Some concerning news has come to light involving Bledsoe's dubious eligibility. Who knows if anything will come of this particular situation, but it seems that UK fans will be forced to grow accustomed to issues about the possibility of vacated seasons as long as Calipari is at the helm.

 

In the event that at some point UK is forced to vacate a season's wins under Calipari, what will UK's response be? Let's say the program loses an entire season's worth of wins and UK has NCAA sanctions placed against it, but Calipari is not found culpable by the NCAA. Given how storied the program is and how proud the state and school are of the basketball program's tradition, would UK fire Calipari over such a thing? Should UK, in the event it happens? Or, would Calipari just leave UK and go somewhere else (another college or the pros) shortly before any sanctions were handed out by the NCAA?

They probably should let him go. Whether they do that or not, who knows?

Depends on the circumstances and the case. It's impossible, IMO, to make a blanet statement of what will (or should) happen without knowing the story.

 

For example: Umass' issues were behind Calipari's back with money to one player.

 

Derrick Rose was cleared and then later said, "No you are not."

 

In each of those I don't hold Cal responsible.

Depends on the circumstances and the case. It's impossible, IMO, to make a blanet statement of what will (or should) happen without knowing the story.

 

For example: Umass' issues were behind Calipari's back with money to one player.

 

Derrick Rose was cleared and then later said, "No you are not."

 

In each of those I don't hold Cal responsible.

 

While I agree with this, at the same time, someone has to be held accountable for oversight of the program.

While I agree with this, at the same time, someone has to be held accountable for oversight of the program.

 

 

I'd hold the NCAA accountable for their severely flawed system. It should be like criminal courts, once investigated and tried, if found "not guilty" the case should be closed and not revisited again.

Depends on the circumstances and the case. It's impossible, IMO, to make a blanet statement of what will (or should) happen without knowing the story.

 

For example: Umass' issues were behind Calipari's back with money to one player.

 

Derrick Rose was cleared and then later said, "No you are not."

 

In each of those I don't hold Cal responsible.

 

If smoke keeps appearing eventually you have to start wondering where the fire is coming from? Last I saw Pitino was the only coach to take 3 different schools to the final four, Cal could join that list but the difference is Pitino has never given his back. I doubt any coach has ever vacated 3 final fours let alone at 3 different schools.

I'd hold the NCAA accountable for their severely flawed system. It should be like criminal courts, once investigated and tried, if found "not guilty" the case should be closed and not revisited again.

 

Then you encourage schools to hide everything they can at all costs, because then they know as long as they get away with it initially it's over. The goal is cooperation for fairness night do your best to hide it so you can be in the clear regardless of what you did.

Then you encourage schools to hide everything they can at all costs, because then they know as long as they get away with it initially it's over. The goal is cooperation for fairness night do your best to hide it so you can be in the clear regardless of what you did.

 

Then don't make a ruling, leave the school hanging if you must. But to rule someone eligible and then go back and investigate is just a poor practice no matter what school is involved.

Depends on the circumstances and the case. It's impossible, IMO, to make a blanet statement of what will (or should) happen without knowing the story.

 

For example: Umass' issues were behind Calipari's back with money to one player.

 

Derrick Rose was cleared and then later said, "No you are not."

 

In each of those I don't hold Cal responsible.

I understand what you are saying about Calipari not being found responsible for what happened at UMass and Memphis, BUT if it happens again to a Calipari-led program, then it will really look as if something is going on with Cal. How many coaches have had to vacate two seasons of basketball play?

If smoke keeps appearing eventually you have to start wondering where the fire is coming from? Last I saw Pitino was the only coach to take 3 different schools to the final four, Cal could join that list but the difference is Pitino has never given his back. I doubt any coach has ever vacated 3 final fours let alone at 3 different schools.

 

I agree on the smoke & fire analogy, but my whole point is the lack of consistency w/ the NCAA. It is factual that Cal has had two FF's stripped because of a player being deemed ineligible after the season was over. That's fine with me, so long as the NCAA is consistent with that kind of decision-making, but it clearly is not when you look at the Maggette & Arthur cases--both of which would have stripped wins & final fours from Duke and Kansas respectively.

Then don't make a ruling, leave the school hanging if you must. But to rule someone eligible and then go back and investigate is just a poor practice no matter what school is involved.

 

But it could be a player that looks perfect on paper that turns out the only reason they look perfect is 10 or 15 people worked hard together to ensure it looked that way and hide the facts of payment or whatever. Under your scenario say a player goes to Louisville because his parents were paid a million dollars by a Louisville booster. He is ruled eligible by the amateurism part of the NCAA because the million dollars had been hidden well. After his one season at Louisville he goes pro, the next year the million dollar payment for his commitment to UL comes out. Are you really ok with Louisville getting off scott free in this scenario?

But it could be a player that looks perfect on paper that turns out the only reason they look perfect is 10 or 15 people worked hard together to ensure it looked that way and hide the facts of payment or whatever. Under your scenario say a player goes to Louisville because his parents were paid a million dollars by a Louisville booster. He is ruled eligible by the amateurism part of the NCAA because the million dollars had been hidden well. After his one season at Louisville he goes pro, the next year the million dollar payment for his commitment to UL comes out. Are you really ok with Louisville getting off scott free in this scenario?

 

Not at all okay if UL would get off w/o punishment in that instance. And neither am I okay with Duke and Kansas getting a free ride, since others (UMass, Memphis, USC football) have received punishment for strikingly similar violations. I've argued this with UK haters before (not accusing you of being one), and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why Duke, in particular, was let off the hook and others weren't. And until I get such an answer, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the NCAA doesn't favor Duke over other programs.

But it could be a player that looks perfect on paper that turns out the only reason they look perfect is 10 or 15 people worked hard together to ensure it looked that way and hide the facts of payment or whatever. Under your scenario say a player goes to Louisville because his parents were paid a million dollars by a Louisville booster. He is ruled eligible by the amateurism part of the NCAA because the million dollars had been hidden well. After his one season at Louisville he goes pro, the next year the million dollar payment for his commitment to UL comes out. Are you really ok with Louisville getting off scott free in this scenario?

 

Yes, because I guarantee you the booster is banned, and they're looking alot harder at Louisville next year. Should've done a better job the first time, you can't catch them all.

Not at all okay if UL would get off w/o punishment in that instance. And neither am I okay with Duke and Kansas getting a free ride, since others (UMass, Memphis, USC football) have received punishment for strikingly similar violations. I've argued this with UK haters before (not accusing you of being one), and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why Duke, in particular, was let off the hook and others weren't. And until I get such an answer, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the NCAA doesn't favor Duke over other programs.

 

I don't know the DUKE situation very well. Nor do I really know Bledsoe or Kanter. A lot of this stuff comes down to what specific documents say and what the actual evidence is. One thing I do know that most might not about the NCAA is that when you appeal a decision from the eligibility center the appeal is heard by AD's and Compliance officers from other NCAA schools not in your conference. So at least on appeal any school has a more sympathetic audience in these situations than what most think of the NCAA.

Not at all okay if UL would get off w/o punishment in that instance. And neither am I okay with Duke and Kansas getting a free ride, since others (UMass, Memphis, USC football) have received punishment for strikingly similar violations. I've argued this with UK haters before (not accusing you of being one), and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why Duke, in particular, was let off the hook and others weren't. And until I get such an answer, you'll have a hard time convincing me that the NCAA doesn't favor Duke over other programs.

 

AMEN brother. I am with you on this one 100%. No one will address it or answer it with a valid and logical explanation. Very perplexing indeed.