It's always a pleasant surprise when we DON'T get screwed by the NCAA. Dixon to UNC or Duke would have been a done deal, no questions asked. It gets frustrating.

I would like to see someone do a research/survey on NCAA decisions comparing schools and what that relationship was with the NCAA. But that information is probably locked due to another sort of "strict interpretation."

(08-07-2013 11:49 PM)tigerderek Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:27 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 09:31 PM)anothertigerfan Wrote:  Will Barton went through the same thing to get cleared, I believe.

Memphis' compliance officer said this is the second request from the NCAA for additional info since the original submission a couple of weeks ago. Guess it's more than just wait around an see.

Hell,what all do you need? Sheesh

According to Jason Smith's article Memphis' compliance officer is new at Memphis but has been doing this at various schools for 16 years. He, the officer, said that in a case like Dixon's, it's typical for the NCAA to make additional requests after the original submission. He said he's done around two or three of these a year over that period. Smith also provided a link to the Compliance officer's twitter account a few days back. I checked it out but didn't bookmark it --- or I'd provide that here.

(08-08-2013 07:47 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:49 PM)tigerderek Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:27 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 09:31 PM)anothertigerfan Wrote:  Will Barton went through the same thing to get cleared, I believe.

Memphis' compliance officer said this is the second request from the NCAA for additional info since the original submission a couple of weeks ago. Guess it's more than just wait around an see.

Hell,what all do you need? Sheesh

According to Jason Smith's article Memphis' compliance officer is new at Memphis but has been doing this at various schools for 16 years. He, the officer, said that in a case like Dixon's, it's typical for the NCAA to make additional requests after the original submission. He said he's done around two or three of these a year over that period. Smith also provided a link to the Compliance officer's twitter account a few days back. I checked it out but didn't bookmark it --- or I'd provide that here.

BTW --- the compliance officer seemed optimistic, a least in the story. But maybe that's his job ---

BTW --- check out Smith's tweets this morning. Nice comments on the players after last night's game and what expects the talent level to be -- especially if Dixon get's his waiver --- which he said he thinks is more likely than not.

(08-08-2013 07:58 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  BTW --- check out Smith's tweets this morning. Nice comments on the players after last night's game and what expects the talent level to be -- especially if Dixon get's his waiver --- which he said he thinks is more likely than not.

When it comes to NCAA vs Memphis, I'll be optimistic when the school has the waiver in hand. But wait, didn't that happen once before with Mr. Rose, who was cleared by NCAA then, after the season, ruled ineligible.

(08-08-2013 08:09 AM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 07:58 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  BTW --- check out Smith's tweets this morning. Nice comments on the players after last night's game and what expects the talent level to be -- especially if Dixon get's his waiver --- which he said he thinks is more likely than not.

When it comes to NCAA vs Memphis, I'll be optimistic when the school has the waiver in hand. But wait, didn't that happen once before with Mr. Rose, who was cleared by NCAA then, after the season, ruled ineligible.

No waiver but focus on what you want --- but we've also had guys receive waivers and more on fine.

(08-08-2013 08:09 AM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 07:58 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  BTW --- check out Smith's tweets this morning. Nice comments on the players after last night's game and what expects the talent level to be -- especially if Dixon get's his waiver --- which he said he thinks is more likely than not.

When it comes to NCAA vs Memphis, I'll be optimistic when the school has the waiver in hand. But wait, didn't that happen once before with Mr. Rose, who was cleared by NCAA then, after the season, ruled ineligible.

Different. Test service disqualified score, as a result NCAA retroactively applied strict liability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-08-2013 08:30 AM)UM_TOM Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:09 AM)eastcoastDave Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 07:58 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  BTW --- check out Smith's tweets this morning. Nice comments on the players after last night's game and what expects the talent level to be -- especially if Dixon get's his waiver --- which he said he thinks is more likely than not.

When it comes to NCAA vs Memphis, I'll be optimistic when the school has the waiver in hand. But wait, didn't that happen once before with Mr. Rose, who was cleared by NCAA then, after the season, ruled ineligible.

Different. Test service disqualified score, as a result NCAA retroactively applied strict liability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Testing Center NEVER would have even looked at test a second time if not for the NCAA. NO ONE to this day has shown anything wrong with the test.

(08-08-2013 02:11 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  ...
Testing Center NEVER would have even looked at test a second time if not for the NCAA.

Untrue.

Quote:NO ONE to this day has shown anything wrong with the test.

Untrue. And ultimately irrelevant.

