The University of Memphis men’s basketball team must vacate its second-place finish in the 2007-8 national-championship tournament, and the dominating 38-2 record it compiled that year, because a star player was ineligible to compete, according to a report issued today by the NCAA’s Division I Committee on Infractions. The player, who was not named in the report but has been identified as Derrick Rose, was ineligible because the Educational Testing Service had invalidated his SAT score. The NCAA report also cited Memphis for providing an improper benefit by allowing Mr. Rose’s brother to accompany the team without charge. Mr. Rose has denied wrongdoing. The NCAA also put the university on probation for three years, a penalty that covers all of its teams, according to The Commercial Appeal, a newspaper in Memphis. The university has said it will appeal the penalties as excessive.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
3 Responses to NCAA Says Ineligible Player Means U. of Memphis Must Forfeit Final Four Run
blue_state_academic - August 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm
And of course John Calipari knew nothing about it, or so will say all the Wildcat fans, president, governor. . . . .
jimhall - August 20, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Kansas (who beath Memphis in the 2007 Championship game) also had a player whose high school transcript was fraudulent. Will the NCAA make them vacate their record?
princeton67 - August 20, 2009 at 9:26 pm
From the NCAA report:Following its investigation, on March 17, 2008, ETS wrote a letter to student-athlete 1University of Memphis Public Infractions ReportAugust 20, 2009Page No. 13__________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. A similar letter was sent as a follow-up on April 10. However, student-athlete 1 failed to respond to both requests.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.The committee concluded that, due to the fact that student-athlete 1′s SAT score was cancelled by ETS, student-athlete 1 was rendered academically ineligible to compete during the entire 2007-08 season, including the 2008 Division I Men’s Basketball Championship. This is a “strict liability” situation. The institution’s assertion that, prior to the start of the 2007-08 season, it did not have sufficient information to conclude that student-athlete 1′s SAT test would be cancelled was not relevant under the circumstances. This was discussed during the hearing in the following exchange:……………COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn’t do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact. If nothing had happened, if you had no information and ETS cancelled his score at a later date, he didn’t have an admissible entry qualification.UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That’s correct. We have not contested that.COMMITTEE MEMBER: Okay. So, he was ineligible?UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes; yes, sir. The university was not aware at the time he was ineligible.COMMITTEE MEMBER: I didn’t suggest that they were.As the Committee Member states, and Memphis’ own counsel agrees, the athlete, twice refusing to respond to ETS’ requests for information, was ineligible. The process of invalidating SAT scores, given the presumption of innnocence, takes time. Memphis could have sat the athlete until the question was resolved. Instead, it gambled and let him play, knowing that, if his SAT scores were invalidated, games would be forfeited. They were and they were.A question: when the student “failed to respond to both requests” (ETS about his test taking), he was an ahtlete representing Memphis. The University knew of these two requests. Given that failure to respond results in invalidation of SAT scores, why did it allow its student/athellte not to respond?