• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

NCAA reinstates ISU's Bobby Hill

I think the NCAA had a really hard decision to make here. On one hand, he did get an apartment, money for clothes, and food from his high school coach (obviously all very serious violations).

On the other hand, both Bobby and his brother Johnny were following their father's instructions and moving from poverty into a stable environment to be able to concentrate on school (and basketball, more importantly- at least in the their coaches eyes).

I think it is kinda tough for the NCAA to penalize some kids for simply listening to what their father told them to do. It seems like the high school coach (who was penalized heavily) and the boys father should be the one's in trouble (not sure if there is anything they could do to the dad).

Saying that, I would not have been suprised if he was suspended due to the seriousness of the violations. I am sure the kids new what they were doing was wrong- but if you were in that situation- (IMO) it would be pretty tough to turn down a free apartment and money for food and clothes, just to switch schools to play basketball. It is better then some alternatives (robbery, burglery, drugs- in order to get some money). I would be hardpressed not to take the offer, like MR. Hill did, to get his kids out of a bad, poverty stricked, situation.
 
tornado said:
Maybe Patrick O'Bryant only did what his father told him, and he needed money?
How come he got penalized, and BU, too?
Click to expand...


POB wasn't 14 and under his father's care when he made his poor choice.

I am not trying to say he didnt deserve a punishment, just stating that might be how the NCAA saw it.
 
Da Coach said:
If you can justify breaking some rules, why not any rule?
Click to expand...

I guess that would be a question for the NCAA since they apparently "justified" the breaking of a rule- or else they would not have let him off without punishment.
 
Let's just bring up the old threads. This is one case we can all disagree on. I for one like what the NCAA has done. The POB case and this are 2 different circumstances not to say what they decided was right.

I have friend who did something similar what the Hills did and is now working with troubled teens. If he was not given that chance he would not have been able to make it to college and be in the position he is in today. What would have you done in their dad's shoes?
 
I feel the biggest problem with the NCAA is there is no uniformity when it comes to violations and punishment. Sometimes one thing is viewed as a violation and the penalties are harsh and others the same penalty allows for leniency.

I understand that all situations have special situations but the NCAA is all over the place on what it views as violations and what it views as a penalty.

I though am shocked that they took the side of the student in this case with Hill simply because he is enrolled at ISU, if he were at Kansas their probably would have never been any sort of questioning of this situation.
 
houstontxbrave said:
I feel the biggest problem with the NCAA is there is no uniformity when it comes to violations and punishment. Sometimes one thing is viewed as a violation and the penalties are harsh and others the same penalty allows for leniency.
Click to expand...

Exactly, well said. I know every situation is different at least slightly, but there should be somekind of loose definition of punishment so that the NCAA feels compelled to punish university's on an equal/similar level.
 
tornado said:
Bingo, this is all I have ever said....I want to see good discipline but it should be consistent for violations of similar nature and from one school to another.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your statement if it said "I want to see good discipline but it should be consistent for violations of similar nature and from one SITUATION to another."

I really don't think it does (or should) have anything to do with the school.

Are you implying that if this happened at BU, that the punishment would have been different? Or of POB was at ISU, it would have been different?

I really see no way this incident can compare at all to POB

Hill- was 14- in high school- living with his dad and little brother- he needed his dad to survive and his dad decided to take money he shouldnt have to get his kids out of poverty

POB- was 19 (or so???)- was in college- living on his own- didn't show up to work and still got paid for it.

Argue it all you want, but IMO (and apparently the NCAA's opinion) Hill was under his dad's supervision and was not at fault and POB made a poor decision on his own
 
Lurker I suspect that you are an ISU fan but I have to agree with you never the less. The two situations are totally different. I hope the Hill brothers get something out of their situation and can give back to society.

The question is did POB take that money on purpose or was it just a mistake. The NCAA did not care one way or the other. That was the problem. Now if the NCAA went after USC like they did us then I would be OK with it but they are not!
 
Many other "impermissable benefits" cases have arisen over the past couple years. Most involved amounts much greater than what POB got. Yet the NCAA did not act on many of these cases.

Examples: Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo, Rhett Bomar (Oklahoma quarterback)

Yet in the same time, the NCAA did come down hard on small schools like Alabama State, Savannah State, Texas Southern, Central Oklahoma, and Texas A&M-CC for impermissible benefits cases. There has been an obvious inconsistency.
 
Would these actions taken during his High School years be considered NCAA violations by the player? I'm not trying to imply one side over the other, but I wonder what is the extent of the NCAA's jurisdiction in this case?
 
Da Coach said:
Many other "impermissable benefits" cases have arisen over the past couple years. Most involved amounts much greater than what POB got. Yet the NCAA did not act on many of these cases.

Examples: Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo, Rhett Bomar (Oklahoma quarterback)

Yet in the same time, the NCAA did come down hard on small schools like Alabama State, Savannah State, Texas Southern, Central Oklahoma, and Texas A&M-CC for impermissible benefits cases. There has been an obvious inconsistency.
Click to expand...


I agree there has been some inconsistancies but i am not sure if anyone except the NCAA know the specifics to every situation.

I am unfamiliar with many of the situations listed above... but i am pretty sure Rhett Bomar was suspended for a year before he could play at w/e FCS school he ended up transferring too.
 
I understand your point- but what is your thinking for why the NCAA "likes" ISU better then BU... hense if BHill was at BU, that he would have been penalized... just curious
 
Lurker21 said:
I understand your point- but what is your thinking for why the NCAA "likes" ISU better then BU... hense if BHill was at BU, that he would have been penalized... just curious
Click to expand...

For starters, the local newspaper would demand we get penalized to the fullest... and if not by the NCAA, then the University and its President should come down hard with its own action. (Plus, we'd also have Kyle Whelliston from ESPN blasting Bradley some more - probably demanding we get the "death penalty".)

But if in case you didn't know Lurker21, the truth is.... the NCAA really hates Bradley... they really - really do!

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top