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.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Calipari and UK will support the family of Enes Kanter in any decision to any legal action seeking to gain the player’s eligibility
4 comments:
Wheatgerm
said...
What would be the complaint? Denial of due process? Enes received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
That the decision was against the clear weight of the evidence? The Reinstatement Committee's decision is not reviewable in the courts, generally speaking. No court will substitute its judgment for the judgment of the Committee. But a court could find that the NCAA's decision has no rational basis. (Any dollar over actual and necessary expenses makes you a pro?)
That the NCAA violated its own policies by refusing to consider any of the mitigating circumstances this case presents, thereby treating Enes differently than others seeking and obtaining reinstatement? There might be something to that.
A timely article on the NCAA and due process: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=rivals-1171435
Discrimination as evident by the inconsistent application of its own policies.
He can even reference the NCAA's history of such as seen in the Maggette vs Rose decisions (school not liable for athlete's mistake vs held accountable), and then there's the obvious recent decisions where the NCAA either bent or reinterpreted their own rules to allow Newton to play despite a violation by his father (offering his son's services for money is a violation -- it's like being represented by an agent, and the NCAA has previously held that the actions of a parent -- such as Reggie Bush's, can be held against the athlete whether they knew or not -- the comment about no money being proven is irrelevant).
Then there's OSU, where the student athletes, despite clearly breaking the rules, are given leniency to play now and the blame is laid on the school -- yet who benefits most from the players not being suspended? The school for winning the bowl game. Likewise Selby accepted improper benefits, and surely must have known, and was allowed to pay it back. Kanter could argue that there being a limit on what can be accepted that makes 5,000 okay and 30,000 not is unfair/baseless, particularly when he can claim they thought they were following the rules, which again, the NCAA has recently made a policy of granting leniency to athletes that didn't know they or their representatives had broken rules (Newton and the OSU five).
Kanter could say the NCAA has shown discrimination in ignoring the spirit of the rules sometimes and not at others, noting that Masouli was allowed to play immediately by abusing the graduate program exemption when everyone knows he only transferred because he was kicked off the team. Why allow such a player to play immediately but permanently bar a player who, even if he took 30,000 improperly, has definitely turned down exponentially more?
Kanter could argue that the NCAA does not adequately define their rules and can then pick and choose who they want to allow to play.
Kanter could also take on the rules in general by addressing the logic of allowing students with pro careers in other sports (baseball) to play in college basketball. Kanter could theoretically argue that Turkish basketball, which includes slightly different rules than NCAA college basketball, is a different sport, so that even if he did accept money with the intention and result of being a professional, it should not affect his amateur status to play college ball here. He could say that the NCAA is discriminating against foreign players and only enacted their recent rules changes to make it look like they weren't, but that they fully intend to not allow foreign players to come play as evidenced by their decisions in the Kanter case.
He should be helped by the fact that he turned down considerable money to play college ball in the US -- and no one denies the Kanters have shown that to be the intent. What the NCAA wouldn't overlook or forgive was that he received money in a way they didn't deem acceptable (e.g. the sports system didn't directly pay for his school, but rather gave the money to the Kanters).
Ultimately, if they decided they wanted to set an example for the sake of future foreign athletes, the Kanters could try to force the legal system to apply limits to the NCAA basketball system, which is more or less a monopoly that everyone has to be a part of if they want to play college ball. Kanter could sue for the NCAA to be forced to grant him eligibility, or for a large sum in punitive damages for discrimination and unfair business practices.
I'm not saying any of these arguments would work in a court of law, but I am saying that the NCAA has been toeing a line for years with their inconsistent rulings, and it only takes one seriously pissed athlete/family to finally make an issue of it. Kanter will make millions in the NBA whatever happens, but if they want to, he and his parents could hold the NCAA accountable.
Oh the outrage! The outrage about not getting a 6'11" professional athletic phenom clearance to play on our team. That is the outrage and you guys know it. It has absolutely nothing to do with right verses wrong. And I dare say your outrage would be 180 degrees in the reverse direction if Kanter was at NC or Louisville and he received clearance. Oh yeah would you guys be screamin' and a hollerin' then.
