var yuipath = 'clientscript/yui';
var yuicombopath = '';
var remoteyui = false;
else // Load Rest of YUI remotely (where possible)
var yuipath = 'http://yui.yahooapis.com/2.9.0/build';
var yuicombopath = 'http://yui.yahooapis.com/combo';
var remoteyui = true;
Nov 11, 2010 8:56 PM EST
Kentucky freshman center Enes Kanter has bene ruled permanently ineligible to play for the Wildcats by the NCAA.
The NCAA ruled Kanter received over $33,000 above his necessary expenses for the 2008-09 season.
"Enes took advantage of an opportunity to play at the highest level available to him, but the consequences of receiving payments above his actual expenses is not compatible with the collegiate model of sports that our members have developed," said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs.
Kentucky will appear the decision.
Kanter is expected to be a top-eight lottery pick in the 2011 NBA Draft.
You are correct. I should have been more specific.
In the BCS conferences, it's extremely prevalent.
You guys do know that some of those non-BCS schools have much more money for athletics than smaller catholic schools like a Georgetown or a St. John's (who are in a BCS conference) that do not have oncampus arenas and do not have D1 football programs?
Anyway if all the other schools were paying $EC money then those teams would be beating out the big boys more often for the top recruits. But the truth is only a couple of dozen programs routinely put together good recruiting classes. So if EVERYONE is paying money on the side then they aren't getting much if any return for it.
Programs I'm 90% sure run shady operations: Kentucky (any Calipari program is slime), Memphis (Pastner learned all Cal's tricks), Baylor, Kansas, Ohio State, UConn
Programs I'm very skeptical of: Louisville, Arkansas, Texas, Washington, Mississippi State, Kansas State
I actually don't think it is that widespread in basketball, at least not compared to the shady games going on in football. I think the entire Big Ten is clean, save for Ohio State. The Big 12 has some questionable teams in there, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if any SEC schools were up to some sort of shenanigans.
Odd coming from a Boiler fan. I think you guys run (and have run) a very clean program for a long time. Actually, I think most Big Ten schools do at this point. Ohio $tate not included.
It is true that I'm a Boiler fan, but I'm also one of the few that is also somewhat of an IU fan. I graduated from Purdue, but I've lived in Indianapolis my whole life (an extremely IU leaning city) and probably have just as many familial ties to IU as I do Purdue, and for that reason I have always rooted for them, except when they play the Boilers.
I know many people in the college basketball recruiting world, and it is an unfortunate truth that the image most coaches project is nothing more than total fraud. Coach K at Duke is one of the worst in this aspect, and the first name that comes to mind. Calhoun and Calipari are two well known rule breakers. The ACC, in general, is almost as terrible as the SEC which is really saying something.
The Big 10 does not have nearly as many issues as most of the other conferences, but it is not without its own problems. It is nearly impossible to not be skeptical of Ohio State, as you already mentioned, but Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa have shady programs right now. Michigan State runs a clean program, but Izzo is much like Coach K in that the way he portrays himself in public is almost totally fraudulent. They may not pay players, but they are at the least morally corrupt.
Purdue ran a clean program with Keady, and Painter has continued that legacy, which is something I'm very proud of. IU ran a clean program with Knight, and then lost its way after he left. I think Crean is trying to get back to the model of cleanliness and success that Bobby ran. It's good because the way that Davis and Sampson treated that program is a total disgrace. IU should be one of the premier programs in the nation, and I think it will get back to that point under Tom Crean.
Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 11-12-2010 at 12:46 PM.
I think it's unfair to throw Mike Davis in with Sampson. I don't think he ran a corrupt program, a struggling one? Sure, but I don't think he was corrupt.
His problem was very similar to Sampson's in that he did not hold his players accountable for their actions away from the court. Obviously Sampson took it to another level all together, and did it so terribly that it probably is unfair to put them in the same sentence.
I'm going to go ahead and point out that there's absolutely no proof to this IMO.
No proof, but one of my good friends was a manager on the team and said those players did whatever the hell they wanted, and a few of them were receiving lots of improper benefits. And he was a huge Davis supporter.