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.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
If the NCAA again rules Enes Kanter ineligible, UK would have an unlimited amount of time to decide whether to again appeal and Kanter could theoretically practice all year
I believe UK learned unofficially from the NCAA that Enes' appeal would fail and advised UK that they could follow the path they are currently on in order to guarantee Enes could remain in Wildcat lodge and practice with the team for the remainder of the season. I do not believe there is any hope that Enes will ever play college basketball.
On what do you base your belief that the NCAA (1) unofficially advised UK the appeal would fail and (2) further advised how to keep Kanter on the practice court all year by not appealing?
I think it a little surprising that it has taken this long to get the second ruling. I expect the NCAA has been diligently trying to figure a way to screw Enes again despite the Newton precedent.
So you see no correlation at all between a father shopping his 18 year old or older son(legal adult) around and a father handling his 15-17 year old(juvenile) son's finances while letting him play basketball and pursue an education. Both cases relying on the fact that the son knew nothing of the actions of the father. One father trying to do something he knew to be illegal and against NCAA rules and the other father making a legitimate attempt to keep his son NOT a professional.
More alike than not pal...
In all aspects the reasonable though process would lead you to conclude that the 18 year(or older) ADULT would be more culpable in this instance.
This is a good discussion. You both have a point. Enes did get something out of the violation in his case, an education paid for by Ulker. Newton got nothing out of the violation in his. But like Cam, Enes is not culpable or personally responsible for the violation if he was unaware what was going on. And that's what the Newton case stands for.
Marc is right. In the most important sense, Kanter's case is like Newton's. But the tangible benefit he received from the violation no doubt requires some kind of penalty.
A 9-game suspension plus repayment, the prescribed penalty for impermissible benefits over $1000, would appear to be warranted. (Note: Enes has already served 11 games.) A 1-year suspension would be harsh, but would give the NCAA public relations cover to reinstate his eligibility. I'm sure that's why Cal and Mr. Kanter are pushing the idea.
11 comments:
Tipton
I believe UK learned unofficially from the NCAA that Enes' appeal would fail and advised UK that they could follow the path they are currently on in order to guarantee Enes could remain in Wildcat lodge and practice with the team for the remainder of the season. I do not believe there is any hope that Enes will ever play college basketball.
On what do you base your belief that the NCAA (1) unofficially advised UK the appeal would fail and (2) further advised how to keep Kanter on the practice court all year by not appealing?
Just making stuff up?
yeah Anon, why in the world would Enes want to remain on the team to practice when he knew he couldnt eventually play?
I think it a little surprising that it has taken this long to get the second ruling. I expect the NCAA has been diligently trying to figure a way to screw Enes again despite the Newton precedent.
Cam Newton being shopped without his knowledge is far different than Enes receiving $30K in excess without his knowledge. Not the same.
So you see no correlation at all between a father shopping his 18 year old or older son(legal adult) around and a father handling his 15-17 year old(juvenile) son's finances while letting him play basketball and pursue an education. Both cases relying on the fact that the son knew nothing of the actions of the father. One father trying to do something he knew to be illegal and against NCAA rules and the other father making a legitimate attempt to keep his son NOT a professional.
More alike than not pal...
In all aspects the reasonable though process would lead you to conclude that the 18 year(or older) ADULT would be more culpable in this instance.
^ "thought process" not though
No evidence of money exchanging (Newton) hands is a much bigger difference than a father's intent.
I guess I just don't see it that way. We'll see how it goes.
This is a good discussion. You both have a point. Enes did get something out of the violation in his case, an education paid for by Ulker. Newton got nothing out of the violation in his. But like Cam, Enes is not culpable or personally responsible for the violation if he was unaware what was going on. And that's what the Newton case stands for.
Marc is right. In the most important sense, Kanter's case is like Newton's. But the tangible benefit he received from the violation no doubt requires some kind of penalty.
A 9-game suspension plus repayment, the prescribed penalty for impermissible benefits over $1000, would appear to be warranted. (Note: Enes has already served 11 games.) A 1-year suspension would be harsh, but would give the NCAA public relations cover to reinstate his eligibility. I'm sure that's why Cal and Mr. Kanter are pushing the idea.
Post a Comment