2010 Kentucky Wildcats Men's Basketball - 5th edition

[Scrap Irony]

You don't seem to understand the difference between wading through the sliminess and actually cheating to get players, or not reporting violations that do pop up. That is not a fine line. It's a Grand Canyon.

Nor do I think you really understand why programs do cross the line into "cheating". Pete Bell was a movie character, there aren't many real life Pete Bell's out there, doing whatever necessary to build that superstar team. The big time classes happen because kids develop friendships playing with and against other top level players in the AAU circuit and every year a handful of them stick together for college. That trend seems to be growing as the landscape changes due to the one and done rule. It's evolved from the Kevin Durant/Michael Beasley mold of dominating on your own to the Thad 5 mold of coming together to play for a title while you have to be there. Matta and Calipari are masters at cultivating that culture. Oden, Conley and Cook decided to play together as HS sophs. Matta was just the guy to win them over. You can be sure Matta didn't and isn't cheating. In the past 5 years Ohio State has transformed itself into the industry leader in openness and honesty with the NCAA. They'd probably report a kid picking up a quarter off the ground at this point.

Again, every program pushes the edge. Every program reports violations. They happen, most of them are completely honest mistakes or out of the blue randomness. It's designed to be a self-policing society, and thus over 99% of violations are self-reported. The book is so large with so many changes each year that most fall under the ".... happens" column. Overall they number well into the thousands each year in D-1 alone. The Compliance Office at the NCAA has fax machines that almost never stop rolling. However, major violations that can lead to ineligibility and big punishment are actually rare for a 347 program D-1 field. The truly dirty programs are the ones that hide, cover up, or play the plausible deniability card.

Let me see if I get this right:

You agree with me that some schools cheat.

You also agree that all schools "bend" rules.



I guess my main argument is one of common sense, guttle. Let's say Kansas University, to pull a name out of the hat, is paying money and giving other improper benefits to recruits. Let's also say Ohio State is only offering a free education and nothing more.

Common sense says:
1) Some of the best recruits are going to flock to the school offering a free education AND more stuff.
2) Those that are offered free stuff but choose another school (those with personal integrity enough not to cheat, in other words) will tell the NCAA about the cheaters.

Since neither of those has happened, logically, you must assume:
1) Either all schools are guilty.
or
2) All schools are innocent.

Since some schools have been caught paying athletes and giving improper benefits, I think it's safe to assume which one we should believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I got a B- in Logic 101, so maybe I've missed something. Seriously.

[macro]

...and now for some complete and utter nonsense, do you know what this is?



Answer: It's the cupcake cake version of this:





Source: http://www.cakewrecks.com/2009/03/twins.html

[Hoosier Red]

It's dirty pool, plain and simple. But that seems to be the MO of the New York Times.

Forgive me all for beating a dead horse, but a lot of the the things being posted with regards to agendas, dirty pool, and sketchy reporting and hatchet pieces are just driving me crazy.(It's not a drive, it's a really short putt I'll grant.)

I've seen in here and in PM's with WMR that the New York Times has an agenda(presumably anti-UK but I've yet to see a coherent agenda that they have.)
1) What is the agenda?
2) Why in your mind does the New York Times hate UK?

I've seen in the thread and elsewhere that the NY Times had sketchy and or slanted reporting.
1) I've seen nothing brought up as evidence to support this. What made this sketchier reporting than any other investigative reporting for the last 100 years? What amounted to an unbalanced report? Was any allegation brought up without presenting the High School's side of things?

As I said in my PM to WMR, I think we can all agree that UK basketball is a national topic of interest. The fact that the NCAA is investigating the eligibility of one of the players lends credence to the fact that this isn't just a witch hunt by the paper. Someone at the NCAA has determined that at the very least, it's worth looking into. And remember, the NCAA looked and then the NY Times reported they were looking. It's not like the Times went to Birmingham trying to dig up dirt and then called the NCAA.


