(09-25-2013 02:59 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Would be a good point, but EVERY athlete is vetted by the NCAA at one point, so that's essentially arguing that once cleared, an athlete can never be deemed ineligible. We know that's not the case from every ineligibility case that has come before us, so it's not a useful argument in our defense.

So why can't the NCAA come up with a Strict Eligibility Rule when the player has been cleared by the NCAA and no fault on the part of the school is shown. I mean other than they don't want to. Seems a bit more fair than their (to date) sole application of the "Strict Liability Rule."

(09-25-2013 03:01 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

When was Rose's score revoked? Before the season? Nope, his score was good then according to the NCAA. During the season? Nope, his score was still good. Only after the season and during the period that neither the NCAA, the school, nor the test service held any sway other Rose (who was off to make millions). So here's the real question ... when should the short comings of a testing service or the short comings of the NCAA's clearinghouse be a good reason to punish a school? ... Considering the NCAA can make it's own rules ...

This happens in every retroactive ineligibility case, though. Someone took illegal benefits, for example. Just because the NCAA cleared them before finding out that they took benefits doesn't absolve the player.

Putting the system on trial wouldn't have saved us.

(09-25-2013 02:50 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:49 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:36 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:34 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  One thing I've never understood in all of this is if the NCAA found no fault on the part of the school, why did they place us on probation?

"Strict liability".

Something bad happened, and you're in trouble regardless of whether you knew or should've known, because you're the person that benefited from the bad thing happening.

The NCAA is yet to use this standard in any other cases, I believe.

There was the improper benefit stuff as well.

That was extremely small. A few free flights that got paid back, right?

With regards to the basketball program t was for charter flights and hotel rooms. It was a technical violation. But a pretty serious one. My personal opinion is that by itself it wouldn't have resulted in forfeiting games (although this is complete conjecture). But I could definitely see us getting some sort of probation over it. Regardless, there was some amount of fault here on the part of the University, at least at the level of negligence.

There was also the stuff with regards to the women's golf program which was very, very bad, with a significant amount of wrongdoing (at the very least reckless, but probably knowing) on the part of the coach, even if in a very small program


See eg. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/201...a-committ/

Quote:The NCAA last August placed the University of Memphis on three years probation in all sports for major violations by the men's basketball and women's golf programs.

(09-25-2013 03:08 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:59 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Would be a good point, but EVERY athlete is vetted by the NCAA at one point, so that's essentially arguing that once cleared, an athlete can never be deemed ineligible. We know that's not the case from every ineligibility case that has come before us, so it's not a useful argument in our defense.

So why can't the NCAA come up with a Strict Eligibility Rule when the player has been cleared by the NCAA and no fault on the part of the school is shown. I mean other than they don't want to. Seems a bit more fair than their (to date) sole application of the "Strict Liability Rule."

The NCAA can do whatever the hell they want, as they have shown in our case. They make the rules that they enforce, and can change them at any time. Any appearance of propriety is just that, an appearance.

I still think we should've sued the NCAA clearing house for negligence.

The university/program was harmed due to their negligence in clearing a player. We played the player based on their findings. They are in the business of deciding eligibility issues. We had no reason not to believe their findings.

We should've sued for the money we lost + damages.

(09-25-2013 03:08 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:01 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

When was Rose's score revoked? Before the season? Nope, his score was good then according to the NCAA. During the season? Nope, his score was still good. Only after the season and during the period that neither the NCAA, the school, nor the test service held any sway other Rose (who was off to make millions). So here's the real question ... when should the short comings of a testing service or the short comings of the NCAA's clearinghouse be a good reason to punish a school? ... Considering the NCAA can make it's own rules ...

This happens in every retroactive ineligibility case, though. Someone took illegal benefits, for example. Just because the NCAA cleared them before finding out that they took benefits doesn't absolve the player.

Putting the system on trial wouldn't have saved us.

Well that's just a restatement that it's simpler to just punish, whether fault is shown or no fault shown. Treat them both the same. Which is what they did and why so many Memphis fans have a problem with that approach. But I think you understand now, or seem to.

