Skip to content

Waiting game begins for Kentucky faithful

May 30, 2010, 11:41 PM EDT

Questions surround Eric Bledsoe’s college eligibility. The NCAA is investigating issues regarding academics and extra benefits, according to a report from the N.Y. Times.

Andy Lyons/Getty

Meanwhile, Kentucky fans have only one question: What does this mean for the Wildcats?

At best, nothing (though we won’t know for a while).

At worst, it’ll be as if the 2009-10 season never existed. And that’s a sobering thought. From ESPN’s Dana O’Neil:

A source with knowledge of NCAA rules said “depending on the specific facts that come out,” the NCAA’s options include deeming Bledsoe ineligible, which could potentially lead to forfeited games or even a vacated season.

The school says Bledsoe passed an extensive review process by the school, by the NCAA Eligibility Center and was cleared academically.

If you think that sounds like the Derrick Rose situation at Memphis, you’d be right. Then again, it also sounds like the Darrell Arthur situation at Kansas. It’s hard to say how it’ll end up, but there are four things to consider, as O’Neil writes:

  • Did the relationship develop as a result of the athlete’s participation in athletics?
  • Did the relationship predate the athlete’s status as a prospect?
  • Did the relationship predate the athlete’s status achieved as a result of their athletics ability/reputation?
  • Was the pattern of benefits provided before the athlete’s notoriety similar to those provided after?

Maybe John Calipari should start to reconsider his recruitment of at-risk players. And perhaps the NCAA should adjust its rules when it comes to some of these players’ situations. Sometimes, it’s just all gray.

The only thing I know for sure? It’s going to be a tense few months in Big Blue Nation.

Mike Miller’s also on Twitter, usually talkin’ hoops. Click here for more.

  1. michael - May 31, 2010 at 4:10 PM

    The thing I can’t get over is how people seem to think that Dana O’Neil actually said anything. Let’s break this down:
    1. “A source with knowledge of NCAA rules…”
    a. What kind of knowledge? O’Neil doesn’t say “extensive” or “complete”. Hell, I have knowledge of NCAA rules. In fact, if you say to someone “Did you know that the NCAA has rules?”, and they answer “Yes”, then they apparently meet her criteria.
    2. “‘depending on the specific facts that come out,’ the NCAA’s options include deeming Bledsoe ineligible, which could potentially lead to forfeited games or even a vacated season.”
    b. Whaa huh? Another way to phrase this would be “If someone broke rules, there could be a punishment of some description.” Thank you, Captain Obvious!!! She failed to mention that the NCAA’s other options include: Doing nothing because nothing happened. That is, after all, a “specific fact” that could “come out”, right? That the NCAA is wasting their time barking up the wrong tree?
    If someone wrote an article about the gulf oil spill, and said:
    “A source with knowledge of oil said ‘depending on the amount of oil that comes out’, stuff could get black and sticky, or potentially REALLY black and sticky”, would anyone bother to quote them in article after article? I think not.
    It’s obvious that O’Neil, as well as whoever the hell Mike Miller is, need to get clicks on their pages so they resort to unimaginative, ill-informed blather and rote repeating of each other. This article should be titled “Dana O’Neil Writes Article”
    Can somebody wake me when someone truly KNOWS something?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!