I get what you're saying but how does the NCAA reconcile that with say the Selby decision? He took money, it wasn't a mistake and he gets 9 games I believe. I think the NCAA is trying to decide how seriously it wants foreign players in college basketball.

 

:idunno: That one I don't understand.

You guys do realize that in the Newton case no money was found to have changed hands, when it's fact that the Kanter's took money, right?

 

Do I think he should be eligible, absolutely, as I feel they made an honest mistake, and tried to keep him eligible, however that's a HUGE difference between the cases IMO.

 

I think UK's main contention is Kanter was a 16 year old minor with no control over the money and he should not be held responsible for mis-management of finances by his parents. Just like Newton was not held responsible for actions and decisions made by his father. That is the similarity.

:idunno: That one I don't understand.

 

It seems like UK would have used the Selby case as new information instead of Cam Newton. Or a combination of the two. Surely they mentioned the Selby ruling with their new case.

You guys do realize that in the Newton case no money was found to have changed hands, ?

.

 

For what its worth,

 

 

I'm thinking the NCAA bylaw reads that it makes no difference whether money actually exchanged hands. Its about intent, and Cecil Newton intended on selling his son. Thats what really baffles me.

Those are all good points and I think common sense has completely "left the building." I also wonder about the foreign player issue. Does the NCAA really want to open the floodgates for foreign players (taking scholarships away) or are they looking for a way to keep the lid on that pipeline.....................

Those are all good points and I think common sense has completely "left the building." I also wonder about the foreign player issue. Does the NCAA really want to open the floodgates for foreign players (taking scholarships away) or are they looking for a way to keep the lid on that pipeline.....................

 

They'd be stupid to not want foreign players in the game. They'll add that much more to the level of competition and play. They're trying to figure out the best way to do so, as it's a lot harder to regulate the eligibility of those players due to the way competitive play is structured over there.

I can see the other side of the fence on that issue of making it easier for foreign players to become eligible. It means a whole nother group of employess who are over worked and underpaid by the NCAA to deal with foreign rules, regulations, government entitities, etc, etc ,etc..............................

They'd be stupid to not want foreign players in the game. They'll add that much more to the level of competition and play. They're trying to figure out the best way to do so, as it's a lot harder to regulate the eligibility of those players due to the way competitive play is structured over there.

 

Your right that want the foreign players but I don't think it has anything to do with the level of competition. It would open up so many more markets and bring millions of more fans for the NCAA. Which equals more $.

What I think is stupid is the NCAA said if the team had paid for Kanters education expenses it would have been ok. His parents have records of every cent spent on education and the rest setting unused. If they had bought him a car or something with the money instead of school then that makes sense but just because they paid for it and not the team is crazy.

For what its worth,

 

 

I'm thinking the NCAA bylaw reads that it makes no difference whether money actually exchanged hands. Its about intent, and Cecil Newton intended on selling his son. Thats what really baffles me.

 

:thumb: Yep. Makes no difference at all (at least thats the way the rules read).

 

Just in case anyone is confused, I don't think the NCAA has some special vendetta against UK. That doesn't mean this entire process hasn't been ludicrous.

 

Its not even about the stupid decisions the NCAA makes, its the fact that there is zero consistency.

 

If you can decide Cam Newton's father DID break rules, but Cam didn't know about it, so all is good (in less than a day). Why does it take so long to make a decision regarding Enes?

Word is that legal action will be taken by the Kanters if Enes is ruled ineligible.

Word is that legal action will be taken by the Kanters if Enes is ruled ineligible.

 

I'm all for the NCAA being sued by anyone and everyone.

:thumb: Yep. Makes no difference at all (at least thats the way the rules read).

 

Just in case anyone is confused, I don't think the NCAA has some special vendetta against UK. That doesn't mean this entire process hasn't been ludicrous.

 

Its not even about the stupid decisions the NCAA makes, its the fact that there is zero consistency.

 

If you can decide Cam Newton's father DID break rules, but Cam didn't know about it, so all is good (in less than a day). Why does it take so long to make a decision regarding Enes?

 

I could be wrong but I've thought Newton was only ruled eligible so he could play in the MNC game so the TV ratings would be good. The NCAA isn't going to miss out on making all the money they can.

Suing the NCAA puts UK in a tough spot because they are a paying member and agree to abide by the rules........Oh wait a minute the rules are written in some type of special ink that shifts words around every other day.............

 

KHSAA = NCAA

I think UK's main contention is Kanter was a 16 year old minor with no control over the money and he should not be held responsible for mis-management of finances by his parents. Just like Newton was not held responsible for actions and decisions made by his father. That is the similarity.

 

This is how I see it too.