Blog Entry

Free Enes

Posted on: December 3, 2010 2:21 pm
Edited on: December 3, 2010 2:33 pm
I'm reading about Cam Newton, but I'm thinking about Enes Kanter.

I'm reading about Josh Selby, but thinking about Enes Kanter.

Reading about? Renardo Sydney. But thinking about? Enes Kanter.

Those were all athlete-affirmative rulings by the NCAA. Newton's father was trying to cheat but couldn't consummate the deal, and anyway, Newton didn't know. So he can play for Auburn. Terrific, sincerely. Love that ruling.

Selby was driving around in someone else's Mercedes, and ultimately Selby was found to have received almost $5,000 in extra benefits from Carmelo Anthony's business manager, but the NCAA decided that the business manager was a longtime friend of the family and not a scuzzball. So Selby will be able to play for Kansas in a few weeks, and that's great.

Sidney is the Mississippi State basketball recruit whose family received so many thousands of dollars -- almost $12,000 -- that he was sidelined the entire 2009-10 season. But after that year suspension, and after missing a portion of this season, he'll eventually be able to play -- even though he misled NCAA investigators. And I say, fine. Sidney and his parents made huge mistakes, but the kid paid a huge penalty. Good for him that he can play.

But what about Enes Kanter? What about him ?

Kanter's father was the one who received the money from the Turkish national team, not Kanter himself. Enes had no idea what was coming in, or where it was going. He never saw the money, and anyway, the money was reimbursement for travel expenses, and coverage of educational expenditures. Not a Mercedes. Not clothes. Not cash.

Kanter never lied to the NCAA. Never sought payment from a school. Never drove someone else's fancy car for weeks at a time.

But Kanter can't play. Ever.


I don't get it. I don't think I ever will get it. But with Kanter's appeal still being considered, it's not too late for the NCAA to do the right thing and let him play. This year, next year, whenever. Let him play, NCAA, or you're the biggest scuzzball in this story.

Category: NCAAB
Tags: Enes Kanter

Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: December 4, 2010 12:28 am


Don't fool yourself Doyel.  "Enes had no idea what was coming in. . .?"  Really?  I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you if you believe that one.
I've got a 7 year old son and he knows about every dollar he earns, so I am not buying it.
Letting Kanter play, just like allowing Newton, Selby, and the other dude, sets a horrible precedent.  Don't force universities and colleges to become minor league basketball.
The NBA needs to abolish the one year rule and let the teams draft whoever they want.  I don't care if NBA basketball get ruined by idiot GM's making bonehead decisions by rewarding highschool, unproven, stars.  But please don't screw up college basketball in the process.
Free Enes, back to Turkey.

Since: Mar 30, 2009
Posted on: December 4, 2010 12:18 am

Free Enes

If the NCAA cocks this one up, as they cock up EVERYTHING they have a hand in anymore, then I don't see why Kanter's parents, who are rich; and I don't mean for-people-living-in-Turkey rich, I mean RICH don't sue the everloving he!! out of the sorry-a$$ NCAA.  Can you imagine the $hit that the NCAA has swept under the rug for whatever reason that could be brought into the harsh light under depositions?  Someone needs to expose the NCAA for the hypocritical, self-serving worthless association they are.

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: December 3, 2010 11:54 pm

Free Enes

Actually, I say they're all pros. You take money, you're a professional. Just that simple.

Since: Apr 9, 2009
Posted on: December 3, 2010 11:36 pm

Free Enes

This kid may be the first pick in the draft one day soon. This kid could already have MILLIONS of dollars in his bank account had he so chose but wants to play college basketball. Pay back the measly amount of cash he used for education purposes and let him lace them up. Do the right thing NCAA.

Since: Feb 9, 2009
Posted on: December 3, 2010 10:26 pm

Free Enes

Just because the NCAA has it's head up it's a$$ and decided Newton was eligible doesn't mean they should now open the flood gates and let Kanter play.  He took significant sums of money.  Selby shouldn't be allowed to play and at least they made Sidney sit out last year.  The Newton decision was a disaster, they don't have to become completely unethical.
Kanter was a professional.  He shouldn't be allowed to play in the NCAA even if that scumbag Calipari needs him....

Since: Aug 24, 2009
Posted on: December 3, 2010 4:58 pm

Free Enes

Indeed, it may be the educational expenses, the tangible benefit Kanter received, that proves to be the stumbling block.  UK may be asking for more time to submit evidence that Kanter was unaware that his parents were paying his educational expenses from the expense money provided by the club team, a la Newton.

