Maybe major universities need to start hiring PI's to investigate every kid's potential eligibility issues as the high schools don't always do it and the NCAA is tremendous at finding out after the fact.

 

When should the NCAA find out when it happens. I mean to follow your logic to it's end that is basically saying if the NCAA doesn't know about a rule being broken when it certifies a player there should be no repercussions for it. If you do that a coach can pay a player a million dollars for his services so long as that money stays hidden in an offshore bank account for a few years. If the NCAA can't go back and punish after facts are brought to light then why have any rules at all.

GT was all over this last year, ... gotta give him his credit for raising the red flag even then.

 

Thanks. At the end of the day I was just covering his recruitment a lot earlier than most because UC had him on their board to monitor as the academic situation was playing out. I also had contact with a few high major assistants recruiting him early in the process that had seen the transcripts from before he left for the new school prior to his senior year.

 

I had zero problems dealing with Eric, and he really is a good kid. It was just clear for a long time that whoever landed him was going to face a long look at how he made the grades. Once that was Cal, the media folks with an ax to grind went digging a lot deeper than usual. Turns out they came up with very little when they were expecting a jackpot. The opening of Capone's "vault" had just as much substance...

If the New York Times spent a tenth of the time investigating their favorite promotional topic, Obama and Co. (and then reported on it fairly); as they spent investigating Bledsoe and Calipari, they could fill their worthless rag with real "scoops" and maybe avoid their inevitable bankruptcy??

Have to love all of the non-UK fans on here bashing UK.... No one had much to say about UConn though and they actually got caught cheating. Blah, blah, blah, cry me a river.....

 

One very important fact to keep in mind is that UK's scrutiny and criticism will always be in direct proportion to their success. The more success UK has, the more the haters hate. Personally, I thrive on it.

Well just from what I've read it seems everyone agreed that there was no way Bledsoe could get eligible to play in his senior year. That should have been red flag number 1. Then the thought process should be in his head going "Hey, I'm John Calipari. I want to end all this speculation where people think I bend every rule imaginable so I think I will stay away from this questionable player. I'm at a new school and a chance to start over clean and put all these forfeited NCAA tournament wins behind me."

 

There is no wa to increase your GPA that much in one year...unless you are taking classes that replace previous poor grades. Then it is certainly possible.

Maybe major universities need to start hiring PI's to investigate every kid's potential eligibility issues as the high schools don't always do it and the NCAA is tremendous at finding out after the fact.

 

How much do you think a job like that would pay, because I'm looking and feel like I could definitely do that lol.

I'll be honest. Nothing would surprise me in regards to Bledsoe.

It's just seems like Thamel has an ax to grind with Calipari. Seems like pretty irresponsible journalism to me.

 

How is it "irresponsible?

After seeing the quote below from DP, I cannot see under any circumstances how the NCAA could come in and make Bledsoe ineligible on a retroactive basis. Looks like Bledsoe under went rigid eligibility reviews before being deemed eligible. If they did come back and say he was not eligible, I could see a very ugly law suit against the NCAA.

 

Dwayne Peevy quote:

 

“Often high-profile student-athletes are selected for an extensive prospective student-athlete review,” the statement said. “Eric Bledsoe participated in the normal academic review process and also an extensive PSA review by the NCAA Eligibility Center and was cleared academically.”

From Mark Story's article in today's Hearld-Leader.

 

And as the Rose case proved, just because the NCAA Eligibility Center has certified a player doesn't mean a school is protected from punishment should the NCAA later rule the player ineligible.

 

 

Read More

 

After seeing the quote below from DP, I cannot see under any circumstances how the NCAA could come in and make Bledsoe ineligible on a retroactive basis. Looks like Bledsoe under went rigid eligibility reviews before being deemed eligible. If they did come back and say he was not eligible, I could see a very ugly law suit against the NCAA.

[/b]

 

And what exactly would you sue the NCAA for. The NCAA has largely been protected against lawsuits in the past with the federal government dismissing almost all of them. The NCAA is a private organization so no Due Process rights with them.

