Well... they could just do their job up front. Seems a multi-million dollar organization could pull that off.

 

Nobody is saying schools should get away with it if the school itself is involved. They just shouldn't be punished for not knowing something that the NCAA didn't discover either.

 

Honestly, I don't particularly care what a kid's grades are in high school (not saying its OK to falsify them though). They have to maintain grades in college to stay eligible. If they manage to do that, surely they could pass high school classes. If they're passing them in college with illegal help, then the school is involved, and I'm all for punishing them severely.

 

Most private investigators charge about 200 bucks an hour. We will be generous and say the ones the NCAA uses only cost about 100 dollars an hour to operate salary and costs involved with the check. With the 90,000 athletes that apply to clearing house a year the NCAA will spend 9 million dollars just providing one hour search per athlete. So that's almost a fourth of their entire budget on just 1 hour search per client. If they keep 42 million a year which I would say is about right. The cost of this can get way out of hand quickly. And with 90,000 applicants every year no matter how much searching you do a few will squeak by every year. In my daily life I usually slip up once or twice a day as most of us do. I'm sure in 90,000 applications I would have a few things go wrong.

 

And if a player cheated in college, say had someone else take their test for them, neither the coaches nor the school administrators knew. Should the team not be punished then, because one player acted on his own without permission or approval by the school? I'm sure you could agree that punishment should still come down there for what we hear called lack of institutional control all the time. Seems like the same situation here, encourage schools to recruit people of character and values. Lying and hiding information is fraud, until Bledsoe is proved to have done that UK should face no punishment at all. But schools have to be responsible for the actions of the players they take, if nothing else this should just put UK's compliance office at red alert. If people are truly out to get Cal and UK then UK's compliance office should operate on a zero tolerance level and should nip weed these type of recruits out before they ever come through the door. If you do that then no one can accuse Cal or UK of anything.

New rule for players with suspect background but no proof of violating rules:

 

In order to be eligible to play, the player must sign a contract agreeing that if they are later ruled to be ineligible due to to any action up to this point, they must forfeit their first year NBA salary to the NCAA.

 

 

Perhaps that would make some of these players take pause before defrauding everyone in situations like this.

Sandy Bell is one of the best and most thorough compliance officers in the country. If the clearing house ruled him eligible and Bell ok'd it, there was no wrong doing.

Sandy Bell is one of the best and most thorough compliance officers in the country. If the clearing house ruled him eligible and Bell ok'd it, there was no wrong doing.

 

She let UK football get in a lot of trouble under Mumme. Basketball has been clean since then though. But there were some serious compliance questions under Mumme, who I think has been proven to have just been a not so great guy after the racism stuff at his last job.

Most private investigators charge about 200 bucks an hour. We will be generous and say the ones the NCAA uses only cost about 100 dollars an hour to operate salary and costs involved with the check. With the 90,000 athletes that apply to clearing house a year the NCAA will spend 9 million dollars just providing one hour search per athlete. So that's almost a fourth of their entire budget on just 1 hour search per client. If they keep 42 million a year which I would say is about right. The cost of this can get way out of hand quickly. And with 90,000 applicants every year no matter how much searching you do a few will squeak by every year. In my daily life I usually slip up once or twice a day as most of us do. I'm sure in 90,000 applications I would have a few things go wrong.

 

And if a player cheated in college, say had someone else take their test for them, neither the coaches nor the school administrators knew. Should the team not be punished then, because one player acted on his own without permission or approval by the school? I'm sure you could agree that punishment should still come down there for what we hear called lack of institutional control all the time. Seems like the same situation here, encourage schools to recruit people of character and values. Lying and hiding information is fraud, until Bledsoe is proved to have done that UK should face no punishment at all. But schools have to be responsible for the actions of the players they take, if nothing else this should just put UK's compliance office at red alert. If people are truly out to get Cal and UK then UK's compliance office should operate on a zero tolerance level and should nip weed these type of recruits out before they ever come through the door. If you do that then no one can accuse Cal or UK of anything.

 

99% of applicants probably don't require any more than a cursory review of their submitted paperwork. For the others, dig in. The $42 million is AFTER paying for everything which includes their current (as of 2000) level of investigation. I'm sure they can find it in the remainder to pay for more investigators.

 

As for cheating in college, the student is the responsibility of the school at that point. You expect the schools to have the same level of control over every potential recruit while they're attending schools hundreds of miles away all over the country?

 

I guess I just don't understand the point of having a clearinghouse if their approval doesn't mean anything.

99% of applicants probably don't require any more than a cursory review of their submitted paperwork. For the others, dig in. The $42 million is AFTER paying for everything which includes their current (as of 2000) level of investigation. I'm sure they can find it in the remainder to pay for more investigators.

 

As for cheating in college, the student is the responsibility of the school at that point. You expect the schools to have the same level of control over every potential recruit while they're attending schools hundreds of miles away all over the country?

 

I guess I just don't understand the point of having a clearinghouse if their approval doesn't mean anything.

