Another teammate of Michael Ocherobia signs to play with D1 school

[AZ BU Fan]

Interesting you write "journalism/muckraking".. you do know they are not the same thing don't you?

Apparently not (I was an engineering major)....Hence I have ammended my post to be "investigative reporting"...Thanks for the correction KB

[KillerB]

Apparently not (I was an engineering major)....Hence I have ammended my post to be "investigative reporting"...Thanks for the correction KB

I wasn't really looking for a correction.. just noting an interesting choice of words. Depending on your perspective.. Muckraking (from a journalistic standpoint) was a good thing.. undercover reporting of scandals etc. Some famous journalists were accused of being muckrakers after their exposes came out. Those on the receiving end didn't like it and gave it the bad name. It certainly has taken on a negative meaning.. as in s**t disturber.

[AZ BU Fan]

In fact, I did not want to come off as negative to Mr T's, and others, reporting of all things evil with the NCAA with respect to recruiting violations and the ability of some schools to pay for play with their athletes.

Before I used the term "muckraker" I actually looked up the definition, because I too was not sure the word had a positive connotation regarding exposing illicit behavior by those in power through the media. Attempts to change the meaning of the word had me confused.

Hopefully those in the NCAA won't be vindictive to BU over our fans repeatedly calling them out over their rules double standards.

[OrangeandBlack74]

This still leaves us without a big center that can go up against the good ones in the Valley like Carmichael, Stutz and Teague, I am afraid without a true big we will be left fighting for 3rd or 4th which is unacceptable .

I thought Teague transferred (or was going to transfer) from SIU? I agree that Carmichael and Stutz will both be a handful for BU next year. And don't forget Lawson from Creighton!

[tornado]

There was talk of Teague either leaving or getting booted for poor academics...
but he apparently found a way to get his academics in order...

[PeoriaLou]

So, it is unofficially official that MO won't be at BU this fall? For you insiders, is MO out of BU's plans for good?

[DoubleJayAlum]

I still don't understand why Ocherobia didn't sign an LOi with Bradley. I understand that everyone is waiting for the NCAA to declare him eligible, but I don't see what relation that has to signing an LOI. Many kids sign LOIs every year only to find out later that they are not eligible to enroll/play basketball.

To me this sounds a lot like the Wilkins situation in which Wilkins chose not to sign an LOI with Bradley, even though he was perfectly free to do so...

Any time a kid verbals, but won't sign an LOI, the institution should be very suspicious about that person's actual level of commitment IMO...

[Da Coach]

Nice analysis, albeit from someone who knows nothing about the situation.
MO is still strongly committed to Bradley, and only Bradley. But his academic background is not yet adequate for admission to BU. It's not an NCAA issue as far as I know. I don't think he was asked to sign a LOI, until his admission status was clarified.

[LittleBrave]

Nice analysis, albeit from someone who knows nothing about the situation.
MO is still strongly committed to Bradley, and only Bradley. But his academic background is not yet adequate for admission to BU. It's not an NCAA issue as far as I know. I don't think he was asked to sign a LOI, until his admission status was clarified.

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.

[tornado]

To me this sounds a lot like the Wilkins situation in which Wilkins chose not to sign an LOI with Bradley, even though he was perfectly free to do so...

..

wrong....about the only similarity is that both were forced to wait on NCAA while they dragged their feet and wouldn't accept their academics
here are the facts...

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.

So...by spring of 2010, sure, he could have signed a LOI to BU -- but by then BU was no longer recruiting Wilkins - and Coach JL confirmed that beyond question in our live chat a month and a half ago.

So - if it a lot like the Wilkins situation I cannot see anything beyond the SINGLE similarity that I think is the consistent way NCAA treats Bradley!!

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?

[kds]

Neither one is at Bradley

[tornado]

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

[DoubleJayAlum]

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?

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...

[tornado]

What does academic eligibility have to do with signing an LOI? ..

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

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.

[Nacho]

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.....

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?