Whom to believe in Kanter eligibility drama?
The report that Enes Kanter, one of Kentucky’s prize freshman recruits for 2010, was paid more than $100,000 by his Turkish club team, Fenerbahce Ulker, was met with more than a a few raised eyebrows Tuesday. Seems everyone has an opinion on what should happen to Kanter this season.
It’s tough to argue with well-reasoned opinions from Mike DeCourcy, John Clay, Eric Crawford, Jeff Eisenberg, Matt Norlander, Rob Dauster and the guys at Rush the Court. All of them present valid points.
Thing is, none of those opinions matter. Only the NCAA’s opinion matters when it comes to Kanter’s eligibility.
And at this point, it’s hard to say what the NCAA will do.
For those just tuning in, here’s the rundown:
Fenerbache general manager Nedim Karakas told the N.Y. Times that it provided housing for Kanter and his family, as well as giving him food, pocket money and a monthly salary of $6,500 a month during his final season. Under NCAA rules, only the salary is problematic. As long as the club only provided the necessary expenses (similar to what a U.S. high school player would receive at a place such as Findlay Prep), he could still play for the Wildcats this season. But Kanter never signed a contract with the club, so any proof of payment would have to be done through the club’s records. And the club didn’t show those records to the Times -- only the NCAA.
The club wants him back (or at the very least to be paid for Kanter) and Kanter wants to play in the NBA. That sets up somewhat of a “He said, they said” situation. Kanter’s family provided documents to the NCAA.
So how does something like that break down? Matt Jones from Ketucky Sports Radio spotlights five areas: The money Kanter was given; was it too much money; are Fenerbahce’s claims verifiable; was there desire to be a pro; how does the media coverage affect the case?
What’s the ultimate verdict? It seems hard to imagine the NCAA clearing Kanter in light of the
N.Y. Times report, but hey, they’ve cleared guys they shouldn’t have (Rose, Derrick) in the past.