(09-25-2013 02:59 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:55 PM)georgiatiger Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:28 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  When asked directly by the NCAA during the hearing, the university's legal counsel admitted to using an ineligible player, instead of simply reiterating (rightly) that the player had been eligible because the SAT score had already been cleared by the NCAA's own clearinghouse.

It should have never been imposed, except that the whole matter was mishandled. Other schools have received lesser penalties, but they usually don't botch the hearings as badly as the university did.

I don't know why people harp on this. He was ineligible because his scores were invalidated retroactively. There's nothing to be done about that; it is a point that had to be conceded if anything else our counsel said was going to be taken seriously.

We couldn't argue that he wasn't ineligible (he was), so we argued that we had no way of knowing. That didn't fly. The matter wasn't mishandled.

Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

There's a pretty solid argument that they told us he was good to go. If they screwed up, they should have penalized themselves.

Would be a good point, but EVERY athlete is vetted by the NCAA at one point, so that's essentially arguing that once cleared, an athlete can never be deemed ineligible. We know that's not the case from every ineligibility case that has come before us, so it's not a useful argument in our defense.

I dunno. Jim Thorpe was stripped of his Olympic gold medals, but I don't think the team was punished. Strip Rose of his multiple season and tournament honors and be done with it.

(09-25-2013 02:55 PM)georgiatiger Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:28 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  When asked directly by the NCAA during the hearing, the university's legal counsel admitted to using an ineligible player, instead of simply reiterating (rightly) that the player had been eligible because the SAT score had already been cleared by the NCAA's own clearinghouse.

It should have never been imposed, except that the whole matter was mishandled. Other schools have received lesser penalties, but they usually don't botch the hearings as badly as the university did.

I don't know why people harp on this. He was ineligible because his scores were invalidated retroactively. There's nothing to be done about that; it is a point that had to be conceded if anything else our counsel said was going to be taken seriously.

We couldn't argue that he wasn't ineligible (he was), so we argued that we had no way of knowing. That didn't fly. The matter wasn't mishandled.

Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

There's a pretty solid argument that they told us he was good to go. If they screwed up, they should have penalized themselves.

Twice.....

(09-25-2013 03:16 PM)georgiatiger Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:59 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:55 PM)georgiatiger Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:28 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  I don't know why people harp on this. He was ineligible because his scores were invalidated retroactively. There's nothing to be done about that; it is a point that had to be conceded if anything else our counsel said was going to be taken seriously.

We couldn't argue that he wasn't ineligible (he was), so we argued that we had no way of knowing. That didn't fly. The matter wasn't mishandled.

Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

There's a pretty solid argument that they told us he was good to go. If they screwed up, they should have penalized themselves.

Would be a good point, but EVERY athlete is vetted by the NCAA at one point, so that's essentially arguing that once cleared, an athlete can never be deemed ineligible. We know that's not the case from every ineligibility case that has come before us, so it's not a useful argument in our defense.

I dunno. Jim Thorpe was stripped of his Olympic gold medals, but I don't think the team was punished. Strip Rose of his multiple season and tournament honors and be done with it.

It isn't so much an argument that they can never be declared ineligible, but rather that the clearinghouse concept is designed to mitigate the potential for retroactive Ineligibility (and corresponding penalties). Taking money from agents is an act that isn't really in the clearinghouse's domain; transcripts and test scores certainly are.

(09-25-2013 03:08 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:01 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

When was Rose's score revoked? Before the season? Nope, his score was good then according to the NCAA. During the season? Nope, his score was still good. Only after the season and during the period that neither the NCAA, the school, nor the test service held any sway other Rose (who was off to make millions). So here's the real question ... when should the short comings of a testing service or the short comings of the NCAA's clearinghouse be a good reason to punish a school? ... Considering the NCAA can make it's own rules ...

This happens in every retroactive ineligibility case, though. Someone took illegal benefits, for example. Just because the NCAA cleared them before finding out that they took benefits doesn't absolve the player.

Putting the system on trial wouldn't have saved us.

I may be mistaken, but I thought Rose met all requirements put forth to the school to play him. It seems they reconsidered and penalized the school for their own (alleged) mistake.

