ADVERTISEMENT

Aly Khalifa Ineligible Rumor; Louisville Fan Thinks Mark Pope is Behind It

Well, if rules can't be bad, how are they so often overturned by courts and other ruling parties?

Again, if he was a UK player, would you support the rule or not?

I didn't know he ever had one scheduled. It just always felt like he wasn't a right fit for UK and he likely wanted a more expanded role from what he had at BYU which was mostly a facilitator.
It doesn’t matter if we support the rules. They are the rules nevertheless.
 
It’s an interesting argument. He could practice in January so why not allow him to play? I predict much laughing at lil bro in the near future.
Redshirts can still practice with a team. I’m sure he decided that for his final year of eligibility he wants to play a full season. I don’t blame him for that.
 
He didn't take a redshirt year, he was academically ineligible. Being ineligible and taking a voluntary redshirt are two different things. Also, that was during the covid year which the NCAA has given a blanket waiver for already. And there are many athletes who have taken more than 1 redshirt year.

Lol, you think the NCAA cares about evidence or not? 🤣


There is a long history of players losing a year of eligibility due to being academically ineligible. McCarty, Padgett, Hawkins from UK all lost a year here.
 
Redshirts can still practice with a team. I’m sure he decided that for his final year of eligibility he wants to play a full season. I don’t blame him for that.
You can’t get a sixth year via medical redshirt unless you also missed another season due to circumstances beyond your control, such as another season missed due to injury. His prior redshirt was academic, and that is specifically stated as not qualifying as circumstances beyond the athlete’s control.
 
Not sure why the NCAA would have any problem with him choosing to redshirt to rehab. I honestly don’t understand because he’s only played three seasons. He gets a redshirt season if he wants it. Just wonder if it has something to do with grades or improper benefits or immigration status. Did he play any pro ball overseas before coming here? Seems like that would have been an issue long before now. Just an odd case all around.
He had already had a redshirt season.
 
Well, if rules can't be bad, how are they so often overturned by courts and other ruling parties?

Again, if he was a UK player, would you support the rule or not?

I didn't know he ever had one scheduled. It just always felt like he wasn't a right fit for UK and he likely wanted a more expanded role from what he had at BYU which was mostly a facilitator.
I am glad you have this Aly Khalifa drum to beat since you are obviously running low on things to be outraged about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cats192
Well, sure it matters. It can demonstrate a bias. However, I would imagine the unwillingness to give an honest answer insinuates you even agree it's a pretty bad rule.
If Khalifa were a UK player I’d be giving it a big what the hell just like I initially did upon hearing the decision. But when you actually look at the rules, he doesn’t qualify for a sixth year. He will have to be excepted from the rules in order to play. And I’m not sure what’s so bad about the rule. It’s a neutral rule.
 
Still don’t understand that. Why even consider it a medical redshirt. Kids redshirt for all sorts of reasons. If he can’t play a full season, to me that’s a reason to choose a redshirt. NCAA is stupid.
He ALREADY took his redshirt year when he was at Charlotte.

You’re only entitled to one automatically. You can’t just choose to sit out a second season unless it qualifies for medical waiver …which requires an injury severe enough that it prevented the player from being capable of playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pappy52
Not sure why the NCAA would have any problem with him choosing to redshirt to rehab. I honestly don’t understand because he’s only played three seasons. He gets a redshirt season if he wants it. Just wonder if it has something to do with grades or improper benefits or immigration status. Did he play any pro ball overseas before coming here? Seems like that would have been an issue long before now. Just an odd case all around.
My understanding is he already red-shirted once in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pappy52
Redshirts can still practice with a team. I’m sure he decided that for his final year of eligibility he wants to play a full season. I don’t blame him for that.

The people making the rules seem to disagree.
 
Redshirts can still practice with a team. I’m sure he decided that for his final year of eligibility he wants to play a full season. I don’t blame him for that.
I think that's probably the rule for your normal redshirt that he already used. He's attempting to get a medical redshirt year, which would be his 2nd. And the whole "can practice" seems to argue against medical necessity.