From Mark Story's article in today's Hearld-Leader.

 

And as the Rose case proved, just because the NCAA Eligibility Center has certified a player doesn't mean a school is protected from punishment should the NCAA later rule the player ineligible.

 

Author was John Clay. Horrible journalism. Cannot compare Rose's case to Bledsoe's.

 

 

Read More

 

 

And what exactly would you sue the NCAA for. The NCAA has largely been protected against lawsuits in the past with the federal government dismissing almost all of them. The NCAA is a private organization so no Due Process rights with them.

 

I wouldn't sue them, but if I was UK's counsel, and the NCAA came back and said Bledsoe was not eligible, then I would most certainly sue them. If they approved Bledsoe to play after numerous reviews, then this organization has proven themselves to be incompetent. How can UK and any other member organization of the NCAA rely upon them to make prudent decisions when the information they provide these same member institutions is false and misleading? You can bet that this topic will begin to heat up rather quickly from member institutions. This behavior by the NCAA is deplorable. They can't have it both ways, I could see this going to the highest court in the land.

I wouldn't sue them, but if I was UK's counsel, and the NCAA came back and said Bledsoe was not eligible, then I would most certainly sue them. If they approved Bledsoe to play after numerous reviews, then this organization has proven themselves to be incompetent. How can UK and any other member organization of the NCAA rely upon them to make prudent decisions when the information they provide these same member institutions is false and misleading? You can bet that this topic will begin to heat up rather quickly from member institutions. This behavior by the NCAA is deplorable. They can't have it both ways, I could see this going to the highest court in the land.

 

Ok, if you are UK's counsel what do you sue them for? There is basically no ground to file a lawsuit on this. You can get creative and make something up, but you are very unlikely to win and will most likely just be wasting your time and money. Once you lose a lawsuit like that you will be forced to pay for the NCAA's legal bills as well.

 

This behavior by the NCAA is the only way they can act. They make decisions based on the information they have at the time the decision is made, if new information comes up later they have to go back and change their decision and sometimes lay down punishment. It's really the only way they can operate. I mean do you just not punish a school for violations because it took a couple of years for the facts to come out? It's just the nature of things. I mean be it for academics or for being paid the NCAA has to go back and revoke eligibility if facts come out that a player cheater.

 

If programs wants to get a handle on things then a serious effort should be made to control AAU and stop kids from playing in it. I would say well over half of students who are involved in NCAA violations while in high school can be traced back to AAU in one form or another.

If programs wants to get a handle on things then a serious effort should be made to control AAU and stop kids from playing in it. I would say well over half of students who are involved in NCAA violations while in high school can be traced back to AAU in one form or another.

 

There is just as much, if not more, shady activity that goes on at the high school level. Should we stop that too???

Ok, if you are UK's counsel what do you sue them for? There is basically no ground to file a lawsuit on this. You can get creative and make something up, but you are very unlikely to win and will most likely just be wasting your time and money. Once you lose a lawsuit like that you will be forced to pay for the NCAA's legal bills as well.

 

This behavior by the NCAA is the only way they can act. They make decisions based on the information they have at the time the decision is made, if new information comes up later they have to go back and change their decision and sometimes lay down punishment. It's really the only way they can operate. I mean do you just not punish a school for violations because it took a couple of years for the facts to come out? It's just the nature of things. I mean be it for academics or for being paid the NCAA has to go back and revoke eligibility if facts come out that a player cheater.

 

If programs wants to get a handle on things then a serious effort should be made to control AAU and stop kids from playing in it. I would say well over half of students who are involved in NCAA violations while in high school can be traced back to AAU in one form or another.

 

Ok, at what point should the NCAA not be able to come back and change decisions? One year, two years, five years, twenty years?? Just curious. Why didn't they come after Duke when Maggette admitted to receiving money?

 

Have another question for you. What new information has surfaced in the Bledsoe case? Also, if the AHSAA strips Bledsoe's high school of their wins that Bledsoe participated in, should the penalty carryover to UK? If so, why?