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

 

If I remember this correctly, one fact that is very different in the Rose case is the NCAA was investigating and sent notice to Rose during the season. Rose either purposely ignored the notice from the NCAA or just avoided it. Was Memphis notified that Rose's eligibility was in question? I think they may have received notice toward the end of the season or during the tournament. I think that is an important distinction because Memphis continued to play Rose even though they knew his eligibility was in question.

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 understand that but if they rule him ineligible then U.K. played him they can make Kentucky forfeit all of those games. Is it fair? No, but that is the way the NCAA works.

If I remember this correctly, one fact that is very different in the Rose case is the NCAA was investigating and sent notice to Rose during the season. Rose either purposely ignored the notice from the NCAA or just avoided it. Was Memphis notified that Rose's eligibility was in question? I think they may have received notice toward the end of the season or during the tournament. I think that is an important distinction because Memphis continued to play Rose even though they knew his eligibility was in question.

 

According to what we know here the NCAA was in B-ham in February during the season. So it's highly possible both Bledsoe and UK knew there was a chance they might find something.

I understand that but if they rule him ineligible then U.K. played him they can make Kentucky forfeit all of those games. Is it fair? No, but that is the way the NCAA works.

 

People who make this argument aren't thinking about the flaw of the argument. The NCAA rules player A eligible at school X. Turns out school of Coach X payed player A 20,000 dollars to commit to School X. The NCAA doesn't find out until after A leaves college, school X shouldn't be punished because the NCAA ruled him eligible and School X just relied on the NCAA's decision.

 

Bottom line some of this falls on Sandy Bell, if UK had a great record of following the rules I might be a tad more sympathetic for them, but it wouldn't be the first time UK compliance turned a blind eye to facts that they should have investigated before hand.

People who make this argument aren't thinking about the flaw of the argument. The NCAA rules player A eligible at school X. Turns out school of Coach X payed player A 20,000 dollars to commit to School X. The NCAA doesn't find out until after A leaves college, school X shouldn't be punished because the NCAA ruled him eligible and School X just relied on the NCAA's decision.

 

Bottom line some of this falls on Sandy Bell, if UK had a great record of following the rules I might be a tad more sympathetic for them, but it wouldn't be the first time UK compliance turned a blind eye to facts that they should have investigated before hand.

 

If a college is involved in making the player ineligible (your example), its a completely different story. My understanding is that anything questionable happened before UK was even involved with him.

 

A better example is:

Player A cheats in a class to get an A in order to make him meet the minimum NCAA standards.

Player A submits paperwork to the NCAA.

NCAA investigates (and reinvestigates) Player A.

NCAA declares Player A eligible.

Player A signs to play with University B.

NCAA decides they didn't investigate enough, and investigates more.

NCAA decides they shouldn't have ruled Player A eligible, and changes their decision.

NCAA penalizes University B for following the first NCAA decision.

 

Univesity B was not involved in the act that made the player ineligible and had no knowledge of the act.

 

If the clearinghouse isn't going to stand behind their own decisions, they should just be disbanded and put the responsibility on the schools to investigate players. That way they can at least say "well, you should have investigated more." Unfortunately all that would do is keep boarderline kids out of college, and prevent smaller schools (without the resources to do the investigations) from competing.

How can the NCAA rule on evidence that was hidden from it during it's initial investigation like here?

 

Is this unfair to UK in some ways? Sure

 

But to say the NCAA is out of control or this or that because they didn't find information that they were lied to about and was hidden from them the first time around is insane. I mean they have to rule on the information at hand, and if it turns out someone lied to them then they have to go back and make the best of a bad situation. With all the athletes they deal with yearly there is no way they can find out everyone that lies to them.

 

 

And bottom line Player A cheated and player a was a member of University B's team. So University B would have to share in some of the punishment. Isn't that how team sports work? If one player chokes the whole team suffers from it?

 

In the end if UK is punished it's because Bledsoe cheated in his initial dealings with the NCAA clearing house and purposefully hid facts that would negatively effect his eligibility.

How can the NCAA rule on evidence that was hidden from it during it's initial investigation like here?

 

Doesn't matter. They've established themselves via the clearinghouse as THE authority on player eligibility. They are the only body that can determine a player's eligibility. Its their job to find the facts and make the decision. If they don't do their job well, its completely ridiculous to punish a member institution for the NCAAs inabilty to properly do their own job.

 

Again, if the University is involved, or is shown to have withheld information, thats a different story, but I haven't seen anything where that is being claimed in this case.

 

The worst part about all of this is inconsistency with which the NCAA acts. See Arhur at KU.

Doesn't matter. They've established themselves via the clearinghouse as THE authority on player eligibility. They are the only body that can determine a player's eligibility. Its their job to find the facts and make the decision. If they don't do their job well, its completely ridiculous to punish a member institution for the NCAAs inabilty to properly do their own job.

 

Again, if the University is involved, or is shown to have withheld information, thats a different story, but I haven't seen anything where that is being claimed in this case.

 

The worst part about all of this is inconsistency with which the NCAA acts. See Arhur at KU.