I don't know that you can take a 2nd redshirt under the guise of medical simply because you WANT a full season. And that may be where he's running into the problem.

To be clear, I don't know the rules. But if it's made clear that you CAN return but are choosing not to--simply because you prefer the full season--I can see a situation where the NCAA doesn't want to allow that kind of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FitchandMurray29
The rule is illogical. If he was ineligible, the why would the year count against him anyway? He wasn't eligible. It may be a bit different if he became ineligible due to failing grades during school, cheating, legal issues or so forth. However, he was never ruled eligible to start with and had to sit out and do the work to get eligible, yet, the NCAA is wanting to count that time against him.

Secondly, if you are essentially giving a waiver to student athletes who competed that year and even some who didn't, what is the harm in giving a waiver to those who didn’t play. I get if they were being punished for something, but in his case he wasn't. He simply wasn't eligible due to transfer issues of being an international student.

All of this while we have American players in their 5th and 6th seasons of actually playing. Aly is just asking for his actual 4th season of playing.
To be clear, you want him to be excepted from a decades old rule because you don’t think the rule is logical. And you also want him included in a rule for players who could possibly have missed games because of the COVID year, even though he couldn’t possibly have played in those games. And you think I’m the one who is biased?
 
The rule is illogical. If he was ineligible, the why would the year count against him anyway? He wasn't eligible. It may be a bit different if he became ineligible due to failing grades during school, cheating, legal issues or so forth. However, he was never ruled eligible to start with and had to sit out and do the work to get eligible, yet, the NCAA is wanting to count that time against him.

Secondly, if you are essentially giving a waiver to student athletes who competed that year and even some who didn't, what is the harm in giving a waiver to those who didn’t play. I get if they were being punished for something, but in his case he wasn't. He simply wasn't eligible due to transfer issues of being an international student.

All of this while we have American players in their 5th and 6th seasons of actually playing. Aly is just asking for his actual 4th season of playing.
Sure.

Some people look at this and say "The NCAA lets everyone play 5 and 6 years. Why are they being so unfair to this one kid?"

Other people have the perspective: "The NCAA lets everyone play 5 and 6 years. They must have a really good reason not to approve this one kid."

I don't know the rules. I don't really have a desire to argue the validity or logicality of the rules. But with the way the NCAA hands out extra years of eligibility--I actually believe they probably have a legitimate reason they're not auto approving this.
 
I want the rule to be challenged by someone and overturned. It shouldn't be a rule against anyone. If you aren't eligible, then you aren't eligible. You can't really not be eligible and then have the time count against you that you're trying to get eligible. That's pretty counter-intuitive. I can understand if it's in relation to a punishment of some sort, but not being academically eligible due to credit issues from being an international student entering American colleges certainly doesn't seem like that type of punishment issue.

I think if he is being considered a student athlete for the covid year, then he should get it back via the covid exception. Otherwise, if he wasn't eligible, he shouldn't have it counted against him to begin with. Which would mean he has only played 3 in 4 years. So, no, I don't think or want him to have both exceptions. He simply needs one or the other.

How is that bias? I would want the same whether he was a UK player, UL player or anywhere else. He's played 3 years, he deserves a 4th. It's not really that complicated.
I think you should go storm the NCAA complex and demand this travesty is addressed. I can't think of anything more important that Aly's 6th year of eligibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirt Sammich
I think that's probably the rule for your normal redshirt that he already used. He's attempting to get a medical redshirt year, which would be his 2nd. And the whole "can practice" seems to argue against medical necessity.

I don't know that you can take a 2nd redshirt under the guise of medical simply because you WANT a full season. And that may be where he's running into the problem.

To be clear, I don't know the rules. But if it's made clear that you CAN return but are choosing not to--simply because you prefer the full season--I can see a situation where the NCAA doesn't want to allow that kind of thing.
In college basketball, "cleared to practice" is not the same as "cleared to play." Here's the distinction:


  1. Cleared to Practice
    This means a player has been approved (medically and/or academically) to participate in team practices. However, it doesn't necessarily mean they can play in official games.
  2. Cleared to Play
    This indicates the player is fully eligible to participate in official games. This clearance involves:
    • Medical clearance
    • Academic eligibility
    • NCAA eligibility (especially for transfers, freshmen, or those coming off a suspension or redshirt)

Key takeaway: A player may be cleared to practice while still awaiting full clearance to play in games.
 
