PDA

View Full Version : NCAA wants Memphis punishment upheld



BRM
12-01-2009, 10:27 AM
NCAA: Schools must be punished
Updated: November 30, 2009, 10:13 PM ET

The NCAA Committee on Infractions wants its punishment of the University of Memphis upheld because schools need to be punished when they use ineligible players.

That's according to the NCAA's response to Memphis' appeal of penalties including the vacated 38 wins from the 2007-08 men's basketball season.

"Where is the risk if there is no significant penalty when things go awry? If the IAC sets aside the penalties in this case, it would send the message that an institution can take chances, even with knowledge of potential infractions problems, with impunity," the infractions committee said.

The Associated Press obtained the NCAA's response from Memphis on Monday night under an open records request. The 30-page response was filed Nov. 12 to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeal Committee.

If the appeal committee sets aside either the 38 wins vacated from the 2007-08 men's basketball season or a fine, the Committee on Infractions wants the Memphis case back "to reassess the penalties" that could have included a postseason ban and a cut in scholarships.

The university initially refused to release the NCAA's response to its appeal, citing NCAA rules that prohibit printing the document for media off the association's Web site.

But the university agreed to release the response when reminded by The AP of a recent Florida court ruling rejecting that same NCAA argument in Florida State's appeal of an academic cheating appeal in October.

Memphis agreed to redact the protected information in the NCAA's response, a process completed Monday.

The NCAA ordered Memphis to vacate the season that ended with an overtime loss to Kansas in the national championship game on Aug. 20 after ruling a player believed to be NBA star Derrick Rose (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3456) was ineligible.
Memphis was also fined approximately $530,000 in tournament revenue.

Memphis appealed Oct. 8 that the penalties and the committee's reasoning were unprecedented and improper.

The school targets the so-called "strict liability" standard imposed after the NCAA ruled Rose retroactively ineligible because of an SAT score that was invalidated by the Educational Testing Service in May 2008.

The infractions committee notes Memphis' counsel admitted in a June hearing that the university "took a risk" by allowing Rose to compete even though officials knew of potential problems with the SAT score.

With those factors, the committee cites its decision not to add a postseason ban or cut scholarships as proof the members did not go overboard in punishing Memphis.

Both Memphis and NCAA enforcement staff have a chance to comment with the university getting the last chance to respond before a hearing before the appeals committee. University officials hope that will be scheduled for January.

The committee defended the penalties, calling Memphis a "repeat violator" with an "admitted failure to monitor." The major violations in men's basketball all involved Rose, creating "a significant competitive advantage."

Memphis also had its 1985 Final Four berth vacated for violations under then-coach Dana Kirk.

With those factors, the committee cites its decision not to add a postseason ban or cut scholarships as proof the members did not go overboard in punishing Memphis.

Both Memphis and NCAA enforcement staff have a chance to comment with the university getting the last chance to respond before a hearing before the appeals committee. University officials hope that will be scheduled for January.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4702152

cumberlandreds
12-01-2009, 10:57 AM
Didn't the NCAA clearinghouse clear Rose to play not once but twice? How can you punish a school after your own agent (NCAA Clearinghouse) has cleared the same player? All that needs to be done is put an asterisk besides Memphis entry in the NCAA tournament that season saying it was deemed later that they used an ineligible player after he had been cleared to play by the NCAA. Of course that makes too much sense.

Chip R
12-01-2009, 12:31 PM
Didn't the NCAA clearinghouse clear Rose to play not once but twice? How can you punish a school after your own agent (NCAA Clearinghouse) has cleared the same player? All that needs to be done is put an asterisk besides Memphis entry in the NCAA tournament that season saying it was deemed later that they used an ineligible player after he had been cleared to play by the NCAA. Of course that makes too much sense.


If they had false records in the first place then they could punish the school. If that did happen, I suppose you could punish the school for accepting false records but the school could say they didn't know they were false. However, this article says the school was suspicious of the records.

cumberlandreds
12-01-2009, 02:40 PM
If they had false records in the first place then they could punish the school. If that did happen, I suppose you could punish the school for accepting false records but the school could say they didn't know they were false. However, this article says the school was suspicious of the records.

Only thing I ask is why did the clearinghouse clear him to play if they had any thought at all the records were suspicious? We will probably never know the answer to that. This is really a whole circle of inconsistincies which is typical of the NCAA.

texasdave
12-01-2009, 03:02 PM
Only thing I ask is why did the clearinghouse clear him to play if they had any thought at all the records were suspicious? We will probably never know the answer to that. This is really a whole circle of inconsistincies which is typical of the NCAA.

