Kentucky steals recruits with benefits

[Bornorange]

Calling a players parents might be an illegal action. They are adults. If my kids got in trouble on campus the college does not call.
I didn't have parents, so if I was a player "Who you gonna call"? I guess that would have been another violation.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Calling a players parents might be an illegal action. They are adults. If my kids got in trouble on campus the college does not call.
I didn't have parents, so if I was a player "Who you gonna call"? I guess that would have been another violation.

Then the policy should've been changed.

 

[AZOrange]

I was talking in general about some of the other posts that included Noel, Green, and Knox, as well as others.

But anyway, what makes you say that? Somebody told you something? Somebody said..."I know for a fact that UK paid AD! His cousin's nephew's brother that was adopted by my Uncle's mother in law's 3rd cousin told me that he knows this for a fact!"


I mean, it has to be something like that and if you're naive enough to believe that then there is nothing anyone is going to say to change your mind. It's just absurd to me that some fan bases are so gullible to believe this crap. It's like if a player doesn't pick your school then it must be because someone is getting paid or someone cheated. If we lose a recruit to Syracuse or Duke, or UNC, or whoever, I don't just think automatically think it's because they were paid. That's just not logical.

If a team like...say a Dayton or a small school like Richmond were to all the sudden pull in top recruits, then I may think something but when a school that consistently pushes out top draft picks gets recruits, it's not because they're paying players. They don't need to pay players and if you think otherwise, well then you've got an issue. That's all there is to it

Says the UK shill on an SU message board...

 

[AZOrange]

It went back further than that, spanning two ADs.

I don't recall going on probation in 1992 for drug policy and then again in 2013. Your original post implies that

 

[realorange]

Drugs.

Yes. He didn't call Mommy when her little boy smoked some weed. Our drug program.
I don't believe the NCAA hit us on that one anyway.

 

[baggerbob]

Drugs.

The drug policy not being followed was on Jake, who also was the idiot that started the unnecessary policy.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I don't recall going on probation in 1992 for drug policy and then again in 2013. Your original post implies that

My point is that after going on probation once we should have exercised a little more caution. We didn't.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The drug policy not being followed was on Jake, who also was the idiot that started the unnecessary policy.

What did JB think was going to happen when he didn't follow the drug policy?

 

[HOFCeluck]

Yes. He didn't call Mommy when her little boy smoked some weed. Our drug program.
I don't believe the NCAA hit us on that one anyway.

You think it's dumb, and that's fine. But I don't know about you but I have to follow the rules and regs at my workplace regardless of how dumb I think they are.

 

[EastCoast2]

Calipari leaving for the NBA would be the best thing for college basketball in 25+ years.

 

[tep624]

William Wesley is compensated in one way, shape, or form, to steer players to John Calipari at Kentucky. And it's probably structured in a way that it is very difficult to prove.

 

[GooseMutt]

Great post! I think it's easy to justify why we are recruiting at this level and were not before Cal got here. It's because kids come to play for the coach and not the school. Unless you are/we're a kid born and raised in KY and have always dreamed of playing for the Cats, you're picking UK because of Calipari. Plain and simple. I'm not naive enough to think that these kids are coming to UK because of our history and tradition. Hell, most of these kids don't know much about either. They don't know who Kyle Macy is, or Jack Givens, Dan Issell, Kenny Walker, Sean Woods, John Pelphry, etc. They don't have a clue who these guys are and most could care less. All they know is that Cal is there and that's all that matters to them. Any UK fan that says otherwise is either lying or naive. It's all about Calipari. Same with any other school as well. Unless you were born and raised as a fan of that school, you're picking your school based on the coach. It's just the way it is these days.

Valid point Totally agree He's a good coach and great charmer/ salesman and his legacy is building tremendous momentum that's hard to stop but that dude Wes seems shady shady shady

 

[reedny]

The drug policy not being followed was on Jake, who also was the idiot that started the unnecessary policy.

I have no problem with the policy. We don't want athletes doing drugs at SU. The problem wasn't the policy, it was the way it was written and implemented. In print, the coach was supposed to get drug screen results and take action. In practice, they went to the AD. This was actually BETTER, because the AD's less partisan and doesn't have the same incentive to protect players. So I had no problem with that change, but it should have been reduced to writing. There were other problems with the policy too, that I won't go into. But the idea that minor drug violations were somehow "performance-enhancing" and justified 100+ vacated wins is hogwash. The NCAA punished us for being better than programs that do nothing (UK), but not being perfect. Then again, the COI chairman is now the SEC commissioner. So that tells you something.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

You think it's dumb, and that's fine. But I don't know about you but I have to follow the rules and regs at my workplace regardless of how dumb I think they are.

Boeheim was told by the AD he didn't have to follow the policy.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Boeheim was told by the AD he didn't have to follow the policy.

Right. So I was told.

And again, what did JB think was to happen?