4 comments:
What would be the complaint? Denial of due process? Enes received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
That the decision was against the clear weight of the evidence? The Reinstatement Committee's decision is not reviewable in the courts, generally speaking. No court will substitute its judgment for the judgment of the Committee. But a court could find that the NCAA's decision has no rational basis. (Any dollar over actual and necessary expenses makes you a pro?)
That the NCAA violated its own policies by refusing to consider any of the mitigating circumstances this case presents, thereby treating Enes differently than others seeking and obtaining reinstatement? There might be something to that.
A timely article on the NCAA and due process: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=rivals-1171435
Discrimination as evident by the inconsistent application of its own policies.
He can even reference the NCAA's history of such as seen in the Maggette vs Rose decisions (school not liable for athlete's mistake vs held accountable), and then there's the obvious recent decisions where the NCAA either bent or reinterpreted their own rules to allow Newton to play despite a violation by his father (offering his son's services for money is a violation -- it's like being represented by an agent, and the NCAA has previously held that the actions of a parent -- such as Reggie Bush's, can be held against the athlete whether they knew or not -- the comment about no money being proven is irrelevant).
Then there's OSU, where the student athletes, despite clearly breaking the rules, are given leniency to play now and the blame is laid on the school -- yet who benefits most from the players not being suspended? The school for winning the bowl game. Likewise Selby accepted improper benefits, and surely must have known, and was allowed to pay it back. Kanter could argue that there being a limit on what can be accepted that makes 5,000 okay and 30,000 not is unfair/baseless, particularly when he can claim they thought they were following the rules, which again, the NCAA has recently made a policy of granting leniency to athletes that didn't know they or their representatives had broken rules (Newton and the OSU five).
Kanter could say the NCAA has shown discrimination in ignoring the spirit of the rules sometimes and not at others, noting that Masouli was allowed to play immediately by abusing the graduate program exemption when everyone knows he only transferred because he was kicked off the team. Why allow such a player to play immediately but permanently bar a player who, even if he took 30,000 improperly, has definitely turned down exponentially more?
Kanter could argue that the NCAA does not adequately define their rules and can then pick and choose who they want to allow to play.
Kanter could also take on the rules in general by addressing the logic of allowing students with pro careers in other sports (baseball) to play in college basketball. Kanter could theoretically argue that Turkish basketball, which includes slightly different rules than NCAA college basketball, is a different sport, so that even if he did accept money with the intention and result of being a professional, it should not affect his amateur status to play college ball here. He could say that the NCAA is discriminating against foreign players and only enacted their recent rules changes to make it look like they weren't, but that they fully intend to not allow foreign players to come play as evidenced by their decisions in the Kanter case.
He should be helped by the fact that he turned down considerable money to play college ball in the US -- and no one denies the Kanters have shown that to be the intent. What the NCAA wouldn't overlook or forgive was that he received money in a way they didn't deem acceptable (e.g. the sports system didn't directly pay for his school, but rather gave the money to the Kanters).
Ultimately, if they decided they wanted to set an example for the sake of future foreign athletes, the Kanters could try to force the legal system to apply limits to the NCAA basketball system, which is more or less a monopoly that everyone has to be a part of if they want to play college ball. Kanter could sue for the NCAA to be forced to grant him eligibility, or for a large sum in punitive damages for discrimination and unfair business practices.
I'm not saying any of these arguments would work in a court of law, but I am saying that the NCAA has been toeing a line for years with their inconsistent rulings, and it only takes one seriously pissed athlete/family to finally make an issue of it. Kanter will make millions in the NBA whatever happens, but if they want to, he and his parents could hold the NCAA accountable.
Kanter is a citizen of Turkey. His request for reparations based on discrimination should be presented in Turkey.
Oh the outrage! The outrage about not getting a 6'11" professional athletic phenom clearance to play on our team. That is the outrage and you guys know it. It has absolutely nothing to do with right verses wrong. And I dare say your outrage would be 180 degrees in the reverse direction if Kanter was at NC or Louisville and he received clearance. Oh yeah would you guys be screamin' and a hollerin' then.
Post a Comment