A Blog devoted entirely to news about the University of Kentucky's Men's Basketball Team. Any e-mails and/or advertising inquiries should be sent to ukbasketball23@gmail.com.
Maybe it is a technicality but here in the United States it is innocent until proven guilty. They can say he didn't earn the grade all they want but they lack the evidence to prove that statement. Can't imagine much more coming from this. Time to focus on Kanter.
The bigger question is will the NCAA let the grade change stand w/o explanation. They may enquire an explanation just as with D. Rose and if ignored or not satisfied, they may still move forward. One thing I do agree with UK fans on is the ineptness of the NCAA Eligibility Center.
Tony, it's not up to the NCAA to let the grade stand. It has no power to change it.
If the transcript remains unchanged - and all indications are that it will - there's no "new information" to warrant revisiting the NCAA's initial determination. The official transcript will continue to show that Bledsoe met the sliding scale requirement for academic eligibility. "An A in Alg3? Then he meets the standard."
You saw this with Rose. The NCAA itself never inquired or demanded an explanation about his SAT. Never made a finding of academic fraud. Never found that he didn't take his own test. (Many mistakenly say otherwise.) It didn't have to. Once the ETS, an outside body, invalided Rose's SAT score because they thought he was being uncooperative, the NCAA found it had no choice but to declare him academically ineligible on that fact alone. "No SAT score? Then he doesn't meet the standard."
The NCAA is a very procedural animal in that way. It respects the final determinations of other bodies.
I realize the NCAA has no authority to change the grade but they can, if so choose, invalidate the transcript if the are not satified with all of its components. I believe they now say the "integrity of the information."
We clearly see with the UMASS/Duke situation there does not appear to be such a thing as 'precedence' when it comes the the NCAA but it's hard to believe it will stand as is. Seems it would usher in a new era of changed transcripts (all over the country) with no explanation. I'm sure there are plenty other 5* players that barely missed the grade that could have benefitted from this ruling or something like this.
Marc, Stay tuned Marc. We are talking about the NCAA here. If you trust them then yes its over. I have no stake one way or the other. Are you condidered a Dukehater when you mention the Cory M. situation? That show was over years ago.
Typical, when you can't add to the discussion or disagree with it....out comes the only logic you can come up with (hate, jealous, envy...)
12 comments:
Maybe it is a technicality but here in the United States it is innocent until proven guilty. They can say he didn't earn the grade all they want but they lack the evidence to prove that statement. Can't imagine much more coming from this. Time to focus on Kanter.
This is a little odd coming from Eamonn. He does put quite the sinister spin on it all.
But I'm with you.
free enes
The bigger question is will the NCAA let the grade change stand w/o explanation. They may enquire an explanation just as with D. Rose and if ignored or not satisfied, they may still move forward. One thing I do agree with UK fans on is the ineptness of the NCAA Eligibility Center.
Tony, it's not up to the NCAA to let the grade stand. It has no power to change it.
If the transcript remains unchanged - and all indications are that it will - there's no "new information" to warrant revisiting the NCAA's initial determination. The official transcript will continue to show that Bledsoe met the sliding scale requirement for academic eligibility. "An A in Alg3? Then he meets the standard."
You saw this with Rose. The NCAA itself never inquired or demanded an explanation about his SAT. Never made a finding of academic fraud. Never found that he didn't take his own test. (Many mistakenly say otherwise.) It didn't have to. Once the ETS, an outside body, invalided Rose's SAT score because they thought he was being uncooperative, the NCAA found it had no choice but to declare him academically ineligible on that fact alone. "No SAT score? Then he doesn't meet the standard."
The NCAA is a very procedural animal in that way. It respects the final determinations of other bodies.
I realize the NCAA has no authority to change the grade but they can, if so choose, invalidate the transcript if the are not satified with all of its components. I believe they now say the "integrity of the information."
We clearly see with the UMASS/Duke situation there does not appear to be such a thing as 'precedence' when it comes the the NCAA but it's hard to believe it will stand as is. Seems it would usher in a new era of changed transcripts (all over the country) with no explanation. I'm sure there are plenty other 5* players that barely missed the grade that could have benefitted from this ruling or something like this.
Tony buddy, find something new to hang your "CalHaters" hat on, this show is over.
Marc,
Stay tuned Marc. We are talking about the NCAA here. If you trust them then yes its over. I have no stake one way or the other. Are you condidered a Dukehater when you mention the Cory M. situation? That show was over years ago.
Typical, when you can't add to the discussion or disagree with it....out comes the only logic you can come up with (hate, jealous, envy...)
The truth is the truth no matter how much you wish to reason it away.
I do agree the NCAA is worse than a pre-menopausal woman and is fully capable of doing anything no matter how far removed from logic.
Let me try it agian Marc:
Are you considered a Duke-hater when you mention the Cory M. situation?
If I bring it up that is the case.... I can't speak for everyone else.
I can however assure you I'm not trolling the Duke forums and blogs dogging their program or their coach.
Marc,
I have no doubt you are a KY Blue fan but your hypocrisy is beyond belief.
You must not know what hypocrisy means, look it up.
Post a Comment