In college basketball, "cleared to practice" is not the same as "cleared to play." Here's the distinction:


  1. Cleared to Practice
    This means a player has been approved (medically and/or academically) to participate in team practices. However, it doesn't necessarily mean they can play in official games.
  2. Cleared to Play
    This indicates the player is fully eligible to participate in official games. This clearance involves:
    • Medical clearance
    • Academic eligibility
    • NCAA eligibility (especially for transfers, freshmen, or those coming off a suspension or redshirt)

Key takeaway: A player may be cleared to practice while still awaiting full clearance to play in games.
Sure.

But surely we can agree, cleared to play usually isn't MONTHS after cleared to practice. Usually at that point, you're getting your conditioning back and making sure you don't reaggravate the injury.

My bigger picture question: Was he able to return to play sooner than they CHOSE to do so? I can't find anywhere that anyone said what the injury was. I can't find anywhere where anyone said what surgery was done.

He played through the injury at BYU, whatever it was. Which, would usually indicate it's not a ligament tear or meniscus tear, or something "season ending."

It's entirely possible he had a minor procedure and the doctors cleared him to return well before he did. If he wasn't denied a waiver (that everyone else seems to always get), I would tell you this is a far fetched conspiracy. But given the situation (and the vagueness around his injury), I think it makes sense.

If his doctor's didn't clear him to play until after the season or near the very end of the season--he should play.

If his doctors cleared him for December or January, man, I don't think he should get to sit out, bank NIL, and get ready for next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildcatballer23
Sure.

But surely we can agree, cleared to play usually isn't MONTHS after cleared to practice. Usually at that point, you're getting your conditioning back and making sure you don't reaggravate the injury.

My bigger picture question: Was he able to return to play sooner than they CHOSE to do so? I can't find anywhere that anyone said what the injury was. I can't find anywhere where anyone said what surgery was done.

He played through the injury at BYU, whatever it was. Which, would usually indicate it's not a ligament tear or meniscus tear, or something "season ending."

It's entirely possible he had a minor procedure and the doctors cleared him to return well before he did. If he wasn't denied a waiver (that everyone else seems to always get), I would tell you this is a far fetched conspiracy. But given the situation (and the vagueness around his injury), I think it makes sense.

If his doctor's didn't clear him to play until after the season or near the very end of the season--he should play.

If his doctors cleared him for December or January, man, I don't think he should get to sit out, bank NIL, and get ready for next year.
Based on Crawford's story, it is not likely he will win the appeal.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Cats192
Based on Crawford's story, it is not likely he will win the appeal.

I don't think he's making any predictions, Crawford is just whining about Louisville's history with the NCAA. I like him (really) - but everything Eric Crawford writes about Louisville athletics is from a first person point of view.
 
It's mildly interesting that some people care this much about a LOUISVILLE player's eligibility on this board. The UofL fans don't care this much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFuqua
It's still a losing argument. Saying someone is ineligible who was never eligible in the first place, but that the ineligibility will count against them in illogical in and of itself.

Academic ineligibility due to being a foreign student certainly doesn't seem within ones control. He didn't make himself ineligible.

His only recourse is to get eligible. However, counting the time against him in which he is completing the necessary work to get eligible certainly isn't within his control. Nor is it really logical. If you aren't eligible due to academics, then wouldn't it make more sense to tell that person to get themselves eligible and then start the clock once they are?

His injury certainly doesn't appear to be within his control.

A rule simply existing doesn't make it a valid rule. Nor are they following it that closely if you look around the CBB landscape as a whole.

He will get cleared to play because anyone being rational would agree its a really illogical conclusion on the part of the NCAA.
The NCAA's five-year rule dictates that a student-athlete has five years from their initial full-time enrollment to complete four seasons of competition. If an athlete is not academically eligible for a particular year, they are not permitted to compete, and that year counts towards their eligibility clock, effectively reducing their potential playing time.
 