 

[pearl31]

I was talking in general about some of the other posts that included Noel, Green, and Knox, as well as others.

But anyway, what makes you say that? Somebody told you something? Somebody said..."I know for a fact that UK paid AD! His cousin's nephew's brother that was adopted by my Uncle's mother in law's 3rd cousin told me that he knows this for a fact!"


I mean, it has to be something like that and if you're naive enough to believe that then there is nothing anyone is going to say to change your mind. It's just absurd to me that some fan bases are so gullible to believe this crap. It's like if a player doesn't pick your school then it must be because someone is getting paid or someone cheated. If we lose a recruit to Syracuse or Duke, or UNC, or whoever, I don't just think automatically think it's because they were paid. That's just not logical.

If a team like...say a Dayton or a small school like Richmond were to all the sudden pull in top recruits, then I may think something but when a school that consistently pushes out top draft picks gets recruits, it's not because they're paying players. They don't need to pay players and if you think otherwise, well then you've got an issue. That's all there is to it

:rolling:

Why
Would
We
?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Right. So I was told.

And again, what did JB think was to happen?

Nothing. Do you do what your boss tells you to do?

 

[HOFCeluck]

Nothing. Do you do what your boss tells you to do?

If my boss told me to break a rule from a higher authority? No. I wouldn't.

If he thought nothing was going to happen by not following the NCAAs rule, then JB was either real arrogant, or real stupid.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

If my boss told me to break a rule from a higher authority? No. I wouldn't.

If he thought nothing was going to happen by not following the NCAAs rule, then JB was either real arrogant, or real stupid.

You just said you have to follow the rule and regs at your job, no matter how stupid you thought they were. Which is it?

It wasn't an NCAA rule, it was Syracuse's policy, which had changed. He was told by his boss he didn't have to follow it.

 

[HOFCeluck]

You just said you have to follow the rule and regs at your job, no matter how stupid you thought they were. Which is it?

It wasn't an NCAA rule, it was Syracuse's policy, which had changed. He was told by his boss he didn't have to follow it.

Assuming the rules don't violate rules from a higher body.

Anyway, the policy didn't change. It remained as written until 2009. And the NCAA mandates that if you have a policy, you have to follow it. Boeheim thought it was too complicated to follow, so Jake told him he didn't have to.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Assuming the rules don't violate rules from a higher body.

Anyway, the policy didn't change. It remained as written until 2009. And the NCAA mandates that if you have a policy, you have to follow it. Boeheim thought it was too complicated to follow, so Jake told him he didn't have to.

What makes you think they thought they were not in compliance? JB didn't write the rules and he's not a compliance director. Maybe he didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

"
But starting in 2004, the school gave more power on how to enforce the policy to the athletic director. A clause was added that allowed a one-time "grace period" in which the athletic director could allow a player to keep his eligibility after a third failed test.

Four years later, the athletic director was allowed to "intervene" with any player if he did not feel the grace period "adequately addressed mitigating individual circumstances affecting the student-athlete's substance abuse," according to the report."

Huh. So it did change.

 

[HOFCeluck]

What makes you think they thought they were not in compliance? JB didn't write the rules and he's not a compliance director. Maybe he didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

"
But starting in 2004, the school gave more power on how to enforce the policy to the athletic director. A clause was added that allowed a "grace period" in which the athletic director could allow a player to keep his eligibility after a third failed test.

Four years later, the athletic director was allowed to "intervene" with any player if he did not feel the grace period "adequately addressed mitigating individual circumstances affecting the student-athlete's substance abuse," according to the report."

Huh. So it did change.

Not sure how not knowing rules makes it ok, but whatever.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Not sure how not knowing rules makes it ok, but whatever.

"Specifically, Crouthamel told Boeheim he did not have to notify players' parents if the athlete failed a test. Boeheim would instead meet with the player in person."

Like I said...Boeheim isn't a Compliance Director and his own boss told him he didn't have to call the parents. That's why AD's and Compliance Directors have jobs. In fact the AD had control over the process. Not sure why you can't comprehend that.

 

[HOFCeluck]

"Specifically, Crouthamel told Boeheim he did not have to notify players' parents if the athlete failed a test. Boeheim would instead meet with the player in person."

Like I said...Boeheim isn't a Compliance Director and his own boss told him he didn't have to call the parents. That's why AD's and Compliance Directors have jobs. In fact the AD had control over the process. Not sure why you can't comprehend that.

And then, shockingly, the NCAA came down. Because apparently it didn't matter what the AD said if your in violation of your written policy. Which we were.

He didn't want to follow the drug policy because it was too complicated. He went to Jake, who told him he didn't have to follow it. Fine. But it's awful weird be so cavalier about his program when he was sanctioned already by the NCAA.

I'd pay a little more attention to detail .

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I have no problem with the policy. We don't want athletes doing drugs at SU.

Why? Unless it's something forbidden for competition, it shouldn't be your college's business what goes into your body.