Three points on the John Wall eligibility issue

Three points on the espn.com story in which SEC commissioner Mike Slive confirmed that there are eligibility issues with John Wall:

  • 1. I don’t think this is a huge deal. Wall’s AAU coach, Brian Clifton, is known to be a bit of a controversial figure and it was known that for a time that Clifton had himself certified as an agent. If he was an agent, and paid for Wall’s two trips to UK, and any other unofficial visits, Wall will have to return the money to be declared eligible. Since UK already has been looking into this, that may already be happening. I’d say it’s unlikely that Wall took “substantial benefits” from Clifton. He had to know that would truly jeopardize his long-term eligibility. Remember, this was a very highly-recruited kid. Many people were keeping a watchful eye on the process.
  • 2. Still, my guess is that Wall will have to sit 2-3 games over this. That’s the way the NCAA operates. And it’s not out of the realm that the NCAA will want to use Wall as an example to other high-profile recruits that they need to watch the details as far who pays for what on visits, and they need to stay away from agents.
  • 3. The ill-informed are going to say (are already saying) that this is another John Calipari issue. Another got-cha. In truth, it has little to do with the Kentucky coach. Wall’s two unofficial visits to Lexington, the ones espn.com cites, happened when Billy Gillispie was the Kentucky coach. In fact, there were those who believed that UK might not get Wall because Clifton was not a Calipari fan. Ah, but nationally some are going to see the headline “Wall faces eligibility issues” and immediately pin the blame on the Kentucky coach. They don’t really care about the facts.
Share

Comments Closed

19 Responses to “Three points on the John Wall eligibility issue”


  1. 1 brads October 22, 2009 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm

    I am wondering if this is the big story that was rumored about this past summer that was going to be a slap and embarrassment for UK and Coach Cal.

  2. 2 John Clay October 22, 2009 8:26 pm at 8:26 pm

    I don’t see how this is an embarrassment to UK or Calipari. This isn’t a violations issue. This is an eligibility issue.

  3. 3 Skip October 22, 2009 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm

    I imagine that UK has known about this for a while, and is attempting to comply with all NCAA regs. The thing that really rubs me the wrong way is, as you pointed out, people are already starting to say that this is the real beginning of the Calipari era. I doubt that it’s a coincidence that Cal’s #1 fan (Forde) jumped onto this; I also doubt that it’s a coincidence that the only place that Sidney was mentioned in the entire story was the headline.

  4. 4 Matt October 22, 2009 8:49 pm at 8:49 pm

    so he misses a few games in the beginning that don’t matter anyway, big deal.

  5. 5 Jody October 22, 2009 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm

    If this kid was truly as talented as they say in high school, why did he have to have an AAU coach? Why couldn’t his parents do his recruiting for him? I don’t understand why these kids mess with these AAU coaches (especially the kind that are rumored to be shady). Their talent should speak for itself. You never heard about AAU coaches 25 years ago. Why now?

  6. 6 John Clay October 22, 2009 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm

    IMHO, the AAU situation is partly a product of the specialized year-round sports culture. Kids are almost required to pick a sport and play it year ’round. And the best basketball players are implored to play AAU basketball.

  7. 7 trianglehoops October 22, 2009 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm

    jody. his dad died. you have no idea what you are talking about. The aau season is another season. They dont take time off. You have to play all year or someone is getting better than you.

  8. 8 Marion County October 22, 2009 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm

    I hope this type pf stuff does not start happening on a regular basis. If it does, we will never get kids with the class of P. Patterson in the future. I do not want to be known as Thug U.
    No kid being recruited like Wall was being recruited is ignorant of the fact that no one can pay for things for them. No one is that dumb or we do not need them on our program.
    I love Calipari and the energy he brings to the program. It is needed badly. But I expect Calipari to run the program with the same class as Tubby Smith.

  9. 9 Elvis1 October 23, 2009 3:36 am at 3:36 am

    P T Barnum

  10. 10 BeckyB October 23, 2009 8:20 am at 8:20 am

    Marion County: It is my understanding that AAU coaches and high school coaches pay for expenses related to unofficial visits for their players all the time — the only reason it is an issue here is because Brian Clifton was a certified agent. I fail to see how any of this makes John Wall “dumb” or a “thug.”

  11. 11 Carl October 23, 2009 10:11 am at 10:11 am

    AAU coaches need to stay out of the agent business. This is the biggest issue. Many of these coaches are more interested in finding a meal ticket than coaching young kids.

  12. 12 mimi October 23, 2009 10:40 am at 10:40 am

    Karma!

  13. 13 DLancer7676 October 26, 2009 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm

    This is more ticky-tacky from the Ticky-Tacky champs, the NCAA. From what I have read about this issue, it is not a big deal. Wall will live through this and give Kentucky at least one great year of hoo-rah!

  14. 14 KYJeff1 October 27, 2009 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm

    John, is there any chance at all that Wall would be held out for more than three games? I have read several writeups on this and some say “up to” 10% of the regular season games, and some say “at least” 10%. Which is it? Is there a possibility that the NCAA will drag this out beyond the start of the season?
    I just don’t see how this is Wall’s fault, how was he supposed to know Clifton was an agent at the time? Was he supposed to do a background check? In my opinion, Clifton should be the one getting the heat, Wall did nothing wrong.

  15. 15 John Clay October 27, 2009 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm

    The rule says “at least” 10 percent of the games. I’m not sure how it’s rounded off, however.

  16. 16 dreamlife September 21, 2011 3:14 am at 3:14 am

    This isn’t a violations issue. This is an eligibility issue.

  1. 1 More thoughts on the John Wall eligibility issues | straitpinkie.com Trackback on October 22, 2009 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm
  2. 2 Three points on the John Wall eligibility issue | College Football Zone Trackback on October 22, 2009 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm
  3. 3 Much ado about nothing: Wall likely to be cleared by Nov. 13 | Sports News Images and Videos Trackback on October 23, 2009 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm
Comments are currently closed.