 

It doesn't matter if a prospective athlete hides information and lies to them? It's the NCAA's fault when they don't find out someone lied and hid information up front? So basically there should be no recourse for a student athlete that falsifies documents and lies to the NCAA clearinghouse?

 

And any and all authority they have only exists because the member schools allow them to have it.

Edited June 2, 201016 yr by HT721

HT, I understand what you're saying. But shouldn't the NCAA have everything at their disposal before making a conclusion one way or the other? If there isn't enough information or they're speculating, then do not clear the kid. If he's not cleared, he'll go the JUCO route or to a prep school & that will give the NCAA plenty of time to investigate further.

 

The NCAA should not continue to rule kids eligible then continue to investigate their past. If they don't feel comfortable clearing the student-athlete, then that is fine. But NOBODY wins when the kid gets cleared & then they continue to investigate...

It doesn't matter if a prospective athlete hides information and lies to them? It's the NCAA's fault when they don't find out someone lied and hid information up front? So basically there should be no recourse for a student athlete that falsifies documents and lies to the NCAA clearinghouse?

 

And any and all authority they have only exists because the member schools allow them to have it.

 

Look at who the NCAA is punishing. Bledsoe will be in the NBA next year. Rose was already the #1 pick & on his way to becoming rookie of the year. Without a doubt the schools & coaches should have some accountability, but how can the NCAA justify punishing the school / coaches (who had no part in it) when the NCAA itself gave its stamp of approval?

HT, I understand what you're saying. But shouldn't the NCAA have everything at their disposal before making a conclusion one way or the other? If there isn't enough information or they're speculating, then do not clear the kid. If he's not cleared, he'll go the JUCO route or to a prep school & that will give the NCAA plenty of time to investigate further.

 

The NCAA should not continue to rule kids eligible then continue to investigate their past. If they don't feel comfortable clearing the student-athlete, then that is fine. But NOBODY wins when the kid gets cleared & then they continue to investigate...

 

I'm not sure they did continue until someone brought new information to them about it. And that's the point of why this shouldn't be shut off. You shouldn't give schools a free pass just because he didn't get caught if he intentionally hid information from the NCAA.

 

I'll address both of your statements here too. And it is kind of unfair to punish the team and school, but what else can the NCAA do, there has to be some form of punishment or you will start to see schools help these one and done kids cover information up. It's not perfect by any stretch, but I haven't seen anyone else propose a solution that will really help solve the problem, of cheating and intentionally hiding facts from the clearinghouse. All these this is unfair people would get if the NCAA took their view is a college game more corrupt than it is already. Then the UK fans would be crying non stop about how Duke or UNC helped their players cover up stuff from the clearinghouse to be eligible and nothing is being done about it.

I'll address both of your statements here too. And it is kind of unfair to punish the team and school, but what else can the NCAA do, there has to be some form of punishment or you will start to see schools help these one and done kids cover information up. It's not perfect by any stretch, but I haven't seen anyone else propose a solution that will really help solve the problem, of cheating and intentionally hiding facts from the clearinghouse.

 

I agree that it's not perfect. I'm not sure it's the best way to do it, but I am unable to come up with anything to fix the problem. I think it should be added that, while Bledsoe was a top recruit, he was not a "one & done" player while he was being recruited. To this day, many people think he made a mistake by going pro.

 

Then the UK fans would be crying non stop about how Duke or UNC helped their players cover up stuff from the clearinghouse to be eligible and nothing is being done about it.

 

Heck, Duke & Roy Williams have openly committed violations and not been punished. :lol:

HT, I understand what you're saying. But shouldn't the NCAA have everything at their disposal before making a conclusion one way or the other? If there isn't enough information or they're speculating, then do not clear the kid. If he's not cleared, he'll go the JUCO route or to a prep school & that will give the NCAA plenty of time to investigate further.

 

The NCAA should not continue to rule kids eligible then continue to investigate their past. If they don't feel comfortable clearing the student-athlete, then that is fine. But NOBODY wins when the kid gets cleared & then they continue to investigate...

 

Look at who the NCAA is punishing. Bledsoe will be in the NBA next year. Rose was already the #1 pick & on his way to becoming rookie of the year. Without a doubt the schools & coaches should have some accountability, but how can the NCAA justify punishing the school / coaches (who had no part in it) when the NCAA itself gave its stamp of approval?

 

:thumb:

 

Just make a ruling and stand by it. Don't come back a year later with a big "psych!"

 

Just make a ruling and stand by it. Don't come back a year later with a big "psych!"

 

I'm sure you'll love that when the next prized UK recruit with academic issues is on the bench in mid February awaiting a ruling... :thumb:

HT, I understand what you're saying. But shouldn't the NCAA have everything at their disposal before making a conclusion one way or the other? If there isn't enough information or they're speculating, then do not clear the kid. If he's not cleared, he'll go the JUCO route or to a prep school & that will give the NCAA plenty of time to investigate further.

 

The NCAA should not continue to rule kids eligible then continue to investigate their past. If they don't feel comfortable clearing the student-athlete, then that is fine. But NOBODY wins when the kid gets cleared & then they continue to investigate...

 

I'm sure you'll love that when the next prized UK recruit with academic issues is on the bench in mid February awaiting a ruling... :thumb:

 

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.