Kentucky Lands Ineligible Recruit? Nah.
D.A. | Sep 08, 2010 | Comments 4
Friend of the Fizz and New York Times college sports reporter Pete Thamel (SU ’99) is reporting top-flight Kentucky recruit Enes Kanter received a salary and benefits up to $100,000 across seas and would not be eligible for college basketball.
Shocking.
In the arms race this summer for the #1 recruiting class of 2011, Syracuse and Kentucky are among the schools battling it out. Although, every school is just chasing the Wildcats. The Orange, North Carolina, Memphis, NC State and Ohio State have all hauled remarkable recruiting classes (SU’s earned a huge push with the Rakeem Christmas commit). But everyone’s been jostling for #2 on the list. Coach Cal has once again pulled in the best at nearly every position.
Will Kanter eventually be found ineligible by the NCAA? The guess is yes. Sure, it looks like his Turkish club could simply be discrediting Kanter’s eligibility to angle for a payout on his transfer to a European club. Right now the club would come up empty-handed if he enrolls at Kentucky. But the NCAA has been trying to look less like a toothless enterprise by going after USC, UConn and North Carolina in the last year.
It’s a quote from Duquesne assistant coach Rodney Crawford – who has connections to Kanter’s prep school here in the states – which is the most disturbing of all.
When asked about the role one “advisor” had in Kanter’s life, Crawford said:
“I don’t feel comfortable talking much about him. I don’t want to be talking about it. He’s his advisor. That’s a good way to put it. That’s another thing I can’t really speak on. I just took a coaching job at Duquesne; you know how the game is, I can’t afford to say anything.”
Not saying anything is usually saying everything. Need any more evidence that college athletics (and basketball specifically) is akin to the corruption and political interplay of early 20th century American crime families?
You know how the game is.
UPDATE: (9/8 11:11a)
Crawford insists his quotes were taken out of context.
“Max is a great guy and Enes is a great kid. Never in a million years would I say something negative about those guys. I just was saying he was my friend and I didnt want to talk about him to the press, he then took it and made it look negative.”
Even more upsetting however to Crawford was the second quote used by Thamel. Crawford says that while he said those words, it was about a situation completely apart from the Enes Kanter story.
“He asked me about a totally different guy that I dont want to talk about and it was something that was about a completely different situation. That quote wasnt even about Max or Kanter and he [Pete Thamel] knows that.”
I don’t really see how that abdicates Crawford. So he’s not denying any of the quotes, just the context? He’s still suggesting that as a newbie college basketball hire, there are things he can’t afford to be talking about because of the politics involved. That is much more the essence of what feels unseemly than just the direct connection to the Kenes situation. Sorry, I’m siding with the New York Times reporter here over a no-name assistant. Thamel doesn’t quite work for the Bleacher Report.
Posted: D.A.
Filed Under: Featured • Recruiting


Hey… I’m having a bit of problem with the way your site is displaying. For some reason the text block is running into the edge. I don’t know if it’s just me or have other people mentioned this? Just wanted to let you know in case you’ve been updating the site. Thanks! Merrill Toedebusch
FYI, turns out that the Duquesne coach has come out and said that the quote you reference above was not only taken out of context, but disturbingly misrepresented in the article:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/09/assistant-coach-says-his-words-on-enes-kanter-adviser-were-taken-out-of-context-by-new-york-times/1
Jeff-
Thanks. Just updated the story with it. Im siding with Thamel on this one.
DA
Siding with Thamel, despite the fact that one of his quoted sources is upset at the way his words were ENTIRELY misrepresented? How can you even say that with a straight face?
It’s just as bad as a conversation going like this:
“‘Do you like apples?’
‘I don’t really know.’
‘Do you like oranges?’
‘I hate them.’”
and getting written up as such:
When asked if he liked apples, he didn’t have an answer. Later he added: “I hate them.”
Essentially that is what happened here, yet you defend it to the teeth because you just can’t wait for some dirt about UK to be true, right? So that you can have a better shot at the #1 recruiting class in 2011, I’m guessing? How pathetic.