People forget that the NCAA is essentially using indentured servants to make thier money.. You can come play and we will make millions on you, but you can't even go to dinner with a buddy who used to play for your team and him pay for it.. Europe has a totally different outlook on college.. College is only for learning and not athletics, club teams are the only opportunity for a lot of these athletes to play at a higher level.. NBA needs to repeal it's 1 year rule and you wouldn't see this happen.. The only rule for college ineligibility should be wether or not you have signed with a pro-agent and enter the draft.. If you enter the draft period, you should be ineligible.. Other than that, lets watch these KIDS play some b-ball...

As a UK fan, I think it's time we stop straddling the ethics double yellow line. Coach Cal does not need to take the ultra high risk recruits to fill out his roster. He is at Kentucky for goodness sakes. We squeaked by on the Bledsoe issue. Let's focus on recruits we don't have to lawyer into being eligible. If we continue to operate in such a risky manor, we are going to be put back on probation at which time Cal will no doubt split to coach elsewhere.

 

Bledsoe was a BCG recruit originally I believe. The issue with Bledsoe would have been Sandy Bell and the NCAA. Although IMO Sandy did the job right.

 

Absolutely nothing risky about Kanter unless you play him. Cal didn't.

 

From what I've heard, all of the other kids he has recruited are good academic students.

 

The "Cal is going to get us on probation" routine is getting old. He has done nothing here to warrent it.

 

As far as U Mass, my understanding is that he self reported Camby. The right thing to do.

 

The Memphis situation was the NCAA's fault. They cleared the kid to play, and Cal played him. It's garbage what happened to Memphis. Funny how the same thing didn't happen to Kansas the year before.

As a UK fan, I think it's time we stop straddling the ethics double yellow line. Coach Cal does not need to take the ultra high risk recruits to fill out his roster. He is at Kentucky for goodness sakes. We squeaked by on the Bledsoe issue. Let's focus on recruits we don't have to lawyer into being eligible. If we continue to operate in such a risky manor, we are going to be put back on probation at which time Cal will no doubt split to coach elsewhere.

 

I just don't understand this stance. Kanter is by all accounts the best big man in the world for his age, and there weren't any post players in the class that were available that even compared to his skill set. The worst thing that could happen did, and now UK is right where they would have been if they hadn't recruited him. There was ZERO risk factor involved other than him being declared ineligible before he stepped on the court.

People forget that the NCAA is essentially using indentured servants to make thier money.. You can come play and we will make millions on you, but you can't even go to dinner with a buddy who used to play for your team and him pay for it.. Europe has a totally different outlook on college.. College is only for learning and not athletics, club teams are the only opportunity for a lot of these athletes to play at a higher level.. NBA needs to repeal it's 1 year rule and you wouldn't see this happen.. The only rule for college ineligibility should be wether or not you have signed with a pro-agent and enter the draft.. If you enter the draft period, you should be ineligible.. Other than that, lets watch these KIDS play some b-ball...

That basically sums up my opinion on the NCAA. Make billions off exploiting "student-athletes". Sham.

 

In the Kanter instance, I do not feel the NCAA made a bad decision. With the information they had, ruling him ineligible seems to be the correct move. Better than retroactive ineligible decision two years from now.

So...where does this leave Kanter's scholarship?

If he is at Washington he is eligible. Which is complete garbage in my opinion.

 

Poor old Kentucky. Everybody, including the NCAA hates Kentucky. :rolleyes: :lol:

That's where you are off base. The NCAA doesn't have a problem with the education expenses being paid for, they just require them to be paid by the club team and not distributed to the family first...

 

So they expect players/families on another continent to be fully aware of their procedural technicalities from the moment they start playing. What makes education any different than any other expense? If this is the NCAAs stance, shouldn't the club teams pay directly for every expense?

 

Just seems silly if the money actually went towards his education.

Because 20,000 of the 33,000 was used for his educational expenses such as schooling and tutors, that seems like an actual expense that Fenerbahnce should cover and not the player/family, and the remaining 13,000 has never been touched. The NCAA says these expenses are ok, the only issue seems to be that the NCAA said that the team should have paid for it directly, not the team paying the family and the family paying the expenses. If the family has records that this was paid for, and that the 13,000 was never touched, then the NCAA got this wrong!

SportsGuy, the Kanters need you to represent them at the appeal because the points you list here are very good ones. The NCAA needs to re-think this case. They got it wrong imo.

 

Just a thought, but I wonder if Kanter had signed with Washington or some other school would this have been the end result? Something tells me he would be sitting out a few games and the 33k they're talking about would have been considered part of the expense money. The NCAA is not going to give Cal or UK the benifit of the doubt.

Poor old Kentucky. Everybody, including the NCAA hates Kentucky. :rolleyes: :lol:

Laugh all you want to but it's pretty much the truth. I remember when they made them take their blue colored telephones out of Wildcat Lodge back in the early '80s because they said making the phones a different color than the college dorm phones gave them a recruiting advantage. Unreal!!

Would you or anyone else here say they got it wrong if this kid went to Duke, UNC, or Louisville? I highly doubt it.

I would...just like I thought the NCAA got it wrong when Deng was initially ruled ineligible. Your UK hate is mind blowing.

How does the Enes case compare to the Sydney kid from Miss State?

Look at whay GT has also said, the NCAA says the expense is OKAY, But they want the club to pay for it directly and not go through the family first.

 

As long as that money from the club is going to pay for the education anyway, there should be no problem.

 

One thing that happens on a lot of European club teams, the education is paid for by the club! Some of these players are 100's of miles away from their hometowns playing for these teams. Again, the NCAA has no issue with the education being paid for by the clubs.

 

I don't know what type of documented records that the Kanters kept, but if the family has proof that the $33,000 went strictly for educational purposes, what on earth difference does it make if the club paid for it or the family paid for it with money from the club. It's still educational expense money.

Of course, the Kanters would have to have detailed records to prove where the money went.

The NCAA is way too picky with their interpretation of this particular rule imo.

Some of you guys kill me with this whole "everyone is out to get UK" ploy.

 

Kanter would be ineligible right now regardless of where he went.

Jay Bilas gives his take here.

Some of you guys kill me with this whole "everyone is out to get UK" ploy.

 

Kanter would be ineligible right now regardless of where he went.

 

:thumb: To say or think otherwise is crazy IMO.