• 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.

Another teammate of Michael Ocherobia signs to play with D1 school

but that is precisely my point...the ONLY similarity is that both were forced to sit and wait on the molasses-slow rulings from NCAA that never go in favor of any kid seeking to come to BU....

if we only look at those not at BU......then I can see that same similarity in John Wall, Ehimen Orukpe, and Barack Obama and six billion others
 
tornado said:
John Wilkins arrived in the US in July 2008 - before that he was never even considered a recruit and had not been in contact with anyone from any college...
..and nobody can sign a LOI in July of any year, as the spring signing period is already over...so
Wilkins could NOT have signed a LOI to Bradley or anyone, when he first committed to Bradley and attempted to enroll in fall of 2008.

The next and ONLY time that Wilkins might have been able to sign a LOI would be spring of 2010...as it was NOT certain in fall of 2009 that his academics were on track after just 9 months at juco - to graduate and get his associates degree.

(snip)

Ochereobia IS and always HAS been committed to BU, and hasn't signed a LOI & is waiting to hear on his academics
Wilkins was but then by 2009 was NOT committed to BU and was able to sign a LOI but signed with ISU...so tell me what else there is that's similar?
Click to expand...
What does academic eligibility have to do with signing an LOI? There is zero relationship between the two. Several kids sign LOIs only to find out later that they aren't eligible. There is no NCAA rule that keeps kids from signing LOIs when their academic performance or academic progress is in question.

There is no reason why Wilkins couldn't have signed a LOI in the fall of 2009. If he ultimately wasn't eligible, the LOI would be void, but Bradley wouldn't be affected negatively thereby. In fact, at the time, the reason given for not signing an LOI was that it would have some sort of negative impact on his pending lawsuit (utterly hogwash, btw). Never was uncertainty about his "academics being on track" cited as a reason.

The fact of the matter is that uncertain academic eligibility has nothing to do with one's ability to sign an LOI. If a scholarship was offered and a kid chose NOT to sign an LOI, all we know for certain is that kid CHOSE not to sign the letter, not that he was unable to do so because of the NCAA or some sort of NCAA rule. We can, however, certainly speculate as to the kids reasons... :D
 
DoubleJayAlum said:
What does academic eligibility have to do with signing an LOI? ..
Click to expand...

I guess there's a difference of opinion here...but I think there's a pretty big connection....

lemme ask you... -- of course an ineligible kid can sign a LOI -- but any coach who keeps signing ineligible kids is a doofus and isn't doing his homework very well.....

how many kids who are academically ineligible are asked by Creighton to sign a LOI???
Has it happened in the past 5 years?? I suspect it has not......
....so if a kid who IS academically ineligible virtually never is given a scholarship offer or asked to sign a LOI, then I'd say there's at least some correlation between the two...and it is a fully intentional correlation at the direction of the head coach so he doesn't end up with 13 kids under scholarship and all academically ineligible...

So -- why would BU sign and put a kid under scholarship BEFORE knowing if the kid would be eligible to play at BU or anywhere??

It did happen with Kenyon Smith at ISU, and it happened with Daniel West at Tennessee..and both cases ended up a little less than as desired, with both kids then having to leave school and go elsewhere (juco) and then the scholarship sitting unused and having only 12 kids on scholarship while one scholarship sat idle...

Frankly I have a hard time believing that I have to explain why a school really would like to have the simple info like is the kid eligible and OK to enroll and be on scholarship, before we commit a scholarship and sign the kid to a LOI and stop looking for anyone else to fill that scholarship.

Outside of the kids basketball abilities, I'd suspect his eligibility status HAS TO BE the single most important factor the coach would HAVE to know and NEED to know before offering the kid and getting him to sign the LOI!



There is no reason why Wilkins couldn't have signed a LOI in the fall of 2009
Click to expand...

sure there is...have you ever read the rules that govern LOI's??
If JW were to sign in fall of 2009 he would have needed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of having his associates degree by the following spring...and maybe he couldn't

..and also he may NOT have had a scholarship offer any more at that time.....and we have evidence to believe that was indeed the case...

Plus, if BU had reason to believe that JW was NOT going to be eligible, then they were smart to NOT sign him, for the reasons above.....you can't sign 20 kids hoping that 13 will be eligible....you pretty much have to sign the ones that ARE eligible...if the kid is signed then ineligible, it doesn't kill or hurt anyone too much, but it is a mistake that schools all try to avoid.
You act like it's no big deal and everyone does it....

one more note -- BU did NOT lose John Wilkins because they failed to sign him!!
They lost JW because the NCAA ruled him ineligible for initial enrollment in fall of 2008.
After that BU continued to recruit him for a while but stopped before the first opportunity he was eligible to sign a LOI.
 
tornado said:
I guess there's a difference of opinion here...but I think there's a pretty big connection....

lemme ask you... -- of course an ineligible kid can sign a LOI -- but any coach who keeps signing ineligible kids is a doofus and isn't doing his homework very well.....
Click to expand...

