Have you seen the requirements to stay eligible for your second semester of college? It basically boils down to you need to pass 6 hours. That's 2 classes. You can fail the rest and still be eligible 2nd semester.

 

Then the rule needs to change. No sense it holding a player accountable for that IMO.

Then the rule needs to change. No sense it holding a player accountable for that IMO.

 

Oh I agree. It caters to the one and done players. It's easy to find 2 classes you can pass if that's all you need. And we all know UK's team GPA was awful last year despite Wall and Patterson being top notch students, someone had to be bringing it down and Bledsoe seems like a prime candidate.

I guess the only question that really matters is, what would this mean for UK? I thought I heard elsewhere not much would come of this regardless of the findings.

 

I thought I heard it would be the high school getting in trouble and not UK, is this true. If this is the case, who cares?

I thought I heard it would be the high school getting in trouble and not UK, is this true. If this is the case, who cares?

 

That's my understanding as well...

Bravo NCAA.

I thought I heard it would be the high school getting in trouble and not UK, is this true. If this is the case, who cares?

But here's the thing... In the article cited above, it mentioned that the NCAA can declare a player (who was initially found to be eligible) ineligible if new information comes to light, which definitely sounds like what this situation entails. If Bledsoe is retroactively declared ineligible, then I think the NCAA has no choice but to declare the UK game wins in which Bledsoe played null and void. I don't think the NCAA would allow a program to keep wins when they used an ineligible player, would they?

 

Does anyone know how many of the UK games Bledsoe played in last year? I'm guessing it was about all of them (or maybe even all of them).

But here's the thing... In the article cited above, it mentioned that the NCAA can declare a player (who was initially found to be eligible) ineligible if new information comes to light, which definitely sounds like what this situation entails. If Bledsoe is retroactively declared ineligible, then I think the NCAA has no choice but to declare the UK game wins in which Bledsoe played null and void. I don't think the NCAA would allow a program to keep wins when they used an ineligible player, would they?

 

Does anyone know how many of the UK games Bledsoe played in last year? I'm guessing it was about all of them (or maybe even all of them).

 

See Darrell Arthur... Who knows what's going to happen?

See Darrell Arthur... Who knows what's going to happen?

Was Kansas' Arthur ever actually delared ineligible by the NCAA?

Was Kansas' Arthur ever actually delared ineligible by the NCAA?

 

No he wasn't, even though the evidence was more overwhelming in that case than in EB's IMO. Understand, I'm not defending the wrongdoing that has or may have gone on w/ Bledsoe. But like a lot of others have stated, I'd just like some consistency with the NCAA and their rulings. It does seem that they are sharpening their blades and wielding their swords a bit more lately. But cases such as Arthur's & Cory Maggette's lends to the belief held by many that the NCAA plays favorites.

Oh I agree. It caters to the one and done players. It's easy to find 2 classes you can pass if that's all you need. And we all know UK's team GPA was awful last year despite Wall and Patterson being top notch students, someone had to be bringing it down and Bledsoe seems like a prime candidate.

For sure.

 

I had an Entomology class with Rondo, Smooth, Crawford, and Morris their frosh year. Probably the easiest class I ever had and commonly referred to as "Basketball Biology". Several of my friends took a specific Geology classs filled with football players. Around campus it was called "Rocks with Jocks".

I think this has been established. The article stated the NCAA had 55 agents reviewing over 90,000 transcripts. I think this needs to be addressed immediately. They obviously need additional personnel to handle their overwhelming case load. I would also think that Sandy Bell at UK would have also had access to this information, why didn't she catch it? That fish odor is getting stronger.

 

I understand how that sounds alarming like it's just not enough people for such a big job, but if that's their only job....... Then that means that of the 55 agents they should have to review rougly1636 transcripts a piece. College sports don't start for the most part until September, you can group athlete's by the time frame of their sports start date if necessary, but you should have about 3 months to do 1636 transcript review, again that sounds like a large task so let's break it down further. 1636 transcripst divided by the 3 months of review time that they have over the summer. 1636 over 3 months is approx 545 a month per agent. Against it's still a large number, but seems a bit more reasonable. Well the agent has 4 weeks each month so that means they should complete about 136 transcript reviews a week, which equates to about 27 a day. This is assuming that all 90,000 transcripts are only reviewed from june to september and we know this is NOT the case, it's done year round. So I really don't think it's the # of agents reviewing transcripts but rather the job the agents are doing in reviewing.

Just backs what I have said all along. The only way he could have qualified was to have grades changed. Good to see the truth finally surface...

 

UC offered him... right?

UC offered him... right?

 

Sure did. His interviews were impossible to translate, and it got to the point I told my boss I was done talking to him on the record. Worst recruit I've ever dealt with from that aspect...

Sure did. His interviews were impossible to translate, and it got to the point I told my boss I was done talking to him on the record. Worst recruit I've ever dealt with from that aspect...

Bledsoe never appeared to be the sharpest pencil in the box.

Still how was UK to know this, or the NCAA for that matter? They both could only go on the official transcripts they had been given by Parker and Hayes. If the schools had changed the grades and the grades were what became official at the time then it would be very very crushing to take any kind of action towards Kentucky. The NCAA Clearinghouse investigated the situation thoroughly and declared him eligible, unless there is any lost letters in the mail floating around ala Derek Rose he should not be cleared ineligible because how was UK or the NCAA for that matter to know that Parker had perhaps changed his grade(s) in one core class?