Totally disagree with this article...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
....but the case to watch is Memphis. If Memphis gets hammered for taking prospect with questionable SAT scores at the time (even though they were cleared by the NCAA), then we'd better watch out.
if the prospect is preemptively cleared by the ncaa after an investigation, then the school should not be punished (at least not by probation) for allowing him to play. in the cases of most prospects, they are not investigated thoroughly before playing, so the school should be punished for not taking the necessary steps.
in sidney's case, the NCAA is doing a thorough preemptive investigation into his amateur status. if he is cleared by the NCAA, it shouldn't matter if new evidence comes to light in a few years, unless the school knew about it and covered it up. i don't know if rose's issue was initially investigated by the NCAA, but if it was, and they said it was okay, then the school shouldn't be punished now. sure, you can call their wins from that season "forfeited" because they were playing with an ineligible player. but if the investigation was led by the NCAA, the school shouldn't be punished for relying on that investigation.
of course, though, i know that this is the NCAA, and nothing they do really makes sense anyway.
in sidney's case, the NCAA is doing a thorough preemptive investigation into his amateur status. if he is cleared by the NCAA, it shouldn't matter if new evidence comes to light in a few years, unless the school knew about it and covered it up. i don't know if rose's issue was initially investigated by the NCAA, but if it was, and they said it was okay, then the school shouldn't be punished now. sure, you can call their wins from that season "forfeited" because they were playing with an ineligible player. but if the investigation was led by the NCAA, the school shouldn't be punished for relying on that investigation.
of course, though, i know that this is the NCAA, and nothing they do really makes sense anyway.
dawgstudent said:
No i dont. But i do think Calhoun's rep is hurt because of a couple other highly regarded prospects that he signed and have since been shown to be directly connected with improper handlers(really just 1, an exUCONN basketball manager no less).
Nate Miles and Ater Majok dont exactly have clear backgrounds in terms of recruiting.
Majok may be 1 and done while having never actually even played!
Point is, i agree 1 and done isnt the problem, its 1 and dones who have connections to professional handlers and those around them. The real problem though is that i just described every 1 and doner in the last 4 years...including that buttery wealthy white dude Kevin Love.
...Sidney doesn't get "cleared" by a lawyer. It's my understanding that the lawyer has been hired to help us deal with the NCAA. The NCAA ultimately decides if Sidney gets cleared or not. To be clear, the only way I think we could be on the hook is that if he plays for us and then it comes out that he shouldn't have been an amateur and the NCAA determines that we knew about it or should've known about it. Just because we have a lawyer involved doesn't make it all rosy. He's trying to help us get him cleared.
....but it doesn't matter what we think.
These are the risks you take messing with a guy like Sidney. Hopefully it will all work out for the best.
These are the risks you take messing with a guy like Sidney. Hopefully it will all work out for the best.
When I said that if the lawyer clears him, we'll be OK, I didn't mean cleared in the same sense that the NCAA would clear him. I just meant that if the lawyer looks into everything for us like he's been hired to do, we'll have shown that we've done our due diligence in looking into his amateur status. And make no mistake about it, the lawyer's #1 job is to keep our *** out of the NCAA hotseat and his #2 job is to help us get Sidney eligibile. With his strong connections with the NCAA, if he clears him to us, we'll be off the hook for any NCAA trouble. Memphis's problem is if can be shown to have known about the SAT fraud or should have known about it then they're in deep ship. If the lawyer clears Sidney to us (not in the sense of an official clearance from the NCAA), then we won't have any NCAA issues no matter what comes out later.</p>
Is there any chance we could be forced to forfeit wins or vacate a Final Four or something like that if he is later ruled to have been inelligible? I would think so, but I'm far from an expert on the subject.
about the NCAA, comparing it to the DEA, and a bunch of random crap that might've been a bit overboard, but in essence, my point was that Stans would've been a fool NOT to go after a star he recruited for years that was back on the market. And the "backing off" of UCLA and USC was likely a mutual thing in the best interest of Sidney and the LA schools.
All he replied with was more doom and gloom about Sidney being ineligible and how UCLA and USC wouldn't touch him because of "strong evidence of improprieties" and how he'd probably never play at the college level, which didn't really address my complaints directly.
Granted, I've parodied this whole saga myself, but to do so in a professional setting is unfair to Stans, in my opinion, considering the NCAA ain't got **** on us (nor should they) regarding Sidney.
All he replied with was more doom and gloom about Sidney being ineligible and how UCLA and USC wouldn't touch him because of "strong evidence of improprieties" and how he'd probably never play at the college level, which didn't really address my complaints directly.
Granted, I've parodied this whole saga myself, but to do so in a professional setting is unfair to Stans, in my opinion, considering the NCAA ain't got **** on us (nor should they) regarding Sidney.