Are you saying that the NCAA is consistently inconsistent?

flyer85
12-01-2009, 03:08 PM
Only thing I ask is why did the clearinghouse clear him to play if they had any thought at all the records were suspicious? Yep. It is not unusual for the clearinghouse to hold up certification indefinitely (like they are currently with Sidney) until all issues are resolved to their satisfaction. None of this stuff with Rose was new, it was known when he went to Memphis. It seems like the NCAA is the one that screwed up by clearing to him play when there were questions about his test score.

cumberlandreds
12-01-2009, 03:24 PM
Are you saying that the NCAA is consistenly inconsistent?

Pretty much.

BRM
12-09-2009, 04:29 PM
University of Memphis hits back at NCAA infractions panel in rebuttal
By Dan Wolken
Posted December 8, 2009 at 3:58 p.m., updated December 8, 2009 at 11:19 p.m.

In a 28-page rebuttal to a statement released publicly last week, the University of Memphis accused the NCAA Committee on Infractions of mischaracterizing the nature of the school's violations in men's basketball, misrepresenting the facts of the case and trying to undermine the NCAA's appeals process with the use of threats.

Meanwhile, Memphis acknowledged that the language in the infractions committee response has "already created a difficult environment for the University" and that its public release through an open-records request has prompted "numerous communications demanding that the appeal be dropped" from the Memphis fan base.

"The Committee on Infractions has concluded its evaluation of the case," the rebuttal states. "It had the opportunity to fully review all aspects of the matter through the hearing and decision process, and the issue on appeal should be whether it acted properly not whether it should have another 'shot' at the University."

The Committee on Infractions ruled in August that Memphis must vacate its 38 victories from the 2007-08 season and forfeit the earnings associated with its trip to the national championship game after former point guard Derrick Rose was determined to be retroactively ineligible due to a cancelled SAT score.

Memphis is appealing those penalties and has a hearing tentatively set for late January or early February. After Memphis submitted its appeal, the Committee on Infractions issued a response in which it argued that if the school's penalties were overturned, there would essentially be no substantial punishment for the violations in its men's basketball program.

Under that scenario, the infractions committee requested the case be remanded so the penalties could be "reassessed."

Memphis painted such a "double-jeopardy" scenario as "fundamentally unfair" and against precedent. The school cited a 2001 case involving UNLV in which the appeals committee upheld the initial penalties but also stated that a university "should not be subject to increased penalties as a result of appealing the decision of the Committee on Infractions."

Memphis' rebuttal also says the "tone and content" of the infractions committee response indicates it could not be objective in assessing the case if it were to be remanded.

"Clearly, an appeal that resulted in harsher sanctions would effectively chill the willingness of NCAA member institutions to exercise their right to appeal decisions in infractions cases," Memphis' rebuttal states. "The Appeals Committee has a duty to protect the integrity of the process by protecting appellants from dire consequences for initiating an appeal."

Another key point in the rebuttal is that the Committee on Infractions, in its response, mistakenly accused Memphis of knowing of a problem with Rose's SAT score and that the school "took a risk" by playing him. Memphis states as it did in the initial hearing that the school was informed in October 2007 of an investigation in Rose's hometown of Chicago about an alleged grade change at his high school and a fraudulent ACT.

Rose, however, was admitted to Memphis on the SAT, not the ACT. After the conclusion of the investigation in which no evidence was found to support the claims of academic fraud the school says it did not know Rose's SAT score was being investigated until May 5, 2008, when it was notified that the score was cancelled.

Still, the Committee on Infractions ruled that Memphis was "strictly liable" for the cancelled test score that rendered Rose ineligible.

"The Committee passed on a chance to review the evidence and decide whether a finding of academic fraud was justified," the rebuttal states. "Rather than evaluate the evidence, it appears that the Committee took the short cut of announcing its strict-liability approach."

The next step in the appeals process will be for the NCAA Enforcement Staff to issue a statement. Memphis will get one more chance to respond before the hearing.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/08/university-memphis-hits-back-ncaa-infractions-pane/

DTCromer
12-09-2009, 05:50 PM
The NCAA might be one of the most corrupt organizations there. Just pick and choose who should get in trouble.

George Foster
12-11-2009, 02:09 AM
The NCAA might be one of the most corrupt organizations there. Just pick and choose who should get in trouble.

The NCAA are cash *****s...period. They screwed up, and Memphis and Coach Cal are paying the price. The Exam was taken in Chicago, not on campus at Memphis. The SAT "people" forwarded the test results to the NCAA clearing house, and to Memphis. It was the NCAA who told Memphis that Rose was eligible to play. Rose stayed eligible to play at Memphis by keeping a 2.0 or higher average.