Since: Aug 24, 2009
Posted on: December 3, 2010 4:34 pm

Free Enes

I misattributed a quote to Emmert.  It's from the NCAA in response to comparisons between Newton's case and Reggie Bush's.  As per, the NCAA said: "If a student-athlete does not receive tangible benefits, that is a different situation from a student-athlete or family member who receives cash, housing or other benefits or knowingly competes and is compensated as a professional athlete."

On another subject, spending any of the expense money on education only compounds the error.  Rule  A prospective student-athlete may receive educational expenses or services ... prior to collegiate enrollment from any individual or entity other than an agent, professional sports team/organatization, member institution or a representative of an institution's athletics interests, provided the payment for such expenses or services is disbursed directly to the individual, organization or educational institution ... providing the educational expense or service.  Italics mine.

Translation:  A professional team may not provide educational expenses.  Period.  So the Kanters' use of improper benefits for an improper purpose hardly constitutes a mitigating circumstance.  To the contrary.

Since: Dec 3, 2010
Posted on: December 3, 2010 4:33 pm

Free Enes

Pete:  Can you point out to me where it has been stated as a "fact" that $20,000 was used for education?  The only place I read it was from Decourcey who claimed it was from "a source."  It has then been reprinted by other journalists and message board posters based on that statement but I have yet to hear from anyone official that is the case. As I'm sure you've come to understand many "sources" aren't reliable and saying this is "fact" based on an unnamed source is iffy at best.

Also, I've read time and time again (mainly on message boards) about the Kanter's maintaining "meticulous" records.  Where and what is the basis for these comments?  Hopefulness?  Again, these comments are coming from journalist "sources".  As a Kentucky fan, I would think you would understand the level of trust you can place in those sources (well of course unless they favor your situation.)

A lot of opinion turning into fact in this case.

Since: Dec 3, 2010
Posted on: December 3, 2010 4:22 pm

Free Enes


1.  Yes, $20,000 was used for education.  Fact.  Everyone knows this, but you obviously.  So yes, that leaves $13,000 unaccounted for that was left in a private bank account untouched.  Does it matter that it was never used? No.  Rules are rules.  I agree there.  However, Kanter clearly showed intent to keep his amateur status by turning down millions of dollars.  His father kept meticulous record indicating so, and they obviously went wrong on one key point. - The $33,000 should have been paid directly from the professional team to Kanter's school system.  For whatever reason, that was clearly botched. 

2.  I don't care if he does have to sit out until January.  The kid made a conceded effort to keep his amateur status so that he could one day be a collegiate athlete.  His family turned down a lucritive professional contract in order to do so on more than one occasion.  Instead of blaming these kids for "using" our universities as an NBA jumping spring, why don't you write a letter asking the NCAA why these same kids HAVE to either attend college for one year, or go overseas to continue their respective basketball careers?  Maybe you should be asking the NCAA if that is what our universities are really about, and not me. 

Since: Aug 24, 2009
Posted on: December 3, 2010 3:56 pm

Free Enes

Rather than broadly comparing Kanter's case to other recent cases, let's look at the applicable rules and try to decide the case on its facts.  That's what the reinstatement staff and reinstatement committee do.

Rule  An individual shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics in a sport if the individual ever competed on a professional team in that sport.

Rule  Exception - In sports other than men's ice hockey and skiing, before initial full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may compete on a professional team, provided he or she does not receive more than actual and necessary expenses to participate on the team.

UK acknowledges Kanter received more than actual and necessary expenses to participate on a pro team.  The exception does not apply.  So he "shall not be eligible" under the general rule.  That's what the Student-Athlete Reinstatement staff ruled.

But did receiving more than actual and necessary expenses turn Kanter into a professional athlete?  Or was he simply the recipient of impermissible benefits?  Consider Rule 12.02.3:  A professional athlete is one who receives any kind of payment, directly or indirectly, for athletics participation (except as otherwise permitted).  In its Nov. 11 press release, the reinstatement staff did not find Kanter to be a professional athlete.  It did not find that he received a salary or pay for play.  It found him permanently ineligible "for receiving above his actual and necessary expenses while playing for a club basketball team in Turkey."  Expenses.  "While playing" for a club team.  Not payment for the purpose of athletics participation.

So here's the question:  Can receiving more than actual and necessary expenses from a pro team reasonably translate into a payment for athletics participation?  That's the real issue here.  And like all cases, it depends on the circumstances.  If the amount were hundreds of thousands, something closer to the seven figures other big men earned for being on the court, sure.  Who could argue?  But given the circumstances with which we are all familiar, the clear weight of the evidence demonstrates that Kanter did not, to use President Emmert's recent words, "knowingly compete and receive compensation as a professional athlete."

Kanter is a fish who was not meant to be caught in that net.  And it would seem to require a gross mischaracterization of the evidence, an almost willing perversion of the facts, to reach any other conclusion.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or