Enes Kanter: Free Enes

Nobody, not the NCAA, not the Kanters, not the Kentucky Wildcats, not John Calipari, not Dick Vitale ...

Not anybody can be happy with the NCAA ruling in the Enes Kanter Case. Not a soul. Well, maybe the most insensitive among the Louisville Cardinal or Duke Blue Devils fans, but their partisanship can be forgiven them.

The NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement decided on Friday to uphold the earlier staff decision that Enes Kanter was permanently ineligible to play college basketball for an NCAA institution. The decision was based on the apparent reasoning that any money received from a professional team in the sport in question above "actual and necessary expenses" was justification for declaring the player ineligible by reason of non-amateurism.

Many fans, UK and otherwise, have pointed out apparent inconsistencies in this ruling. Let's list a few of them:

The NCAA has allowed athletes who received payments not allowed by the rules from other interests, including agents, apparel companies, third parties, and others unspecified individuals and groups to play amateur athletics with the caveat that they repay these payments and suffer a competition penalty.
The NCAA has allowed student-athletes steeped in the tradition of NCAA rules for virtually all of their sports lives to blatantly violate these standards by selling their rings, apparel, and trophies for cash or other considerations to return to amateur athletics after suffering a competition penalty.
The NCAA has allowed players to become de-facto professionals by declaring for the NBA draft, then withdrawing late, to return to amateur competition in direct contravention of the letter of their rules.
The NCAA has declared that a player who's father solicited illegal benefits from teams in an attempt to sell him to the highest bidder was eligible for competition because of his ignorance of the father's conspiracy, and (clarified only very recently) due to the fact that no deal was ever consummated in the "pay for play" scheme.
The NCAA has declared that none of its findings of leniency in any case may be cited as precedent, and are "not binding on the NCAA". In other words, its decisions only mean something as a precedent when they say it does, if ever.
Finally, the NCAA has frequently declared an "intent to professionalize" a major component of its decisions, yet despite the clear lack of one in the Kanter case, chose to discard this frequently-cited~~precedent~~ dicta.

This is a long list of facts that are well documented, if not well understood. Louisville Courier-Journal columnist Eric Crawford still bemoans the Muhammed Lasege case, and many blogs and newspapers have taken shots at the Cam Newton and Ohio State rulings.

The NCAA has declared that it may be lenient when it chooses, or not, without being held accountable to either reason or fairness. It has declared that it may interpret the rules one way one one time, and another way in a different case without the necessity of even offering a defense, or allowing schools to hold the NCAA to precedential reasoning.

The decision to permanently ban Enes Kanter is based in rule 12.02.4 and 12.2.3.2 of the NCAA bylaws, which say, as amended, from the 2010-11 NCAA Division I Manual:

12.02.4 Professional Athletics Team. A professional team is any organized team that:
(a) Provides any of its players more than actual and necessary expenses for participation on the team, except as
otherwise permitted by NCAA legislation. Actual and necessary expenses are limited to the following, provided
the value of these items is commensurate with the fair market value in the locality of the player(s) and
is not excessive in nature: (Revised: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/02)

(1) Meals directly tied to competition and practice held in preparation for such competition;
(2) Lodging directly tied to competition and practice held in preparation for such competition;
(3) Apparel, equipment and supplies;
(4) Coaching and instruction;
(5) Health/medical insurance;
(6) Transportation (expenses to and from practice competition, cost of transportation from home to training/
practice site at the beginning of the season and from training/practice site to home at the end of
season);
(7) Medical treatment and physical therapy;
(8) Facility usage; (Revised: 4/24/03)
(9) Entry fees; and (Revised: 4/24/03)
(10) Other reasonable expenses; or (Adopted: 4/24/03, Revised: 10/28/04)

(b) Declares itself to be professional (see Bylaw 12.2.3.2.4). (Revised: 8/8/02)

...

12.2.3.2 Competition with Professionals. An individual shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics
in a sport if the individual ever competed on a professional team (per Bylaw 12.02.4) in that sport. However,
an individual may compete on a tennis, golf, two-person sand volleyball or two-person synchronized diving
team with persons who are competing for cash or a comparable prize, provided the individual does not receive
payment of any kind for such participation. (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96, 1/14/97, 4/25/02 effective 8/1/02)

12.2.3.2.1 Exception—Competition Before Initial Full-Time Collegiate Enrollment—Sports
Other Than Men’s Ice Hockey and Skiing. In sports other than men’s ice hockey and skiing, before initial
full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may compete on a professional team (per Bylaw 12.02.4),
provided he or she does not receive more than actual and necessary expenses to participate on the team.
(Adopted: 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10; applicable to student-athletes who initially enroll full time in a collegiate
institution on or after 8/1/10)

This seems fairly straightforward in theory, at least. As long as the money the player receives is applied to all the above things in (a) 1-10 and are not "excessive in nature," a term which is at best, very ambiguous and highly subjective, the player is eligible for competition.