If this was the case, why would a coach even offer a scholarship and "allow" a verbal if they academics were not in order? Does it look any better on the coach/school to get verbals that never sign because of academics- as opposed to those that actually sign and then are ruled ineligible?
 
kids from the US have records so that a coach can at least have a reasonable idea if he's qualified..but they're still cautious...
we see coaches backing off solid candidates all the time because of grades....
the Euro kids - they don't they have to get some evidence....
 
Simply put -- it is wise for BU to keep the OPEN scholarship until the one we want AND want to sign can be 100% certified eligible and able to enroll and play this season.
 
tornado said:
The next and ONLY time that Wilkins might have been able to sign a LOI would be spring of 2010...as it was NOT certain in fall of 2009 that his academics were on track after just 9 months at juco - to graduate and get his associates degree.
Click to expand...

Must have been a pretty magical second semester academically if a kid went from "we aren't sure if academics are on track in the fall" to "fully eligible" in the spring! :-P

tornado said:
how many kids who are academically ineligible are asked by Creighton to sign a LOI???
Has it happened in the past 5 years?? I suspect it has not......
Click to expand...

Red Herring. There is no evidence that Wilkins was academically ineligible. In fact, since he was deemed good to go in the spring, it is probably pretty likely everything was good to go in the fall. One other problem with your example - you have failed to show that Creighton even offers kids that are not eligible.....
 
LittleBrave said:
So how would they suddenly become "adequate" by BU standards? It seems like if it hasn't been resolved in the past 2 months, it won't be at all. I don't want to give up hope for MO, but it just doesn't sound good at this point with no news and I bet it's been a priority for the BU staff to get this resolved.
Click to expand...

I very much agree!
 
I think someone at Bradley....someone with alot of power doesn't want MO here.

A basketball player that seems needed for a team and is fairly hyped not sliding through the academic process like you see all the time in college sports?

He must have never attended a school in his life.....
 
It is one thing if he didn't go to high school or got a 12 on his ACT.

Are you saying that not one athlete who has played for Bradley has had worse credentials than kids who have been denied by the admissions department?
 
Future Walk-On said:
It is one thing if he didn't go to high school or got a 12 on his ACT.

Are you saying that not one athlete who has played for Bradley has had worse credentials than kids who have been denied by the admissions department?
Click to expand...

I wonder about that point, too. It happens everywhere to some extent. Amacker got into trouble recently for accepting players with a slightly lower profile than Harvard's admissions typically allow. (Still good enough to get academic scholarships at most Universities, just not Harvard great).

Like most educational institutions, Bradley has diversity goals so admissions targets do bend for the overall benefit of the student body, and its not like Bradley has to admit under a direct governmental minimum standard.
 
Future Walk-On said:
I want to hear exactly WHY he is ineligible before I am content.
Click to expand...

as I understand, he has NOT yet been cleared by NCAA as they review all his course work....thus he is NOT eligible to enroll on scholarship at any D-I school.
John Wilkins, just as Ehimen Orukpe and Shang Ping all had the exact same issue...not cleared for initial eligibility at D-I.
It is called "Initial Eligibility" and here is everything you need to know..
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=037d9e804e0b8ac79cf0fc1ad6fc8b25

And here are a few additional facts as they apply to "International Students"...
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=02e806804e0b8acd9d08fd1ad6fc8b25
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...emic-standards-for-athletics-eligibility.aspx

It appears as though it is made intentionally a bit complex...but probably not too different than dealing with the IRS or your health insurance company.
 
Da Coach said:
But his academic background is not yet adequate for admission to BU. It's not an NCAA issue as far as I know.
Click to expand...

tornado said:
as I understand, he has NOT yet been cleared by NCAA as they review all his course work....thus he is NOT eligible to enroll on scholarship at any D-I school.
Click to expand...

Much like the Wilkins saga, this is all pretty interesting.

I just want to know if it's an NCAA thing or not?
 
since this isn't something that's posted publicly by any of the parties, we can only go on what we hear...
take it or leave it..
 
I guess we all want to know why MO has not been cleared but in reality it is none of our business. I still believe in privacy. Would I want to now what the next steps will be? Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top