So please do tell what piece of information was missing from the article? What was available that the paper consciously omitted?

[Scrap Irony]

...And remember, the NCAA looked and then the NY Times reported they were looking. It's not like the Times went to Birmingham trying to dig up dirt and then called the NCAA.


So please do tell what piece of information was missing from the article? What was available that the paper consciously omitted?

Actually, the NY Times has, reportedly, been to Alabama and investigated since February (the last time the NCAA went to Alabama in investigating Bledsoe, apparenty). It's taken since February to get this much information, apparenty.

[dabvu2498]

Common sense says:
1) Some of the best recruits are going to flock to the school offering a free education AND more stuff.
2) Those that are offered free stuff but choose another school (those with personal integrity enough not to cheat, in other words) will tell the NCAA about the cheaters.

Since neither of those has happened, logically, you must assume:
1) Either all schools are guilty.
or
2) All schools are innocent.

Since some schools have been caught paying athletes and giving improper benefits, I think it's safe to assume which one we should believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I got a B- in Logic 101, so maybe I've missed something. Seriously.

Disagree entirely. Some kids (and their parents) want to go to a school where things are done the right way. Where the kids gets a free education and all the benefits of an athlic scholarship and that's it. Where athletes go to class, get decent grades and end up graduating. Where you never have to worry about the NCAA examining every facet of the program on a yearly basis.

And it does happen.

There are coaches (and programs) out there that, I believe, are above reproach. That don't even violate the 20 hour rule. (20 hours is a lot, if you think about it.)

[Hoosier Red]

Let me see if I get this right:

You agree with me that some schools cheat.

You also agree that all schools "bend" rules.



I guess my main argument is one of common sense, guttle. Let's say Kansas University, to pull a name out of the hat, is paying money and giving other improper benefits to recruits. Let's also say Ohio State is only offering a free education and nothing more.

Common sense says:
1) Some of the best recruits are going to flock to the school offering a free education AND more stuff.
2) Those that are offered free stuff but choose another school (those with personal integrity enough not to cheat, in other words) will tell the NCAA about the cheaters.

Since neither of those has happened, logically, you must assume:
1) Either all schools are guilty.
or
2) All schools are innocent.

Since some schools have been caught paying athletes and giving improper benefits, I think it's safe to assume which one we should believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I got a B- in Logic 101, so maybe I've missed something. Seriously.

I don't think you can make blanket assumptions like that Scrap to be honest for a couple of reasons;

1) I'm not sure "clean" players care that much to be honest. I also think as guttle mentioned there are a lot of gray areas where recruits decide not to get bogged down. There's a reason for instance that Kelvin Sanctions was caught by the OU and later IU compliance staff. It's not as if recruits really pay attention to how many times a coach has called them this week.

2) If you accuse a team of cheating you have to be 1000000000000% sure. Most players probably haven't put the time or energy into rooting out the cheaters.
Look at the case of Bruce Pearl(a coach but still) He taped Deon Thomas admitting that Illinois was offering him $80,000 and a Chevy Blazer.(Really? a Blazer? No wonder Illinois sucks. If you're going to cheat, do it in style. Look at UNLV.) In any event, even with Thomas on tape, the NCAA still didn't find Illinois guilty. Who paid the price? Bruce Pearl. Lou Henson never lost his job, but left Illinois a conquering hero. Jimmy Collins, the assistant who was alleged to have offered the money and crappy SUV, stayed at Illinois before going on to become the coach at UIC. Pearl on the other hand was blackballed. Say what you want about him, but it's clear he can coach, he won a D2 national championship at Southern Indiana. Still it took him 9 years to get a job at UW-Milwaukee. The lesson? Don't Snitch.