The NCAA, however, clarified this quite a bit in the Kanter case. It basically said that money in excess of these "actual and necessary" expenses paid by a pro team were different in nature than other impermissible benefits. The rationale seems to be that impermissible benefits from agents, shoe companies, runners, and other smarmy folk are less corrupting to the amateur status than money paid directly by a professional team. Essentially, the NCAA has said that even lying to it in violation of its ethics rules, a la Renardo Sidney, is more forgivable than taking one dime above expenses from a professional team.

Let's think about that a moment. The Kanters were forthright about the fact that they received money in excess of the "actual and necessary" expenses allowed by the rules, but they sequestered that money away unspent with the understanding implied by many NCAA prior decisions that if that money was a problem, they could just pay it back and all would be well with a game penalty. They did not understand, nor could any rational person, the intent of the NCAA to differentiate between money gleaned directly from a professional team and money taken from a mere representative of professional athletics interests. Apparently, the more direct the connection, the more evil the money.

Which brings us to the ethics of the matter. The NCAA purports to serve two masters, the interests of the athlete and the interests of their member institutions. These two interests are very often at loggerheads. Fairness to an athlete can result in unfairness to member institutions. Arguably, we see that with the Cam Newton and Ohio State rulings. But for the fact that Newton was available to Auburn, particularly in the Alabama game before the NCAA cleared him, there is little doubt that they would not be in the BCS championship game. Similarly, if the Ohio State Five had not been allowed to compete in this year's Sugar Bowl and serve their sentence in the meaningless part of the season next year, there is little doubt that Ohio State could not have won that game.

But in the Lasege and Kanter cases, the NCAA has sided with the institutions over the athlete. The disturbing trend here is that both these worthies were international players, and both their rulings were precedent-setting, at least for those of us who believe in such things as precedent, which the NCAA clearly abjures. The fact that neither came out in defense of the athlete ought to give everyone pause.

The NCAA has always made a big deal out of the fact that it could apply rules strictly, but then make exceptions for the purposes of fairness and equity. This is one of the strong points of the NCAA process, the fact that strict application of the rules can be used as a bludgeon to deal with blatant cheating and unfairness, but those rules could be softened where there was misunderstanding, accidental compliance failures, or youthful indiscretions.

A good example would be Dee Bost, guard from Mississippi State. Bost failed to withdraw his name timely from the NBA draft last year, which by strict interpretation of the rules makes him a professional and permanently ineligible for NCAA play. Reporting leaves little doubt that Bost intended to manipulate the system, and the NCAA allowed him to do so. The Committee on Reinstatement applied a game penalty to Bost and allowed him to return to amateur competition. In this case, the interests of the student-athlete were placed above that of the member institutions.

So it went with Renardo Sidney, despite he and his parent's deliberate and ultimately successful attempt to deceive the NCAA as to the source and amount of their income received on Sidney's behalf, since much of the Sidney's comparatively opulent lifestyle prior to their son's enrollment in Mississippi State remains unexplained.

Ah, but Enes Kanter. Despite the forthrightness of Kanter and his parents with regard to the money he took and for what reason, the NCAA decided that it could not be lenient with him. It decided that because the money came from a pro team, honesty, integrity, and a clear intent not to professionalize were simply not enough. The NCAA decided that it was better to forgive blatant dishonesty and malfeasance than unintentionalal rule-breaking where great care was taken in a failed attempt to adhere to the rules. The decision from the Kanter case is a clear and unambiguous one -- if you are going to take money, make absolutely sure it cannot be traced to a professional team. If it can, and you want to play, you should dissemble and hope you don't get caught -- the NCAA won't treat your lying as severely as taking the money.

Make no mistake, the NCAA is acting fully within its rules in declaring Kanter permanently ineligible. It really isn't even a close call. But based on a long line of leniency shown to American players, the NCAA's actions in the Lasege and Kanter case appear to be at best biased against non-Americans, and at worst, somewhat jingoistic. In any case, the Kanter ruling is a middle finger extended to the very European players that most of its member institutions had clearly hoped to coax to American colleges based on recent rule changes intended to help players like Deniz Kilicli avoid long stretches of game penalties.