 

I can understand that frustration and I kind of agree with it. I also didn't know the 42 million was left over after paying operating I assumed that was where the operating budget came from. So if they have that kind of left over cash laying around they could wisely use some of it to further investigations at the clearinghouse level. It's frustrating for sure and there is no necessarily right or wrong answer here. The big thing I worry about with it is just if you don't draw a line on it then coaches may start encouraging recruits with questionable pasts to intentionally hide it from the NCAA. And then it comes down to whether or not you find out the coach is involved. Sure at that point it's easy to punish the school because the school's representative in the coach was involved. But at that point you are in a different realm and not only do they have to catch the player but they have to prove the coach told him to do it which could be really hard to prove.

 

I would also say punishment in these situations gets worse if you can't punish a one and done player's school and you come back and punish a kid who isn't a one and done while he is still in school, you have an unfair punishment coming down. Should we make a kid sit that is still in college if he is caught doing that and still in college? That punishes the school he is still at because he has taken up one of their scholarships for that year and he isn't allowed to play.

I would also say punishment in these situations gets worse if you can't punish a one and done player's school and you come back and punish a kid who isn't a one and done while he is still in school, you have an unfair punishment coming down. Should we make a kid sit that is still in college if he is caught doing that and still in college? That punishes the school he is still at because he has taken up one of their scholarships for that year and he isn't allowed to play.

 

You absolutely punish the kid if he's in school. Possibly declaring ineligible period, and then the school would just not renew his scholarship. The school hurts some (and you're all for that, right?), but not nearly to the extreme of vacating wins.

You absolutely punish the kid if he's in school. Possibly declaring ineligible period, and then the school would just not renew his scholarship. The school hurts some (and you're all for that, right?), but not nearly to the extreme of vacating wins.

 

I am completely for punishing the kid while he's still in school if at all possible, but in the situation like we have here. IF there even is a situation here, vacating wins is about the only punishment they can lobby, that will have any impact on encouraging compliance.

Coach needs to go we want a clean program here in Kentucky. Bring back Joe B Hall.

I am completely for punishing the kid while he's still in school if at all possible, but in the situation like we have here. IF there even is a situation here, vacating wins is about the only punishment they can lobby, that will have any impact on encouraging compliance.

 

So its about intimidation instead of being fair? "Well... we can't punish the guilty party, so we'll punish his associates to send a message."

 

Why don't they punish themselves for not catching it the first time. That would encourage them to be more thorough in the future.

So its about intimidation instead of being fair? "Well... we can't punish the guilty party, so we'll punish his associates to send a message."

 

Why don't they punish themselves for not catching it the first time. That would encourage them to be more thorough in the future.

 

I wouldn't say intimidation, part of the deal that's went on is schools are somewhat in charge of policing themselves along with the clearing house. Schools go along with this model, I mean thing about this the universities ultimately have the power to change everything the NCAA does, all the rules committees and such are made up of representatives from random universities on a rotating basis. But, we punish the school all the time for things players do. Cal above anything knows all about that being the way it works, every argument for him I've heard is he was punished for what his players did. That's part of it. So once a player becomes part of your program you become responsible for things he did and will do. I'm not a huge fan of this kind of rule, but at the same time I don't want it to become a culture of which coach can help his players hide stuff better either, and that's the real danger we run if the NCAA can't bring down some kind of punishment for information that comes to light later. Especially, IF this is true it's because the NCAA was intentionally lied to. You can't expect an organization to sniff out every lie that was told to them at the time it's told. Otherwise you will have situations where players are sitting out most of their freshman season just waiting for an eligibility ruling and no school wants that either. I think schools would rather risks forfeiting wins than risk waiting a year or two for a player to be deemed eligible.

You can't expect an organization to sniff out every lie that was told to them at the time it's told. Otherwise you will have situations where players are sitting out most of their freshman season just waiting for an eligibility ruling and no school wants that either. I think schools would rather risks forfeiting wins than risk waiting a year or two for a player to be deemed eligible.

 

Why can't you expect that? Its their job. If they don't do their job well, its not fair to punish the school (unless the school was involved).

 

If I were a school, I'd much rather sit one kid than risk having to forfeit games. And if it ended up being more than a VERY few kids each year that were left waiting, the NCAA should hire more investigators. They've got the resources.

If there are only 55 workers for NCAA clearinghouse then why not hire more people?

 

it is the Witch Trials all over again.

She let UK football get in a lot of trouble under Mumme. Basketball has been clean since then though. But there were some serious compliance questions under Mumme, who I think has been proven to have just been a not so great guy after the racism stuff at his last job.

 

I don't think she was there when Mumme was around, but I could be wrong on that.

I am all for finding ways to put the onus of certifying eligibility and penalties if there are violations where it belongs - on the athletes. I want rules that require them to take more responsibility, certify their own eligibility and sign agreements that will allow penalties be assessed against the players if they are being fraudulent in anything related to their eligibility. Put clauses in student aid/scholarship papers that allow finanical penalties if a student athlete commits an infraction. That is what will fix the problem. Put it on the players and put some teeth behind penalties.