The dichotomy between the East and the West next season is going to be as wide as the grand canyon.
The dichotomy between the East and the West next season is going to be as wide as the grand canyon.
So, if Bledsoe is ruled ineligible will UK distribute "UK2K" shirts again next year when they pass 2000 wins for the second time?
In all seriousness, though, Bledsoe raising his GPA from a 1.9 to a 2.4 deson't seem like a big deal. It's not like he went from a 1.9 to a 3.9.
The landlord/rent stuff should be somewhat of a concern for UK fans. Even though it didn't have anything to do with UK or Cal, it would make him ineligible and all that goes with it. Not good.
The "unnamed college coach" stuff is a load of poop and I'm quite surprised the NY Times published it.
When all is said and done more is said than done.
I looked at it differently, dab. I read the inteview and see a landlord mad enough to make problems for Bledsoe and his mother because they ran out on the rent. Maybe she's looking to small claims court and a way to get back her money. Maybe she's the type to talk all day long. Maybe she's looking for hush money.
I don't really trust anything she says.
Several college coaches who recruited Bledsoe told ESPN.com they seriously questioned whether he would meet NCAA eligibility standards based on transcripts reviewed after his sophomore and junior years of high school. Following his junior year, Bledsoe maintained only a 1.92 grade-point average in core courses, well shy of the 2.5 he would eventually graduate with.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5231161
I don't know Dab, to go from a 1.92 through 3 years to a 2.5 GPA for the four years would require him to get a 4.25 GPA his senior year.
Wait after re-reading the article it appears some of the classes he took replaced the lower scoring ones on his record. So it goes from impossible to implausible.
I teach in a high school and see GPA's go up like this every year. We've got a kid this year who's gone from a 1.75 to a 2.5 by re-taking two core courses (English I and Algebra II) and getting good marks in upper level courses.
Think of it this way: a student needs 25 "points" in his 10 core courses. (This assumes Science, Math, and English courses for three years, with an additional English class as a senior. Some states require only 10. Some require 11. Some require 12.) His GPA before his senior year was less than a 2.0. Hypothetically, let's say Bledsoe makes a B in Consumer Math, C's in Intro to Chemistry, Biology, and English II, a D in English I, and an F in English III.
If you replace one 0 (the score an F gets you) with a B, you've suddenly gained 7"points". (In this example, Bledsoe re-took English III in summer school and earned a B.) If the same kid got a B on his other three core courses (say, English IV, Algebra II, and Biology II), his "points" for his senior year add up to 16. Those sixteen (and his previous 11) give him the 2.5 GPA.
If a kid actually takes it seriously and a coach stays on his butt (or a teacher or a parent or an administrator), it's really easy to raise core course GPA's to acceptable levels. It just sounds as if Bledsoe began taking his coursework seriously his senior year (something more than just athletes seem to do).
Really, nothing to see that's too far out of the realm of possibility at all.
That's what immediately sprang to my mind as well. Hearing the landlord still wants several thousand dollars makes everything else she claims suspect.
Funny that the NY Times prints this crap the same day UCONN gets hit with 8 major rules violations by the NCAA. TOTAL coincidence I'm sure.
All of these allegations ALLEGEDLY took place while Cal was still at Memphis and G was coaching at UK.
Last edited by WMR; 05-29-2010 at 01:51 PM.
That's a weak deflection WMR. First of all the NY Times is a national paper. It considers itself to be the "paper of record"(a big deal in journalism circles.) With a story as big as Kentucky possibly playing someone who was ineligible, they break that story every day as soon as they are able. They don't hold on to it until either a) something happens to a NE school so they can "protect" it or b) Until after something happens at a NE school so that it has it's own storyline.
Follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, do you think the Times knew about this story for some time and had the sources necessary to print it but didn't?
Or that they had just gotten enough sources but should have held onto the story until the UConn story had been fully played out?
I can all but guarantee you that with a)the Kentucky story being as potentially huge as it is, and b)the competition to get a story like this out and break the news as hard as it is, the only consideration given was if there were enough sources to go to print. They wouldn't have cared if the entire Big East had gone on probation they would have printed the story as soon as they had enough sources to make it "legitimate."
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |