was not under their care, so to speak. And for the life of me, I can't understand the Derrick Rose case, where the NCAA clears him & then later penalizes the school for which he played. Now, if it can be proven that Memphis arranged for someone to take his test, that's a different story entirely. But I don't see the sense in punishing a school for something a kid did before he got there.

The reason it is clear to me, is because it jeopardizes his eligibility from the point of infraction, even if it's after he's played. At the point of infraction he is ineligible, regardless of when it is found out.

I wonder if they would have had to forfeit their games still yet without the plane situation where Rose's brother flew for free. My feeling was that on top of the ACT score is what the problem was. Still yet though, I just don't see how the NCAA can rule a player eligible and then punish the school afterwards, unless the school did something unproper to get him eligible.

I have less problem with Rose's situation in that Memphis was notified of problems before Rose played one game. Memphis chose to still play him. I read somewhere that UK found out about some questions regarding Bledsoe during the season, yet they chose to play him.

He didn't PLAY for them, this is not a tough concept.

 

Did they not recruit him, knowing full well what kind of potential baggage he had? That is the concept some seem to be missing, or in the case of UK haters just ignoring.....

 

Nothing Bledsoe did happend at or because of UK. They weren't the only team that tried to recruit him. I don't see why UK should be the only team to take the fall when others are just as guilty, but weren't lucky (or unlucky depending on perspective) enough to get him to sign.

Did they not recruit him, knowing full well what kind of potential baggage he had? That is the concept some seem to be missing, or in the case of UK haters just ignoring.....

 

Nothing Bledsoe did happend at or because of UK. They weren't the only team that tried to recruit him. I don't see why UK should be the only team to take the fall when others are just as guilty, but weren't lucky (or unlucky depending on perspective) enough to get him to sign.

You can't punish someone for something that never happened. If Bledsoe indeed gets ruled ineligible, he only played games for one team, and those are the games that have to be forfeited. While it may seem unfair, it's rather cut and dry to me. No different than other situations where someone was thought to be clear, only to get caught later.

You can't punish someone for something that never happened. If Bledsoe indeed gets ruled ineligible, he only played games for one team, and those are the games that have to be forfeited. While it may seem unfair, it's rather cut and dry to me. No different than other situations where someone was thought to be clear, only to get caught later.

 

It's a garbage way of doing things, but what more could you expect from the NCAA. But, I don't really care. Let them take away the wins, so UK can do 2000 again and pass anyone that leapfrogs in front of them for the time being. This accusation doesn't scare me as a Cats fan, my goodness with the talent that's rolling in I could care less about 35 games that will be made up rather quickly over the next few years.

Did they not recruit him, knowing full well what kind of potential baggage he had? That is the concept some seem to be missing, or in the case of UK haters just ignoring.....

 

Nothing Bledsoe did happend at or because of UK. They weren't the only team that tried to recruit him. I don't see why UK should be the only team to take the fall when others are just as guilty, but weren't lucky (or unlucky depending on perspective) enough to get him to sign.

 

That argument holds no water and, quite frankly, is almost an embarrassing argument to make.

You seem to have all the answers. Hit them up with a resume... :thumb:

 

I don't have any answers, nor do I pretend to; however, I can tell you that this is a disturbing trend that the NCAA should stop one way or another. And that has nothing to do with Kentucky basketball or John Calipari.

 

The NCAA is a complete mess.

That argument holds no water and, quite frankly, is almost an embarrassing argument to make.

 

Seriously? I don't expect it to happen that way, but in a FAIR world that's how it would happen IMO. If teams are so concerned that Bledsoe shouldn't have been eligible they shouldn't have recruited him.

Also CC, I don't care what Bledsoe did. He did what he had to do. Being corrupt in a corrupt system. Maybe not be the most moral approach, but it's not the worst thing that has ever happened in college basketball.

Seriously? I don't expect it to happen that way, but in a FAIR world that's how it would happen IMO. If teams are so concerned that Bledsoe shouldn't have been eligible they shouldn't have recruited him.

 

I am baffled here, how in the world could a team that did not play him, get penalized for doing so.

I am baffled here, how in the world could a team that did not play him, get penalized for doing so.

 

Because they tried to get him to play for them and would have taken him if he had chosen their teams. It's not like they dropped him when they found out about his situation. My point is all kinds of people had their hands in the cookie jar, maybe they all should not get the same penalty but something could be done to all.