The reality that the NCAA must live with, though, is that its decision is completely unfair to everybody -- UK, Kanter, his parents, and the NCAA member institutions who clearly intended to soften the amateurism rules for European players. It is not only unfair based on previous decisions, which it now conveniently regards as non-precedential, but it is unfair based on the common understanding of intent to adhere to the rules.

The Kanters clearly intended that their son not be a professional, but because they botched the process due to an honest lack of understanding that in a rational world could surely be forgiven foreigners, the NCAA felt no need to show the kind of compassion to the athlete and his family it showed in the Sidney, Selby, Ohio State, and Cam Newton cases despite the much more egregious intent of those worthies, and their far greater experience with the rules. To the contrary, the NCAA said, in essence, "You can't hold Newton et. al. against us, we can do as we will."

And so they can, to their eternal shame.

Kentucky Basketball: Fairness "Made In America" For Enes Kanter

Glenn Logan

aseaofblue.com

For what seems like an eternity now, we’ve waited and waited and waited some morefor the NCAA to determine if Enes Kanter will play for Kentucky this season. The Cats have endured one ruling, filed an appeal and, now, await the NCAA’s findings on the “new information” submitted to them over a month ago. For Kentucky fans, it’s been a daily battle waged on the F5 key and growing frustration with an organization that has found itself under fire lately. But, is there some good to be found in the waiting game?

It’s tough to look at the performance of Josh Harrellson and not think that there’s at least a little silver lining. You’re very aware of all the ways that Jorts has blossomed in his first season as a starter, so I’ll spare you all (or at least most) of that rambling. But, where would he (and the team) be at this point had Kanter been able to play? The record might be a game or two better, but, at this point, 12-2 is about as good as anyone had expected. Kanter would likely be getting about 30 minutes per game and serve as the focal point of the offense. Harrellson’s Twitter fiasco and subsequent development might not have occurred as backup player. Doron Lamb might not have had the chance to grow offensively with, you could presume, less dribble-drive getting him open looks. Would Terrence Jones have blossomed into an All-American player early in the year? Tough to say. It’s all speculation anyway and we can leave that up to a certain curmudgeon beat writer.

But, what you can say confidently at this point is that this team has grown by leaps and bounds. Think back to beginning of the year. Kentucky wasn’t just touted as a team that would struggle with their rebounding and their depth, they were a team that was going to be majorly exposed by it. There weren’t enough big bodies around and the ones that were in uniform weren’t nearly talented enough. It was in every magazine and on every website. Kentucky was deficient in the post and it would keep them from being a legitimate contender for the national championship. The notion that the inside presence of Josh Harrellson and Terrence Jones could not only develop into a strong suit, but also, arguably, the team’s most consistent trait, was a goofy one. Yet, fourteen games into the season, here we are. They’re the best rebounding duo since 1971-72 and have not been overmatched by a frontcourt yet.

It’s not as crazy to think now as it was in the preseason that Kentucky could make a run to the Final Four.

They’ve developed an inside presence and a fluid offense that wasn’t supposed to be present without Kanter. You won’t find most people putting them in their top two or three teams, but nearly everyone would agree that this team could find a six-game run in themselves in the spring. Think back to the preseason again. Crazy, huh? It all goes back to that development from the guys who weren’t supposed to be major factors.

Of course, the difference in having a player like Kanter is a major one, no doubt, and I’m not trying to say that adding him would simply be a luxury. Guys with that type of talent aren’t luxuries or the icing on the cake. They’re difference makers. But, it doesn’t seem to be an isane notion to think that this team, having not had him available, is better suited to make a run should he return than they would have been if he had played from the outset. When he was ruled ineligible, the accountability and responsibility of every player on the roster drastically increased. To this point, their play seems to indicate that they’ve responded positively. So, maybe the NCAA is doing us a solid. Maybe?

But the NCAA still sucks. #FreeEnes #EternalOptimism

Thomas Beisner

kentuckysportsradio.com

Enes Kanter

June 19, 2011

NBA: 2011 NBA Draft: Centers

June 8, 2011

ESPNU Enes Kanter

January 10, 2011

Kentucky Basketball: Fairness "Made In America" For Enes Kanter

Kentucky Basketball: Fairness "Made In America" For Enes Kanter

January 7, 2011

Morning Five: 01.07.11 Edition

January 5, 2011

The Enes Kanter silver lining?