1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two SEC freshmen basketball players may not be eligible

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by KYSportsWriter, Oct 22, 2009.

  1. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Breaking transaction:

    NCAA: Placed Cleveland State on two years probation.
     
  2. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    Wait, you think they didn't?
    How much do you know about how the NCAA enforcement/judicial system operates?
    It's been nearly 15 years that the investigation has served as the punishment.
    If you don't believe that, say hello to the Tooth Fairy for me.
     
  3. Crash

    Crash Active Member

    I guess it depends on how you look at it. At the very best (for him and Kentucky), he won't be suspended at all. And it's highly likely that he won't be. It's also likely that the worst Wall is going to get is restitution plus a 10 percent suspension. I see it as pretty unlikely that Wall's AAU coach a) paid him a hell of a lot of money or b) acted as an agent for him. With a future earnings loan, Wall was probably going to get plenty of money to finance anything he could dream of, given that every draft prospectus has him going in the top two or three (if not first) next year. Secondly, with no option to go pro right now, I don't see how the coach could have acted as an "agent." There isn't a shoe deal, a contract, or a draft position to broker.

    This, as Jeff Goodman and Jerry Meyer have said, is pretty much a non-story at this point. ESPN, of course, played it as if it broke something, trying to capitalize on the shock value of it.

    The real issue is this: though Calipari and the University of Kentucky are in no way culpable in any of this, it still casts somewhat of a negative light on both of them. It will, somehow, be played by some in the national media as an institutional problem, when in fact, Kentucky is following SOP by confirming the kid's eligibility before it puts him on the court. Regardless, Kentucky probably didn't want this type of thing surfacing this early in the Calipari regime. Secondly, it shows a real need for some oversight in the AAU structure, and some clear definition of the bylaws that govern amateurism for the NCAA. Does the coach's previous status as a registered FIBA agent (which he says he had revoked) really void the amateurism of any player he coached? Likewise, if anybody at AAU knew he was previously registered as an agent, why didn't they do something?

    AAU basketball has caused some murky situations for the NCAA in the past, and it's going to cause some even worse situations in the future unless some sort of action is taken to govern and regulate it more effectively than it is now. One case like that of JaRon Rush is too many.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2015
  4. Jesus_Muscatel

    Jesus_Muscatel Well-Known Member

    Now you ARE trippin', Blitz.

    Actually, it could happen. If A) Anthony Dixon runs for 200-plus yards; and B) Florida turns it over six times; and C) Tyson Lee grows six inches overnight; and D) Jackie Sherrill shows up pre-game with a pair of pliars and assorted reptile from the greater Gainesville/Ocala area.

    Or, E) Tebow leaves the team, starts a cult, beforehand.
     
  5. Rumpleforeskin

    Rumpleforeskin Active Member

    When I first read the thread title, I thought "That's all?"
     
  6. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    You know, I'm no Kentucky fan and certainly not a Calipari fan, but I don't get the knocks on this guy. One season he had a star player accept cash and gifts from an agent. Another season, he had a star player allow a teammate to take a test for him. No one has ever claimed that Calipari knew of the wrongdoing, encouraged it or covered it up. In fact, the NCAA has said just the opposite -- that he was clean, at least in the Camby/UMass case.

    So, why do we attach his name to it? And why do we think less of his achievements? Hell, even if he knew about the Camby incident, it didn't give him an advantage. Camby was on campus already, was academically eligible and was part of a good team. UMass didn't gain even a small competitive advantage from any of it.

    It just seems incredibly unfair to me that we hammer some coaches and stick them with unfair labels because of the actions of others.
     
  7. Mahoney

    Mahoney Member

    Ever hear of Worldwide Wes, dog? Look into him a little bit and see if you understand.
     
  8. Wenders

    Wenders Well-Known Member

    Dog, heard of the saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire"? Calipari is a blazing inferno waiting to go up in Lexington.
     
  9. KYSportsWriter

    KYSportsWriter Well-Known Member

    And it will be freaking awesome when it happens.
     
  10. TrooperBari

    TrooperBari Well-Known Member

    Another one?
     
  11. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    See, this kind of stuff is what bothers me. If he's dirty, he's dirty. If he's breaking rules, there should be some evidence of it. And where Calipari's concerned, there's not. The NCAA has ripped through two of his programs now -- spent months in both cases interviewing everyone associated with the program, with Calipari and with the local boosters -- and they've not found one thing that sticks to him.

    Do you know how hard that is for a coach? The NCAA doesn't have to convince a jury or meet any real standards when it comes to accepting testimony. Up until recently, the accused coach often didn't get the chance to face his accuser, and in many cases, the accuser's identity was never divulged to anyone. Even with some changes -- thanks to several lawsuits against the NCAA -- it's still a process that's slanted against the coaches.

    I hate to come off like some Calipari defender, because I honestly could give a shit if the guy was busted for major violations tomorrow and never coached again, but it bothers me to see coaches continue to get the blame for the actions of players, boosters and agents. It was Camby who took money and broke rules, but it's Calipari who's dirty. It's Rose who had someone take the test for him, but it's Calipari who's producing the smoke. And there are dozens of other coaches suffering through similar circumstances.

    I just wish that a major violation within a program didn't automatically label the head coach of that program a cheater when that coach very often had no idea it was occurring, had no chance of stopping it and didn't try to cover it up. Just seems unfair to me.
     
  12. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    I hesitate to make this comparison given his heritage, but Calipari is like a Mafia don. His genius is being able to stay one step removed from the actual rule/law-breaking. The only way he'll go down is if someone with direct ties to him flips and rats him out to the NCAA.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page