Memphis would have to accepted the punishment or withdraw from the NCAA. The court system should be the check-and balance, but the check and balance is another NCAA committee. The NCAA attitude is "you don't have to belong to the NCAA...it's your choice." That's BS.

Hey NCAA what ever happened to the Reggie Bush investigation? Or the Duke investigation???? You rapped up the Memphis investigation pretty quickly. Why not the USC investigation of the football or basketball teams... *****s!

dabvu2498
12-11-2009, 09:48 AM
The NCAA are cash *****s...period. They screwed up, and Memphis and Coach Cal are paying the price. The Exam was taken in Chicago, not on campus at Memphis. The SAT "people" forwarded the test results to the NCAA clearing house, and to Memphis. It was the NCAA who told Memphis that Rose was eligible to play. Rose stayed eligible to play at Memphis by keeping a 2.0 or higher average.



1. How is Coach Cal "paying the price?"

2. The exam was taken in Detroit, which is part of why the whole thing is fishy. The kid lived in Chicago.

George Foster
12-15-2009, 01:55 AM
1. How is Coach Cal "paying the price?"

2. The exam was taken in Detroit, which is part of why the whole thing is fishy. The kid lived in Chicago.

You are correct about Detroit, he did take it at least once in Chicago. Memphis has no control over where the kid takes the exam.

If the NCAA thought it was fishy, they should of never cleared him to play. Memphis would not have played him. The NCAA has the final say.

Coach Cal is paying the price because it's mentioned everytime he's on national TV for more than 5 minutes, and it's been stripped from his win totals and Memphis' totals.

dabvu2498
12-15-2009, 07:39 AM
Coach Cal is paying the price because it's mentioned everytime he's on national TV for more than 5 minutes, and it's been stripped from his win totals and Memphis' totals.

Really? It may have gotten a slight mention in the last 3 broadcasts, but most of the time you hear what a great job he's done at Kentucky.

PS: From his official ukathletics.com bio:


After bringing the University of Massachusetts basketball program to national prominence in the `90s and resurrecting the Memphis basketball program in the 2000s, John Calipari became the 22nd coach in UK history, and the seventh in the last 79 years.

In 1996, Calipari moved from UMass to the NBA after leading the Minutemen to the Final Four. For his efforts, Calipari was named Naismith National Coach of the Year. Calipari led the Tigers to the 2008 NCAA title game, and Memphis' 38 wins in 2007-08 made him the winningest coach for a single season in NCAA history. As a result, Calipari was named Naismith National Coach of the Year for a second time in his career. He is only the second coach to receive the honor multiple times since the award's inception in 1987. Duke's Mike Krzyzewski is the other to do so.

Calipari, the 2009 Sports Illustrated National Coach of the Year, led the Tigers to nine-straight 20-win campaigns and nine-consecutive postseason appearances, the only Memphis coach to do that. He posted 252 wins -- 28 wins per season -- as the Tigers' head coach, making him the winningest coach in school history.

Calipari's success began in his first season at Memphis, but it was the last four years that placed him in the NCAA and school record books. The Tigers' 137 wins the last four seasons made Calipari the winningest coach in a four-year span in NCAA Division I history. His 104 victories in the last three seasons are the second-most in NCAA Division I history over a three-year span.

He directed the Tigers to the top of both national polls in 2007-08, becoming the fifth coach in NCAA Division I history to take two different schools to the No. 1 ranking. Calipari led UMass to No. 1 in 1996. He joined Roy Williams, Ralph Miller, Frank McGuire and Eddie Sutton in that elite club.

The last four seasons, Calipari directed the Tigers to four-straight 30- win campaigns and is the first coach in NCAA Division I history to record four-straight 30-win ledgers.

With his success at Memphis, Calipari's overall record soared to 445-140 for an impressive 76.1 winning percentage. His 445 wins are the secondmost in NCAA Division I history in the first 17 years, Roy Williams being the other.

Calipari's 76.1 winning percentage is the third-highest among active NCAA Division I coaches with 10 years experience at college basketball's Division I level, trailing only Roy Williams and Mark Few. On the NCAA Division I list for winning percentage for all coaches (minimum 10 years), Calipari is in 14th place and ahead of Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim, Bob Huggins and Lute Olson.

With his four 30-win seasons at Memphis, Calipari now has six for his career, which is the fourth-most for a head coach in NCAA Division I history. For his career (16 years), Calipari has 15 20-win seasons and nine 25- win campaigns.

http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/calipari_john00.html

Doesn't look like anything has been "stripped" from Calipari.