(08-08-2013 02:37 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 02:11 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  ...
Testing Center NEVER would have even looked at test a second time if not for the NCAA.

Untrue.

Quote:NO ONE to this day has shown anything wrong with the test.

Untrue. And ultimately irrelevant.

NCAA itself said that it could not find sufficient evidence to prove that Rose did not take the test. Their own words directly from their own report. ETS did not look at the test until AFTER the NCAA said that it had questions about the test. Then and ONLY then did they send out letters to wrong address asking for Rose to respond to some questions. The ONLY reason given for the invalidation of the test is Rose did NOT respond to their letters. THEY HAVE NEVER claimed to have found any wrong doing in the test. ONLY that Rose did not respond to letters. The NCAA own official investigation COULD NOT find enough evidence to prove any wrong doing with the test. Maybe you should actually read the NCAA report.

(08-08-2013 03:06 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 02:37 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 02:11 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  ...
Testing Center NEVER would have even looked at test a second time if not for the NCAA.

Untrue.

Quote:NO ONE to this day has shown anything wrong with the test.

Untrue. And ultimately irrelevant.

NCAA itself said that it could not find sufficient evidence to prove that Rose did not take the test. Their own words directly from their own report.

Wrong (and irrelevant). What the NCAA said was (http://media.commercialappeal.com/media/...ties.pdf):

Quote:Ultimately, the committee concluded that it did not need to make a determination as to whether student-athlete 1 engaged in unethical conduct as defined in NCAA Bylaw 10.1 with respect to the alleged fraudulent completion of his SAT.

ncrdbl1 Wrote:ETS did not look at the test until AFTER the NCAA said that it had questions about the test. Then and ONLY then did they send out letters to wrong address asking for Rose to respond to some questions.

Wrong:

Quote:During the course of the initial investigation by Chicago Public Schools officials, the Illinois Office of the Inspector General (IG) received an allegation that irregularities may have occurred with the standardized college entrance examination student-athlete 1 took during May 2007
in Detroit, Michigan. The IG informed the institution of this as well.
...
In addition to notifying the institution, the IG also notified ETS, the SAT testing security agency, about the allegations relating to student-athlete 1's SAT test. The notice was given on December 5, 2007. This prompted ETS to launch an independent investigation.
...
On May 5, 2008, ETS notified student-athlete 1 that his May 5, 2007, SAT exam had been cancelled due to his failure to respond to ETS letters of March 17 and April 10. That same day, ETS also notified the NCAA Eligibility Center and the institution that student-athlete 1's scores had been canceled. The NCAA Eligibility Center notified the enforcement staff about student-athlete 1's canceled scores, and the enforcement staff began an inquiry into the matter.

ncrdbl1 Wrote:The ONLY reason given for the invalidation of the test is Rose did NOT respond to their letters.

Wait. Why were they sending Rose letters in the first place? Oh because...

Quote:Following its investigation on March 17, 2008, ETS wrote a letter to student-athlete 1 notifying him of discrepancies on his May 5, 2007, SAT exam and requested information from him that would help substantiate his SAT score.

Right. So his failure to respond to the letters from the ETS isn't the sole reason they invalidated his SAT score. It's his failure to respond to the discrepancies they found in the test.

ncrdbl1 Wrote:THEY HAVE NEVER claimed to have found any wrong doing in the test. ONLY that Rose did not respond to letters. The NCAA own official investigation COULD NOT find enough evidence to prove any wrong doing with the test.

Again. It's true there was never an official finding that Rose, or someone on his behalf, was engaged in any wrongdoing with regards to his SAT (although a document examiner hired by the NCAA did report that Rose "probably did not write the questioned hand printing or cursive writing on the exam form"). But it's not really accurate to say that the NCAA could not (or could for that matter) find enough evidence to find wrongdoing. They just found that, once the score was invalidated, it didn't really matter. At that point Rose did not have a valid SAT score and was thus not eligible.

So to recap: 1. " The testing Center NEVER would have even looked at test a second time if not for the NCAA." The ETS followed up on information given to it by the state of Illinois not the NCAA. The ETS informed the NCAA. So untrue. 2. "NO ONE to this day has shown anything wrong with the test." Although neither the ETS or the NCAA really made any formal finding of wrogndoing, and the NCAA subsequently found it unnecessary to do so, both the ETS and the NCAA found things wrong with the test.

ncrdbl1 Wrote:Maybe you should actually read the NCAA report.

I might suggest you do the same.