3) Many of the "clean" players may decide to go to a "clean" university just because they figure the hassle isn't worth it. I honestly don't know but I can't imagine there are many celebrations for 10 year, 15 year anniversary's of the Fab Five at Michigan. But I bet UC will have a 20 year reunion of the 1992 Bearcats. Maybe players don't want to go somewhere if they're afraid the banners won't stay up. I'm probably giving too much credit to 18 year old boys

4) No matter whether there's gray area or not, or if every team is doing it or not(don't worry I'm an IU fan, I'm familiar with this argument) if the NCAA catches someone playing an ineligible player, paying a player, whatever rules are clearly being broken. They have to punish that university. Otherwise what do they exist for?

[Hoosier Red]

Actually, the NY Times has, reportedly, been to Alabama and investigated since February (the last time the NCAA went to Alabama in investigating Bledsoe, apparenty). It's taken since February to get this much information, apparenty.

So again, NCAA investigates, the NY Times follows. What's the issue?

You have to admit this. If what the landlord is alleging is true, than there's a story. If any of this is true, it's a huge story. If it's true, than UK just had a season go down the drain.

The very fact that there's enough credibility for the NCAA to keep investigating shows that it's at least a story to this point.

And no, the paper should not wait until the NCAA findings come in before writing a story. Unless you didn't think OJ was a legitimate news story, or Ben Rothelisberger, or Michael Vick.

To be honest, I don't think any of this is going to stick. Whether something happened or not is honestly immaterial. I don't think the NCAA will ever be able to prove something happened, so the story probably goes no further.

And 10 years from now when the next coach at Kansas State is being investigated by the NCAA, and the NY Times college basketball reporter starts a story about how Kansas State's being investigated. Someone will talk about how they remember back in 2010 when the NY Times said that Eric Bledsoe was getting paid and was having his grades fixed. And I'll hopefully be around to slap around the next group of internet faithful.

[Joseph]

As a UK fan, I am all for fairness and equality in terms of 'do the crime do the time'. I just don't think there is a crime of any intent here. If Bledsoe did something prior to coming to UK, and the NCAA vetted him. It should be a situation where no penalty is handed down to UK.

Forgive me if I am inferring, or misinterpreting posts, but to me it seems a LOT of folks on here are just steadfast in their determination to slam UK. Hey, i get it, UK is the Yankees and to some extent they are being coached by college basketballs version of Tony LaRussa. It's understandable to 'hate' that, but at some point it just becomes piling on and redundant.

I love my boy WMR, he knows I've got nothing but respect for his defense of our boys in blue but it seems like he's fighting a losing battle entirely. He produces a 'fact' someone else just either ignores it or just rejects it because it came from a UK fan.

In this case for example, does it at all matter that the NCAA cleared Bledsoe to join the university and team? It doesn't seem to, not at all. All this does is seem to get people screaming Cal is a cheater [despite evidence to the contrary]. When i bring up the statement that 'if Cals a cheater, so is everyone else' the argument then becomes "No Cal's a cheater [along with a select few others], most everyone else is just pushing the envelope".

It really seems like this whole thread has devolved into a big ol'

"Did not"

"Did too"

"Did not"

"Did too"

Albeit more intelligently spoken and by people whom generally are more reasonable than kids.

[Scrap Irony]

Disagree entirely. Some kids (and their parents) want to go to a school where things are done the right way. Where the kids gets a free education and all the benefits of an athlic scholarship and that's it. Where athletes go to class, get decent grades and end up graduating. Where you never have to worry about the NCAA examining every facet of the program on a yearly basis.

And it does happen.

There are coaches (and programs) out there that, I believe, are above reproach. That don't even violate the 20 hour rule. (20 hours is a lot, if you think about it.)

Again, if those kids care so much about integrity, then someone somewhere would have said something by now.

Imagine a team at, say, Vandy. This Vandy team has Barry Goheen and Scott Draud, and Will Perdue and Billy McCaffery in its starting five. This same Vandy team gets beaten in the NCAA's by, let's say, a Louisville team coached by Rick Pitino.

Now, Vandy is above reproach and each of these boys has been given only the scholarship and opportunity of an education they were promised. Nothing more.

