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.

 

I love it too. It's funny stuff. Seems like everyone wanted to bust UK and it ended up being something they couldn't prove. :thumb:

 

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.

 

Come on, UK haters are not going to accept that :lol:. Bledsoe cheated and Cal personally had a hand in changing the grades......

 

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?

 

:thumb:, good questions.

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?

 

I'm not saying the NCAA has acted with 100% fairness across the board, and it's not right that they haven't. But I still think with cheating there should be an unlimited time table for when they can go back and punish. There may be a point in time 10 20 years or something where all they can do it take back wins. It seems obsurd to punish a school for coaches, administrators, and players that have all been gone for 10 years. But do to that like anything else in the NCAA UK should advocate for changes in the bylaws of the organization. That's the only way UK can actively get changes in the NCAA is through the organizations legislative process. The courts just won't listen to them.

 

And if the AHSAA punishes his high school for things that would have made him ineligible in college then yes, the punish in some level has to carry over to UK. Though I would never take it farther than vacating wins if UK had ZERO involvement in it. I'm not 100% sure that is right but it's the precedent that's been set with Memphis.

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

 

You at least have a better chance of regulating it in the high school system. AAU is for the most part completely unregulated, where as high schools at least have some organizational oversights that can assist the NCAA.

You at least have a better chance of regulating it in the high school system. AAU is for the most part completely unregulated, where as high schools at least have some organizational oversights that can assist the NCAA.

 

There are just as many very solid AAU orginiaztions that have the kids best interest and future in mind while preparing them for the next level as there are at the high school level. Don't let the media portrayal of the few bad eggs in the bunch cloud your judgment. Getting rid of AAU would be a massive disservice to the kids and the level of play at the college level would see a drastic drop if it was gone...

If the NCAA finds additional information it should hold the school and student athlete responsible for what they do from that point forward. All this declaring kids eligible only to go back and say they weren't later is not fair to anyone involved. The NCAA is holding it's membership responsible for things the institutions often have no control over.

If the NCAA finds additional information it should hold the school and student athlete responsible for what they do from that point forward. All this declaring kids eligible only to go back and say they weren't later is not fair to anyone involved. The NCAA is holding it's membership responsible for things the institutions often have no control over.

 

I agree, if he is ruled eligible then UK went ahead. Don't say he is eligible then say he isn't and punish the school for going on the first ruling.

If the NCAA finds additional information it should hold the school and student athlete responsible for what they do from that point forward. All this declaring kids eligible only to go back and say they weren't later is not fair to anyone involved. The NCAA is holding it's membership responsible for things the institutions often have no control over.

 

Is a family punished when a criminal case goes cold and then years later the evidence turns up that sends a loved one to jail? Any way you slice it, they have to be able to go back and take another look at things when new evidence is presented...

I've been saying for over a year his grades were doctored his SR year. Plain and simple, C/D students don't bust out straight As right in the nick of time like what happened here...

 

You know that is not as hard as it seems. Depending on what the total points available in the class are.

 

Kid has a D average but that is because he didn't turn in a couple of assignments worth 100 points each. Turn each in and that D can become an A REAL QUICK!

 

Totally depends on whether the D is because of poor work with everything turned in or whether it is because of missing assignments.

How is it "irresponsible?

 

Because there are no facts. Just hints and heresay. According to a mysterious source close to the situation this maybe might have happened. But we cant prove it so we'll just infer it a lot.

You know that is not as hard as it seems. Depending on what the total points available in the class are.

 

Kid has a D average but that is because he didn't turn in a couple of assignments worth 100 points each. Turn each in and that D can become an A REAL QUICK!

 

Totally depends on whether the D is because of poor work with everything turned in or whether it is because of missing assignments.

 

I fully understand how this works as I deal with it on a regular basis with kids from coast to coast. Bledsoe is a good kid, and I've never said otherwise. He is also a kid that never did well in the classroom outside of that one small window at the school that he finished his high school career. It happens all the time, but I just happened to be as close as one can get on this one because it was on my beat...

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

 

 

That just seems pretty dumb to me. They said an athlete was eligible, not just to play at UK, but ANY D1 school in the nation, so why should that school suffer from the NCAA's short comings, seems to me they need to be more thorough, or is it because this is UK, and not Duke. I understand the NCAA's lovefest with Duke as they are a premier academic university, but to land blows to a University becauseof their failure to thoroughly investigate a "situation" seems pretty dumb to me. Especially in this case in which GT had speculated on it well over a year ago, it's not like new information came to light which caused all of this.

That just seems pretty dumb to me. They said an athlete was eligible, not just to play at UK, but ANY D1 school in the nation, so why should that school suffer from the NCAA's short comings, seems to me they need to be more thorough, or is it because this is UK, and not Duke. I understand the NCAA's lovefest with Duke as they are a premier academic university, but to land blows to a University becauseof their failure to thoroughly investigate a "situation" seems pretty dumb to me. Especially in this case in which GT had speculated on it well over a year ago, it's not like new information came to light which caused all of this.

 

 

There won't be any punishment unless new information does come to light. That's the whole point. The NCAA isn't going back and punishing based on the facts it ruled on last year, it will go back and punish if new facts come to light that would have lead to a different decision a year earlier. They aren't just changing their minds about facts already known.

But it still puts a blemish on a school and university's image. One that they had no controll over.

Could not have said it better myself.

Here is one view of it: Whether we agree or disagree on how the NCAA handles these things we can agree that their decision is final and the schools are at their mercy. As HT pointed out, a lawsuit has no bearing and would not even see a court. So, if there is a "borderline student-athlete" where there are serious concerns about his eligibility and everyone knows there could have been problems, is it now on the coach and the university to decide whether they should recruit them or not? I'm not bashing Bledsoe or Cal on this, but i'm asking a serious question. If you know that the NCAA could come back and vacate wins because a retroactively ineligible player was used, make a decision about that player. The precedent seems to have been set with Rose, so IF the NCAA is consistent, coaches have the choice. Not a perfect system, but you now have to really decide if the player is worth it.

 

As UK fans, we have now seen Orton not finish his semester which will hurt UK's APR...Bledsoe possibly being ruled ineligible. I'm VERY concerned about the future of our program.