Gregg Doyel says, don’t blame Ryan Boatright for his Mother’s transgressions. He believes that Ryan, just like Cam Newton, was oblivious to his Mother’s receipt of car payments and other impermissible benefits to the tune of about $8,000.
Apparently the NCAA agrees, as they reinstated Boatright’s eligibility, calling him “the least culpable actor.”
Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
All of this obviously makes a UK fan sit up and say what about Enes Kanter? Wasn’t he the least culpable (f)actor in a situation where his parents even took actions to preserve his amateur status? (As opposed to Boatright’s mother, who looks as though she knew she was doing dirt.)
Doyel does say that Enes Kanter should have been eligible from day one, implying that he is no different from Boatright.
But I disagree, I think the two are very different.
So what about Ryan Boatright is different from Enes Kanter? With Enes, the amount of money was more. His family reportedly received about 30K worth of pay that was more than he would be allowed in order to keep his amatuer status. Being 14-16 at the time, Kanter had know idea what was what. His family was 100% cooperative from the beginning, and maintained that they had always acted in good faith regarding his amateur status. Oh, and he went to Kentucky, not UCONN.
With Ryan Boatright, his mother reportedly took more that $8,000 in impermissible benefits, ranging from car payments to plane tickets for trips which still have not been explained, but apparently he did not know. His mother was not cooperative with the investigation at first. He went to UCONN, not Kentucky.
In the cases of Dee Bost, Josh Selby, and Ryan Boatright, they were afforded the opportunity to pay back moneys they received. Kanter’s family repeatedly asked to do so, though they were not allowed.
Kanter’s father had put the money he received aside for education and related expenses, Boatright’s mother made her car payments.
With the Boatright situation, the NCAA even said that if the Boatright family had been cooperative, this issue would have been resolved months ago.
UCONN is currently awaiting judgement on a waiver, regarding their academic performance, which has been so poor that they would not be allowed to participate in the NCAA tourney next year without special consideration. Coach Calhoun already had to sit out for violating the rules of engagement with recruits by sending over 1,000 texts when he should not have sent 1.
So those are the comparisons, and my conclusion is this; Boatright is ‘culpable’, because what good would it be for someone to pay his family to influence his decision and compensate him for going to UCONN if he didn’t know it were happening? It would be pointless, so he had to know.
The Kanter case was an issue of things which were done in good faith not happening to fit the rules of the American Collegiate system, and there was no amnesty despite the family asking to set things right. So especially in a case where Boatright’s was family operating with mal-intent by taking advantage of their son’s basketball skills to make car payments and more, there should also be no amnesty.
If Ryan Boatright went to the University of Kentucky he would be permanently ineligible and UK would be looking at some of the most harsh penalties the NCAA has ever handed out. If Enes Kanter went to UCONN he would have been the POY on the team that eventually won the National Title.
[URL=”http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/17042744/dont-condemn-kids-like-uconns-boatright-for-parents-selfishness”]Source[/URL]