But each of these boys were also recruited by dirty old Pitino and UofL. Pitino offered each of them, say $5,000 per semester plus however many $100 handshakes boosters could afford. The boys all chose Vandy because they were good Vandy boys and not dirty old UofL players.

Don't you think:

1) At least one of these fine, upstanding young men with serious personal integrity would inform the NCAA of the nefarious and ill-gotten shenanigans in River City?
2) After the loss, at least one of the young men would blurt something about Louisville paying its players or offering them money?

Am I saying that all athletes get paid?

Yeah, I guess I am.

It makes sense, doesn't it? I know it's cynical, but I can't come up with any other explanation. If one cheats, all cheat. Otherwise, the one would be extraordinarily good at recruiting. Since many of those that got caught cheating weren't at "big" schools, it stands to reason that those schools also cheat.

[Scrap Irony]

So again, NCAA investigates, the NY Times follows. What's the issue?

You have to admit this. If what the landlord is alleging is true, than there's a story. If any of this is true, it's a huge story. If it's true, than UK just had a season go down the drain.

The very fact that there's enough credibility for the NCAA to keep investigating shows that it's at least a story to this point.

They stopped investigating in February, if reports are true. And I agree with you about the NY Times. They should report all the news that's fit to print.

But the cynic in me says that those two have been at this story since February and this is what they've found:

A landlord who's mad (deservedly, IMO) Bledsoe and his mom skipped out owing her serious cash tells a story about a coach who paid (cash) three months' rent. Not even remotely proveable and, really, not much of a story.

Secondly, a HS kid who did really well his senior year so that he could get eligible to go to college. If I had a nickel for every time that happened, I could wipe my butt with Ben Franklins for the rest of my life and still could live a life of ease.

That's it.

There's not much there there, you know?

[Scrap Irony]

As a UK fan, I am all for fairness and equality in terms of 'do the crime do the time'. I just don't think there is a crime of any intent here. If Bledsoe did something prior to coming to UK, and the NCAA vetted him. It should be a situation where no penalty is handed down to UK.

Derrick Rose and Memphis would disagree with you.

Vehemently.

[dabvu2498]

Scrap -- I think your perception of those who cheat is way broader than reality.

There are 336 D1 scholarship schools. Assuming each is fully-funded and carrying a full roster, that's 4368 D1 scholarship basketball players.

Are all of them getting some nefarious payment? If not, what would you say the percentage is?

[Scrap Irony]

Dunno.

I've met a crapload of deep pocketed boosters who were willing to shell out $1000s for tickets, bets, gear, and other college-related stuff. Why would you be so incredulous that thy give a couple hundred a game to the guys who they live through?

According to many (including the LHL), late 70's and early 80's UK teams regularly received $100 handshakes. Sam Bowie claimed that he could make a couple grand if he had a good game against a big rival.

Same thing with the UCLA teams of the late 60's and early 70's and Sam Gilbert, who allegedly gave hundreds of thousands to players.

So, to answer your question with another question, does each of those 336 Division I schools have at least one booster nuts enough and rich enough to ignore the rules?

[dabvu2498]

So, to answer your question with another question, does each of those 336 Division I schools have at least one booster nuts enough and rich enough to ignore the rules?

Possibly... But most coaches/athletic department administrators are scared enough of scandal to do everything in their power to keep those types away from their players.

[Scrap Irony]

Maybe. I hope you're right, dab. I really do.

But I know coaches. I've met and interviewed a few of them. Whatever they can do to get an edge, they're gonna do. I haven't met one yet that didn't have a burning desire for winning. (And I don't mean someone that just doesn't like to lose. I mean absolutely torn apart by losses and losing. I mean throw the Monopoly game in the fire after losing type of losing.)

They're nothing if not ultra-ultra competitive.

And the cynical side of my nature insists that any edge-- legal or not, cheating or not-- is one each of them would take.