The Marksman said:

---

Pichael Thompson said:

---

The Marksman said:

---

Just a reminder that Oats is a terrible human being

---

Well he's a choir boy compared to the ****stain at florida

---

I get your point, but when did Golden ever support a murderer?

---

He does appear he would very easily.

CapCityAg89 said:

---

Muy said:

---

When I was in hs in the 80's our district had Bryan, Killeen, Temple etc. The Killeen Kangaroos were one of the top teams in the nation and easily in 1st place in district.

The twins (The Webb Brothers) were simply incredible, but late in the season rules academically ineligible and had to forfeit all the games they played in.

Bryan HS goes from 3rd to 2nd in district. Makes the playoffs. Wins state. Yeah the district was that good.

---

Which HS? I was at Bryan. I think that was our second title. Those kids were huge but massively (pun intended) uncoordinated.

That Viking team absolutely played Bucky Ball 40 years ago. Ok. No 3 points. our starting guards (DRhodes and Spot) were both about 5'9 but could dunk. Our center my sophomore year was Rod Bernstine (6'4) and Kenny Keller who played at Tech but only at 6'7. Full court press. Run run run.

---

Westwood. We sucked. I remember Rod playing when I was a sophomore on JV, especially when he was Bryan's running back. How unfair was that! Lol

I remember your little guard and what a badass he was . You also had a player I think you called ET. One game against us the ball was going out of bounds and your PG threw the ball towards the goal, and ET jumped out of the gym and jammed it home.

Pretty sure our stands applauded.

The statement from the NCAA is pure comic gold. They claim Bediako was stealing the dreams of American high school athletes by trying to come back and play college ball.

I still don't get how they (and all of you) can act so righteous about amateurism and protecting high school athletes while also ruling European professional players eligible to play.

To me it's clear that there is a weird double standard here that needs to be resolved. I can't figure out why the NCAA has this soft spot for foreign professional players and is granting them eligibility if they are so concerned about scholarships for high school athletes.

That time was so awesome. The 84 team was probably a better basketball team. The guy you're talking about was a senior on a Junior dominated team. 83 was a bunch of athletes (namely Rod) and great coaching. 85 (senior year) Kenny wanted to be a football star and blew his knee. Had to walk on at Tech but ended up graduating from there. He's a cabinet maker now and looks like he could still go for 12 and 5.

CapCityAg89 said:

---

That time was so awesome. The 84 team was probably a better basketball team. The guy you're talking about was a senior on a Junior dominated team. 83 was a bunch of athletes (namely Rod) and great coaching. 85 (senior year) Kenny wanted to be a football star and blew his knee. Had to walk on at Tech but ended up graduating from there. He's a cabinet maker now and looks like he could still go for 12 and 5.

---

Yeah I still tell the story of how Bryan won state, then weren't even going to make the playoffs until Killeen had to forfeit their games the next season, then Bryan wins it again. The district those years was unreal, and Temple had a damn good team that 2nd year.

bobinator said:

---

We've been going around on this since it first started and he refuses to acknowledge the difference between voluntarily forfeiting your college eligibility and never having it to begin with.

That said, there do need to be stricter rules for European professionals as well.

---

Agree 100%. Glad to know I'm not the only one thinking he is making an apples vs oranges argument.

bobinator said:

---

We've been going around on this since it first started and he refuses to acknowledge the difference between voluntarily forfeiting your college eligibility and never having it to begin with.

That said, there do need to be stricter rules for European professionals as well.

---

Yeah. But what stricter rules could you have?

Every year you play of pro ball, no matter where it's played, counts as a year of college ball or something like that?

Sucks but he really wasn't even that good against us. Another fresh body vs our depth has to have helped though. Damn.

I don't really understand how any of it would need to be phrase to hold up legally, but for me it would basically be something like this: Starting with the academic year (9/1) following your 18th birthday, any year of professional basketball counts as a year against your college eligibility.

Examples: (these assume the current 5-to-play-4 clock)

- You turned 18 on July 1st, you played pro ball the year before, you are enrolling at an NCAA school in August: Perfectly fine, you enter with the normal clock.

- You turned 20 on December 15th last year. You have been playing pro ball for the last three seasons: The year you turned 18 doesn't count, but the next two do (the season you went from 18 to 19, and the season you went from 19 to 20.) You enter with two remaining years of eligibility.

- You're 23 and planning to enroll this fall with a January birthday, you've been playing pro basketball since you were 17: all five of your professional seasons from age 18-23 count, you have exhausted all five years of your clock, and are not eligible.

What do you do with this guy???

This kind of ties into this too but I'd also make it so that any professional basketball played during a calendar year makes you ineligible for that calendar year, and to be eligible you have to be enrolled and on your team's roster by December 31st.

This adding professional players midseason stuff is nonsense, but I'd allow for the very rare case of a high schooler or international amateur enrolling at the midterm and playing right away.

bobinator said:

---

I don't really understand how any of it would need to be phrase to hold up legally, but for me it would basically be something like this: Starting with the academic year (9/1) following your 18th birthday, any year of professional basketball counts as a year against your college eligibility.

Examples: (these assume the current 5-to-play-4 clock)

- You turned 18 on July 1st, you played pro ball the year before, you are enrolling at an NCAA school in August: Perfectly fine, you enter with the normal clock.

- You turned 20 on December 15th last year. You have been playing pro ball for the last three seasons: The year you turned 18 doesn't count, but the next two do (the season you went from 18 to 19, and the season you went from 19 to 20.) You enter with two remaining years of eligibility.

- You're 23 and planning to enroll this fall with a January birthday, you've been playing pro basketball since you were 17: all five of your professional seasons from age 18-23 count, you have exhausted all five years of your clock, and are not eligible.

---

Yeah, that, or something like it, is probably the only sensible way to do it

NyAggie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

I don't really understand how any of it would need to be phrase to hold up legally, but for me it would basically be something like this: Starting with the academic year (9/1) following your 18th birthday, any year of professional basketball counts as a year against your college eligibility.

Examples: (these assume the current 5-to-play-4 clock)

- You turned 18 on July 1st, you played pro ball the year before, you are enrolling at an NCAA school in August: Perfectly fine, you enter with the normal clock.

- You turned 20 on December 15th last year. You have been playing pro ball for the last three seasons: The year you turned 18 doesn't count, but the next two do (the season you went from 18 to 19, and the season you went from 19 to 20.) You enter with two remaining years of eligibility.

- You're 23 and planning to enroll this fall with a January birthday, you've been playing pro basketball since you were 17: all five of your professional seasons from age 18-23 count, you have exhausted all five years of your clock, and are not eligible.

---

Yeah, that, or something like it, is probably the only sensible way to do it

---

Yep. This makes total sense. Is supremely fair. Has little ambiguity. Will never happen.

I was wondering if anyone had the same opinion of Nate Oats as I do. Evidently so...

TombstoneTex said:

---

Sucks but he really wasn't even that good against us. Another fresh body vs our depth has to have helped though. Damn.

---

He scored 5 points, and we lost by 3.

Muy said:

---

TombstoneTex said:

---

Sucks but he really wasn't even that good against us. Another fresh body vs our depth has to have helped though. Damn.

---

He scored 5 points, and we lost by 3.

---

So what you're saying is you agree that he wasn't that good against us?

I think the most fair thing to do would be to remove this game from both of our records. We don't deserve a win because who knows if someone else steps in for a meager 5 points. It's not like he went off for 25 and was the clear difference in the game. However, we also shouldn't have a loss against a team playing someone who was ineligible and did give them extra depth.

Just my two cents.