Well at least the Kitty Cats didn't get to final four so they'd have to vacate Calipari's third

Well at least the Kitty Cats didn't get to final four so they'd have to vacate Calipari's third

 

 

:ohbrother:

Calipari might finaly get caught

 

I guess I can ask you as well, .... caught doing what?

I believe this is all blown out of proportion... Nothing will come about it IMO, atleast that will affect UK.

If Bledsoe is deemed ineligible, then, IMO, UK should forfeit every game he played in, last season....in that same breath I feel that Duke should have to do the same from their 1999 season.

Caught doing what?

 

Maybe this article will explain.

 

 

By Jerry Tipton

 

 

 

The University of Kentucky should have known about serious questions that could have affected the eligibility of basketball player Eric Bledsoe, a private investigator who checks the background of athletes said Tuesday.

 

Michael L. Buckner, an investigator and attorney based in Pompano Beach, Fla., said recent media reports made him believe questions about Bledsoe's eligibility were known during the recruiting process.

 

"Coaches at other schools know there is," he said. "Then I would assume Kentucky knew or should have known."

 

 

Read More

Maybe this article will explain.

 

 

By Jerry Tipton

 

 

 

The University of Kentucky should have known about serious questions that could have affected the eligibility of basketball player Eric Bledsoe, a private investigator who checks the background of athletes said Tuesday.

 

Michael L. Buckner, an investigator and attorney based in Pompano Beach, Fla., said recent media reports made him believe questions about Bledsoe's eligibility were known during the recruiting process.

 

"Coaches at other schools know there is," he said. "Then I would assume Kentucky knew or should have known."

 

 

Read More

 

Yeah... UK had no idea...

 

"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."

 

They're so wreckless for playing a kid that the NCAA reviewed twice and still cleared.

Maybe this article will explain.

 

 

By Jerry Tipton

 

 

 

The University of Kentucky should have known about serious questions that could have affected the eligibility of basketball player Eric Bledsoe, a private investigator who checks the background of athletes said Tuesday.

 

Michael L. Buckner, an investigator and attorney based in Pompano Beach, Fla., said recent media reports made him believe questions about Bledsoe's eligibility were known during the recruiting process.

 

"Coaches at other schools know there is," he said. "Then I would assume Kentucky knew or should have known."

 

 

Read More

 

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

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

I know what you are feeling, but come on. UK actually played him in a game, the other schools didn't. Even the most die-hard UK fan can see that distinction, right?

I know what you are feeling, but come on. UK actually played him in a game, the other schools didn't. Even the most die-hard UK fan can see that distinction, right?

 

Absolutely not. UF would have played him had he chosen them, would they not? What about the other schools? The other schools were more than willing to take him, so if UK gets punished everyone else who had him on a visit should as well. People are acting like Cal and UK did something unheard of, when in truth all kinds of other schools would have gladly done the same thing.

 

It's a cry-baby stuff too. Who cares what Bledsoe did other than the fact he played at UK and for Cal? No one would be up in arms if Bledsoe had played at UCLA or Syracuse. Bledsoe's teachers may have given him passing grades because he's an athlete, what a novel concept. I'm sure that's never happened before.

I have a lot of questions surrounding this.

 

First, is there any sort of evidence that points to him cheating in high school or having his transcripts changed?

 

Second, isn't it illegal for his transcripts to be passed around to everyone in the media?

 

Third, how is UK responsible for something they had nothing to do with after the NCAA rules him eligible? If he was committed to UK all this time when this happened things would be different. What would other universities had done in this situation?

 

If grades were changed on a transcript that is wrong and awful and shouldn't have happened. But if a coach gave the family money to help pay the rent of a poor family to help the family get by I commend him for it.

If Bledsoe is deemed ineligible, then, IMO, UK should forfeit every game he played in, last season....in that same breath I feel that Duke should have to do the same from their 1999 season.

 

If the NCAA ruled him eligible doesn't that put UK in the clear unless its found out UK did something wrong?

If the NCAA ruled him eligible doesn't that put UK in the clear unless its found out UK did something wrong?

Rose was ruled eligible at Memphis also but we all know what happened.

Rose was ruled eligible at Memphis also but we all know what happened.

 

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.

If Bledsoe is deemed ineligible, then, IMO, UK should forfeit every game he played in, last season....in that same breath I feel that Duke should have to do the same from their 1999 season.

 

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.