(09-25-2013 03:07 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  ...

Without this admission from the university, the NCAA had the burden of responsibility to explain how the university was to blame for playing a player who was cleared twice by the clearinghouse.

Actually, no. Once his score was invalidated the burden was on the University and/or Rose to show that either it shouldn't have been invalidated and Rose shouldn't be ineligible, or to show that despite the fact that his test was invalidated and Rose was inelgible, that the games that we played an inelgible player in shouldn't have been vacated.

Quote:It allows the notion of strict liability to enter into the equation. Rose is ineligible retroactively, so you ARE strictly liable for those games he played in.

Strict liability entered the case because we played an ineligible player and got a competitive advantage from doing so. Our "fault" at that point (eg. what we knew and when) didn't matter. That's all that was meant by "strict liability."

Imagine that somehow Rose's name was "James Lebron" (i.e. Lebron James in a wig and Groucho Marx glasses) and somehow James Lebron fooled everybody, the clearinghouse, the school, everyone, with seemingly legit HS transcripts and SAT scores, and we played "James Lebron" and it only comes out after the season is over that it was actually Lebron James in a wig and Groucho Marx glasses. If you ignore for second how farcical this is, you'll see that even though he was "cleared" to play, he was ineligible, and even though the university didn't know he wasn't inelgible (there was no fault on the university's part), our games would still be vacated.

Quote:At that point, it was over. We indicted ourselves. That's the epitome of mishandling a case.

We didn't indict ourselves. We were never found at fault. We pretty much had a case that wasn't really winnable without help from Rose.

(09-25-2013 03:15 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:08 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:01 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

When was Rose's score revoked? Before the season? Nope, his score was good then according to the NCAA. During the season? Nope, his score was still good. Only after the season and during the period that neither the NCAA, the school, nor the test service held any sway other Rose (who was off to make millions). So here's the real question ... when should the short comings of a testing service or the short comings of the NCAA's clearinghouse be a good reason to punish a school? ... Considering the NCAA can make it's own rules ...

This happens in every retroactive ineligibility case, though. Someone took illegal benefits, for example. Just because the NCAA cleared them before finding out that they took benefits doesn't absolve the player.

Putting the system on trial wouldn't have saved us.

Well that's just a restatement that it's simpler to just punish, whether fault is shown or no fault shown. Treat them both the same. Which is what they did and why so many Memphis fans have a problem with that approach. But I think you understand now, or seem to.

You're preaching to the choir; the system sucks. I was just standing up for our legal counsel, they did exactly what they should've.

(09-25-2013 01:25 PM)Tony85 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  I'm sure Kentucky fans would love to see the Tiger's penalty reduced, not because they care what happens to Memphis, but because they think Cal will look a little less sleazy.

Exactly MT89. If X was coaching somewhere else they wouldn't care. In fact, they would take the opposite view and go back to calling him a cheater.

I have plenty of friends who are KY fans - it was very interesting to see how quickly their opinion of the 2008 ruling change when Cal became their coach.

(09-25-2013 03:21 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  ..
...
It isn't so much an argument that they can never be declared ineligible, but rather that the clearinghouse concept is designed to mitigate the potential for retroactive Ineligibility (and corresponding penalties). Taking money from agents is an act that isn't really in the clearinghouse's domain; transcripts and test scores certainly are.

Right, but the clearinghouse is working on the implicit assumption that the information they rely on in declaring players eligible is true and/or is going to hold up. If a school system comes back later and says that a player never completed their requirements for graduation and they were revoking the player's HS diploma, it would be a similar situation.

Once you get in your mind that saying it's --well "strict liability" and go around using strict liability as a justification --- well that seems to be the end of it, right or wrong. Fair or unfair. But I think most here aren't arguing in that way. They're arguing whether this was fair or not.

(09-25-2013 03:14 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I still think we should've sued the NCAA clearing house for negligence.

The university/program was harmed due to their negligence in clearing a player. We played the player based on their findings. They are in the business of deciding eligibility issues. We had no reason not to believe their findings.

We should've sued for the money we lost + damages.

I don't see how we could have argued that somehow the NCAA clearinghouse should have foreseen that Rose would fail to respond to an ETS inquiry and have his score revoked 6 months later.

(09-25-2013 03:35 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:21 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  ..
...
It isn't so much an argument that they can never be declared ineligible, but rather that the clearinghouse concept is designed to mitigate the potential for retroactive Ineligibility (and corresponding penalties). Taking money from agents is an act that isn't really in the clearinghouse's domain; transcripts and test scores certainly are.

Right, but the clearinghouse is working on the implicit assumption that the information they rely on in declaring players eligible is true and/or is going to hold up. If a school system comes back later and says that a player never completed their requirements for graduation and they were revoking the player's HS diploma, it would be a similar situation.

Would proof be involved?

(09-25-2013 03:41 PM)georgiatiger Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:35 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:21 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  ..
...
It isn't so much an argument that they can never be declared ineligible, but rather that the clearinghouse concept is designed to mitigate the potential for retroactive Ineligibility (and corresponding penalties). Taking money from agents is an act that isn't really in the clearinghouse's domain; transcripts and test scores certainly are.

Right, but the clearinghouse is working on the implicit assumption that the information they rely on in declaring players eligible is true and/or is going to hold up. If a school system comes back later and says that a player never completed their requirements for graduation and they were revoking the player's HS diploma, it would be a similar situation.

Would proof be involved?

Strict liability.

(09-25-2013 03:07 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  It's pretty simple. They helped the NCAA establish the fact that he was ineligible retroactively, even though the SAT was valid when he played, and Rose was cleared twice by the clearinghouse.

The NCAA establishes that he is ineligible, whether we deny it or not. They did so retroactively. He was ineligible, and the best tactic was to readily admit that, rather than have our legal counsel look like a bafoon.

(09-25-2013 03:07 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  Without this admission from the university, the NCAA had the burden of responsibility to explain how the university was to blame for playing a player who was cleared twice by the clearinghouse. It allows the notion of strict liability to enter into the equation. Rose is ineligible retroactively, so you ARE strictly liable for those games he played in.

The NCAA found that we weren't at fault, so our defense team did their job extremely well. Strict liability needs no finding of fault or wrongdoing. The NCAA had to "invent" the strict liability standard in order to even punish us, because they couldn't hang their hat on anything else. Plugging our ears and refusing to acknowledge that Rose was deemed retroactively ineligible would have done nothing but make us look ridiculous.

(09-25-2013 03:07 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  At that point, it was over. We indicted ourselves. That's the epitome of mishandling a case.

Again, we obviously didn't indict ourselves of anything because the NCAA found no wrongdoing.

You argue that you did not commit the crime, not that what happened shouldn't be a crime. Just like you argue that the school had no way of knowing of Rose's ineligibility because it was retroactive, not arguing that he is still an eligible player.

(09-25-2013 03:31 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:15 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:08 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:01 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Exactly. Once his score was revoked he was automatically ineligible. Without Rose's cooperation, there's no way to argue that the score was wrongly revoked. So, there was nothing ambiguous to argue over with regard to eligibility.

When was Rose's score revoked? Before the season? Nope, his score was good then according to the NCAA. During the season? Nope, his score was still good. Only after the season and during the period that neither the NCAA, the school, nor the test service held any sway other Rose (who was off to make millions). So here's the real question ... when should the short comings of a testing service or the short comings of the NCAA's clearinghouse be a good reason to punish a school? ... Considering the NCAA can make it's own rules ...

This happens in every retroactive ineligibility case, though. Someone took illegal benefits, for example. Just because the NCAA cleared them before finding out that they took benefits doesn't absolve the player.

Putting the system on trial wouldn't have saved us.

Well that's just a restatement that it's simpler to just punish, whether fault is shown or no fault shown. Treat them both the same. Which is what they did and why so many Memphis fans have a problem with that approach. But I think you understand now, or seem to.

You're preaching to the choir; the system sucks. I was just standing up for our legal counsel, they did exactly what they should've.

And I think this was the Yahoo writers point. Shatty ruling.