You have 5 years to complete 4. He enrolled at Charlotte in August of 2020. His clock began then. He redshirted the 202-21 season. He's asking for a 6th year.
 
Looks like they picked up an another international player, Mouhamed Camara from Senegal.

Given they are also recruiting Vangelis Zourgris from Greece, I think Kelsey is worried about the frontcourt depth.
 
Looks like they picked up an another international player, Mouhamed Camara from Senegal.

Given they are also recruiting Vangelis Zourgris from Greece, I think Kelsey is worried about the frontcourt depth.
Camara a 6-7 forward that picked UL because of how they develop players and they win.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: KFuqua
Okorafor was supposed to be the next Hakeem, so I’m sure those yahoos will be realistic about Camara lol
 
This is hilarious,
"I already can’t stand the NCAA for the clear hatred of us..." UL_1986

Does he mean the slap on the wrist for this...

The Louisville men's basketball program faced NCAA sanctions primarily due to two major incidents: a sex scandal in 2015 and a subsequent corruption investigation in 2017. The sex scandal led to the program being placed on probation and vacating its 2013 national championship. The 2017 investigation, which involved allegations of payments to recruits, resulted in further sanctions, including a two-year probation and a $5,000 fine.

Any other fan base would consider themselves lucky they didn't receive an even harsher punishment and possible death penalty! Those morons are delusional! Oh the hatred of poor little brother 😭
 
  • Like
Reactions: CastleRubric
It does matter, though. We just had a team of guys playing a 5th year, and now we want to penalize a guy who had only actually played 3. Simply because he was registered as a student athlete. And now we are trying to say that because he may have been cleared and/or participated in part of a seasons practices, he shouldn't be eligible. Again, it's a very weak argument. Simply practicing doesn't mean someone is ready or capable of playing at game level. Nor is it always wise to inject a player mid season to an already established team. He should not be punished for either of those.

Considering the NCAA used to require capable players of sitting out extended periods due to a transfer, I highly doubt they are going to have a solid argument negating eligibility to a player who was sitting out with medical issues, even if he was cleared in January. Simply being cleared to practice or even medically cleared to play doesn't equate to being physically or mentally ready. It also doesn't mean that it's wise to inject a player into an already successful roster mid season.

Where is this general presumption that being able to participate in a controlled and limited practice setting is equal to live game action?

At all levels of sports you hear of athletes who have been cleared to return to practice or training, often times modified, that aren't yet cleared for a return to contact or live game action.
But see, This is exactly the kind of thing UL, Tennessee and the other perennial cheaters do. If he was gonna do a medical redshirt he should not have been practicing with the team. UL will always bend the rules as far as possible. Just getting off double probation, you would think they would be careful. Nope, they knew he shouldn’t be practicing with the team on redshirt but it helps them so they cheat. It gets him experience in their system he shouldn’t have gotten as a redshirt.
Some things never change. Louisville is like a drug addict who says they are clean now. Then your whole house is empty the second you turn your back.
If they declare him ineligible it will probably be due to ULs past offenses. That means the kid pays for them trying to cheat once again. If that happens, I hope every other team uses it against them in recruiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueUKats39
Wouldn’t hurt my feelings if it turns out he is not eligible.🙃
Be careful, this dude might whoop you.
skinny_man2_by_manoluv_d5o16qb-fullview.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BlueBloodKyFan
But see, the thing is, you can be cleared to practice and not cleared to play games. Which was the case here. There was not cheating.
The plan before he even committed to Louisville was to redshirt. I remember reading it. That sounds totally fishy. We have a guy coming off an ACL who is saying he will be good to go by the start of September. WTH did this guy have to be out 10 months. Fumble fingers?
If he would have just sat out of practice the NCAA wouldn’t be sniffing around. They are probably looking at it because UL had a guy that can practice with the team for 2 months but can’t play a game. Right, that sounds totally legit. He was a project that needed more work.
I never trust anything that comes out of that cesspool.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT