Filed under: College Basketball, media, Players | Tags: CBS Sports, Coach Calipari, Corey Maggette, Derrick Rose, Gary Parrish, William Wesley
Over at CBS, Gary Parrish does his best to compare the recent Derrick Rose/Memphis situation to the Corey Maggette/Duke situation. He feels like the NCAA is using “selective enforcement” when they punish Memphis, but not Duke.
Gary is wrong though. These two situations are not the same and he should know better. However, my first question to Parrish (and Doyle for that matter) is, why use Maggette and Duke as your primary example? I know why…because hitting on Duke gets you a lot more hits on your “blog.”
Wouldn’t a better and certainly more timely comparison be Darrell Arthur and Kansas. If you don’t know this one, it has been reported that Arthur actually failed a class in high school (his grade was changed), which would have made him ineligible to play in the exact same game Derrick Rose was playing in (and was ineligible for).
However, since CBS Sports brought it up, let’s just deal with the Maggette/Duke situation.
COREY MAGGETTE/DUKE: A summer basketball coach, Myron Piggie, made cash payments to Corey while in high school. The money had been funneled to Piggie through “a revenue pool that included donations from at least two sports agents.” Years later, after an investigation, Maggette admitted taking the money.
DERRICK ROSE/MEMPHIS: Derrick Rose was a basketball star from Chicago, who would have gone straight to the NBA if he could. Of course, because of the NBA age requirement, Rose had to attend college for at least one year. However, Rose wasn’t a star student. In fact, he had failed his SAT three times. Rose had been committed to John Calipari and Memphis, but he needed to pass that SAT or else. Suddenly one month before he was due to enroll, someone, not Derrick Rose, took the SAT in Detroit (mind you, Derrick didn’t live in Michigan) and passed…and the rest is history.
Now let’s help out Parrish and explain the difference between the two. What Maggette did was wrong, however, Myron Piggie, had nothing to do with Duke University. The money had nothing to do with Corey’s decision to attend Duke. There is absolutely ZERO connection between Piggie, the money and Duke basketball. Sure, if it was discovered prior to Maggette joining Duke that he accepted cash, he would have lost his eligibility. You can also argue that the NCAA dragged their feet on the Maggette investigation. You always want this stuff wrapped up quickly, just because it looks better.
However, in the Rose/Memphis situation, there are two issues at play. First, all because all the dots can’t be connected, doesn’t mean that we have to ignore any and all evidence (this is not a court of law).
Let’s let Geoff Calkins explain:
On May 5, 2007, with all this at stake, someone — the Educational Testing Service has concluded it wasn’t Derrick Rose — showed up at a test center in Detroit to take Rose’s SAT.
Rose lived in Chicago, mind you. He traveled to Detroit to watch an NBA playoff game and — doesn’t everyone do this? — take the SAT.
Care to guess what significant friend of Calipari’s has deep connections in Detroit?
William Wesley a.k.a. Worldwide Wes, the most mysterious and connected man in college basketball.
Who knows how this all played out? But if you think Calipari didn’t know how his star player qualified to play basketball at Memphis, I have a 2007-08 Final Four banner I’d like to sell you.
Who is Worldwide Wes? Some have called him the most powerful man in sports. You can be the judge.
From Larry Brown Sports, who has done a fantastic job covering the whole Derrick Rose fiasco:
Worldwide Wes (William Wesley) is based out of Detroit and it’s long been established that he helped steer Rose to John Calipari at Memphis. Wes, whom most fans have never heard of, is considered to be one of the biggest powerbrokers in the NBA, one some players say is running the league. Wes helped bring prized recruit DaJuan Wagner to Memphis and Calipari obliged by hiring Wagner’s dad onto his staff. Since then, Wes has helped send Rose, Chris Douglas-Roberts, and Tyreke Evans to Memphis. Calipari has even called Wes a “goodwill ambassador” to the Memphis program, making you wonder if he’ll now be Kentucky’s ambassador. So now the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together, and the dots between Rose, Calipari, the suspicious SAT test, and Detroit have all been connected. And just like I said three months ago, sounds like John Calipari helped Derrick Rose cheat on the SAT, or at the very least, knew exactly what he was up to.
This brings us to my second point, it’s all about a track record. Coach K’s record is crystal clear, Memphis and Coach Calipari’s aren’t. First, Rose isn’t the only player from that Memphis team with questionable SAT results and let’s not forget, Coach Calipari is now the only coach in NCAA history to have two Final Four teams disappear from the record books (and in both cases, he was gone by the time the punishments came down). The first case, if you recall was at UMass where Marcus Camby, while on campus, was taking money, jewelry and prostitutes from an agent.
Now granted, Calipari wasn’t the one that was throwing hookers at Camby and there is absolutely no proof that he set up the Rose/SAT situation, but at the very least, Calipari is the master of “plausible deniability.”
Another fact lost on Parrish was that the cheating on the SAT wasn’t the only infraction.
From Dana O’Neil at ESPN:
In regard to this specific investigation, (Memphis athletic director R.C. Johnson) agreed to let Reggie Rose (Derrick’s brother) on (the team) plane. By the letter of the law it was OK. NCAA rules say a player’s family can ride on the team plane so long as that opportunity is afforded to the general public.
But it turned out to be a slippery slope to disaster. One missed payment — or in this case, more than $1,700 worth — and Memphis had itself a violation (and by the way, how could Reggie Rose be unaware that he didn’t pay? That’s not exactly chump change for a man who isn’t a Rockefeller).
So let’s see where we stand.
In one case, we have Corey Maggette, who took cash from a high school summer coach that has ZERO affiliation with Coach K and Duke University.
In the other case, we have a player who cheated on a SAT test (after failing his first three tries) in a different state from where he lived, in a city where Worldwide Wes (the man who had brought half-a-dozen players to Coach Cal) lives, just to be accepted by a school that had other players with questionable SAT scores, by a coach who has run afoul with the NCAA in the past…oh and then gave a free plane ride to the player’s brother (who most believe was the one who actually took the SAT test).
Now on top of all that, the big difference, the one fact that separates Maggette/Duke from Rose/Memphis is that, according to the NCAA, Memphis found out DURING Rose’s freshman season that there might be issues with his SAT scores and they did nothing to investigate. In fact, the school didn’t even tell Coach Calipari about the possible infractions (which should make UK fans happy). This means, Memphis knowingly let Rose play games, despite knowing their might be eligibility problems with their star player.
From ESPN:
Paul Dee, the chairman for the committee on infractions, said in a teleconference that even though Memphis was not aware of Rose’s questionable test score until midway through his freshman year, once the score was invalidated by Educational Testing Service, Rose no longer met the initial eligibility standards.
“This is a situation of strict liability,” Dee said. “If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”
Calipari was not penalized because he was never included in the original notice of allegations, Dee said. But Dee did stress that vacating the record books carries with it an implied punishment.”
Yep Gary, no difference at all.
Sorry folks, big difference. It’s fine to ignore Worldwide Wes, Detroit and all other bits of information, but the big difference remains…Duke didn’t learn of Maggette taking money until years after the fact, while Memphis learned of it during the season.
What I don’t get is…Parrish is a good reporter and he should have known the difference because he’s reported on it on his OWN BLOG before.
From August 20:
One of the interesting bits of information released today is that the SAT in question that the NCAA believes Derrick Rose did not actually take was taken by somebody in Detroit only a month before Rose enrolled at Memphis. Rose had already taken the SAT three times and failed to get a qualifying score each time. So suddenly this Chicago native went to Detroit to take the test one final time, and would it be too cynical to mention that the famed William Wesley — AKA “Worldwide Wes” — just so happens to live in Detroit?
That’s probably just a coincidence, right?
Now come on, Gary…you don’t see a difference?
PS – And before I start to receive the hate male from the haters, for the record, unless the NCAA can prove Memphis knew or allowed Rose to cheat, I think the punishment is B.S. I don’t believe Memphis should lose anything. If the school didn’t do anything wrong, then they shouldn’t have their Final Four vacated.
55 Comments so far
Leave a comment
This is a ridiculous and stupid post. If Maggette accepted money, he was ineligible. Thus, Duke should have vacated its NCAA appearance. The NCAA did not rule that Memphis had a connection to Rose’s test. So it doesn’t matter that Duke had no connection to Maggette being paid.
Comment by bernie19 August 22, 2009 @ 10:58 pmSorry Bernie, but it’s not ridiculous.
There is no set rule. The NCAA treats each case individually for a reason. For example, schools (not just Duke) often don’t get punished for what student athletes did prior to attending the University, if the NCAA feels like the school has shown a level of control and oversight over the situation.
A better and more recent example of this would be to look at Kansas. Shockingly, CBS Sports didn’t use this example, since it is A) more recent and B) nearly identical since it involved cheating prior to college, but that’s CBS sports for you.
Anyhow, it was learned that Darrell Arthur of Kansas (the team that defeated Memphis in the title game, didn’t really graduate high school. I can’t recall the exact details, but his high school basically forged a grade. Thus, Arthur was ineligible.
However, the NCAA cleared Kansas of any wrongdoing, because there was no way for Kansas to know this information. Now you can argue all you want if this is right or fair, but you’re basic argument is there can never be a difference between one situation and the next.
Memphis knew that Rose had some issues with passing his SAT. They should have been more vigilant and investigated why their number one recruit took and suddenly passed the SAT in a completely different state.
Secondly, you obviously ignored the other crucial bit of information, which is, there were two separate violation. Memphis allowed Rose’s brother to travel for free on their private jet. This is a violation. I don’t recall Corey Maggette’s family getting free lifts from Duke University.
Comment by robioland August 22, 2009 @ 11:23 pmschools (not just Duke) often don’t get punished for what student athletes did prior to attending the University….this one line , to me, destroys your whole post. if the NCAA was punishing Memphis for just what happened at the university, then they would be getting punished for the $1,700 dollar flight. there is no way that is it when you take away 38 victories and a Final Four.
Also, Coach K’s rep is not crystal clear. There have been a few recruits that chose to go to Duke after their parents were given jobs by powerful boosters to the Duke basketball program. now, you can say that doesn’t connect back to Coach K, but any coach of a high profile basketball program knows all of the important boosters, because they are the one’s that are paying his salary. you can also say that K was not investigated by the NCAA, which is correct, but you also have to say the same thing about Coach Cal. he has never been investigated for any wrongdoing of any kind anywhere he has coached.
to me, every story written about Coach Cal and how slimy or dirty he is at recruiting is selective reporting. Nobody ever brings up Roy Williams and the gifts that he gave his players, or the 8 recruiting violations DIRECTLY connected to Pitino when he was the coach at Hawaii.
yes, i am a UK fan and am going to defend my coach in all of this, but i am also realistic and know that every great coach walks close to that line in order to compete year in and year out for national titles. just don’t imply that no other coach has done anything wrong, and if you are saying that Coach Cal had to know about the SAT because of WWW, then Bill Self had to know about Arthur and the grade being changed.
Coach Cal had no control over what a 17 year old kid did in MI, or what a 19-20 year old kid did with an agent at UMASS. these vacated Final Fours are on them and not on Cal. Also, who is going to question the NCAA’s own clearing house about whether or not a kid is eligible? The NCAA should have done a better job of investigating his eligibility in the first place with three non-qualifying scores in his past.
Comment by JD August 24, 2009 @ 7:34 pmJD, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but you have to be careful about deciding what is fact and what is fiction.
The whole booster getting jobs for players parents is in fact FALSE. That rumor got started on “TruthAboutDuke” and is completely false.
Here’s how it works…
- Chris Duhon picks Duke
- After the fact, Duhon’s mother moves to Durham
- Somehow, someway a woman who has always had a job and taken care of her family, is able to get a job in Durham.
- So ‘Truth About Duke’ says the only way a black woman can get a job in Durham is with help from Coach K through boosters…despite having ZERO proof.
- It gets passed around the blogs.
- And then people treat it like fact in comment sections.
If this was fact…don’t you think Greg Doyle, the greatest of all Duke haters would touch on this every chance he gets? In fact, not even he will touch this with a ten-foot pool.
As I already said, I don’t think Memphis should have been punished for the SAT issue. My personal feeling (with no proof), I think Calipari knew something was going on, something shady. But again, there is no proof. There is absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing…outside the free plane ride, so I think the NCAA was wrong.
The point of this post remains the same…there was a difference between the Rose/Memphis violation and the Maggette/Duke situation.
Comment by robioland August 24, 2009 @ 8:48 pmokay, so if the derrick rose situation is so different from maggette/piggie situation, what about chris webber/bill martin? webber admitted to taking payments from martin and michigan’s two final 3 banners come down. i’m guessing you’ll say it was because webber took more money than maggette, but a crime is a crime. you still haven’t acknowledged that regardless of what happened to memphis and rose, it doesn’t change the fact that maggette should be ineligible, and duke’s final 4 banner should be stricken as well….
Comment by RSD August 24, 2009 @ 9:35 pmI love a good challenge.
First and foremost, the BIG difference with the Martin/Webber (as well as Bullock and two Taylor’s) is that this all happened while they were at Michigan.
Not only did these players receive over $600,000 directly from a Ed Martin, a Michigan booster, he was a booster with close ties with head coach Steve Fisher. In fact, Fisher often gave Martin complimentary tickets.
While it was never proven, common sense says that Martin and his cash were used to recruit these players to Michigan. If Maggette had taken money from a Duke booster, then Duke would be in trouble. He didn’t.
In the end, Michigan imposed its own sanctions, which the NCAA accepted.
This is my main point though…there is a big difference between what happens on campus and what happens prior to when a player walks on campus. If Coach K knew that Maggette had taken money and still brought him to Duke, then we would have issues.
However, if a player is taking cash or cheating or whatever while at the school, the coach does have some responsibility. Sure, he may not be providing the cash or allowing the cheating, but it goes back to “institutional control.”
Comment by robioland August 24, 2009 @ 9:57 pmso because maggette’s infractions took place BEFORE he came to duke, all is forgiven? sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. maggette broke a MAJOR rule, and his college career should have been invalidated. ncaa precedent has demonstrated over and over again (with the notable exceptions of duke basketball and now usc football) that the program will pay the price for ineligible players, REGARDLESS of knowledge or not. steve fisher never was proven to know anything about webber and martin, regardless of when it took place.
your defense still doesn’t get duke off the hook, but i know you will never admit the fallacy of anything related to coach k or duke, so it isn’t worth continuing the discussion….
Comment by RSD August 24, 2009 @ 11:34 pmSo you can to write:
“with the notable exceptions of duke basketball” and then dare say, I’m the one who will “never admit the fallacy of anything related to Coach K or Duke?”
Dear God, please. You obviously have never read this blog before. This blog is constantly linked to by other blogs, including Kentucky and Carolina blogs as fair and honest Duke bog.
Maybe, if you allow yourself to get over your anti-Duke bias, relate this situation to your own team (which ever team that may be), then how can you ever say there is no difference between what a kid does wrong in high school and what a kid does in college?
Seriously, you can’t see a difference between the two situations…Ed Martin, a friend of Steve Fisher (yes, Fisher admitted he often gave tickets to Martin), a Michigan booster, gave money to these kids to help bring them to Michigan…this is the same as a kid who took money from a high school summer coach, with absolutely no connection to Duke University, with zero connection to Coach K, and had nothing to do with why he came to Duke?
Or is what you’re saying is…ALL SCHOOLS should vacate all wins/banners if a player is found ineligible, no matter what the situation, no matter if the coach did nothing or knew nothing, no matter how solid a job a University did to check everything…you want a blanket rule with a blanket punishment for any ineligible situation? That’s insane.
In your mind, the NCAA does not have the right to look at each case and decide what or if the school/coach knew of the activity? Is that what you’re preaching, because I’m not quite clear…all I can get from you is; Duke gets away with it because Duke gets away with everything. Solid argument.
You claim I’m the one who is so bias, I can’t see anything wrong that Duke, yet I’m the one who keeps saying, NO school, NO coach should be held responsible for the actions of a person who was not at their school…unless the NCAA can prove that the coach/school new of the problem and still brought them in.
I said it in my original post…if the NCAA can’t prove that Coach Calipari or Memphis knew that Rose cheated in high school, then there should be no punishment.
If you don’t feel like continuing the discussion, I have a suggestion, stop clicking on the blog.
Comment by robioland August 24, 2009 @ 11:55 pmI have to agree with the rest of the commentators. You do not understand Gary Parrish’s or the NCAA’s arguments. Corey Maggette was an ineligible player BEFORE he arrived at Duke. Duke knew he was ineligible because Maggette admitted he took the money.
If Duke monitors its athletes use of Facebook, then it sure as hell reads court transcripts involving its athletes. Duke knew Maggette took the money. According to the NCAA rep quoted by Parrish, Duke should have either returned its money generated from using the ineligible player (Maggette) or be stripped of its season and banners.
The NCAA chose neither punishment despite evidence that the violation had been committed. When Memphis committed a similar violation, the NCAA followed its manual for punishment. Why did Memphis get punished and Duke did not when both schools committed the same infraction?
Parrish raises this question at the start of his column.
You have three choices at this point. One, you can ignore the facts of the situation. Two, you can write that your school screwed up and should know better. Three, you can argue that you got away with one ala U$C and Reggie Bush.
Guess which choice you made? You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to your facts.
Comment by bevo August 25, 2009 @ 9:49 amwhen did i suggest ‘duke gets away with it because duke gets away with everything’? also, if you look at my post, i also mentioned that usc has skated away from a number of allegations in the last few years without even a wrist-slap. so please don’t make this out to be some anti-duke thing. i enjoy your blog, and appreciate your attempts to be even-handed.
my main gripe is with the ncaa, and i do agree with parrish’s main point that there is ‘selective enforcement’. i think he chose a poor point of comparison, as you aptly demonstrated. but there are plenty of examples where players have taken money from agents or other shady figures, and the school has paid the price, without any direct evidence that the school knew. the ncaa ruled against missouri and jevon crudup in 1994, and umass and camby in 1996. in neither case is there proof that the school knew what was going on. but nonetheless, the ncaa’s judgment was harsh and swift. i’m sure your argument in response would be that maggette’s situation was different, as he took money before arriving at duke, but i don’t buy that. the ncaa and their holy standard/fraud of “amateurism” should apply to both high school and college.
my main point remains the same – maggette committed an infraction that made him ineligible, in retrospect. in several other instances, the ncaa has acted harshly against the school, even without direct proof of knowledge by the university. so it does create a perception that duke was treated favorably. the ncaa is a joke, and their holier-than-thou stance on many of these issues is frustrating. i don’t believe duke is dirty, but i don’t think they are entirely, 100% clean. in my mind, no school is. i think there are countless underhanded ways that every major D-I school circumvents the rules to recruit players. so please don’t be so defensive about duke.
i don’t troll this site to bash duke, and i like to have a reasonable discussion. so please don’t trash me and tell me not to come on your blog.
Comment by RSD August 25, 2009 @ 9:56 amBevo buddy-
Please, for the love of all that’s holy, don’t chime in on a debate if you don’t know the facts. Let me clear this up for you…
Duke DID NOT KNOW Maggette had taken money before he came to Duke. They DID NOT KNOW Maggette took money while at Duke. In fact, no one knew until about five years AFTER Maggette left Duke.
Maggette didn’t ADMIT to taking money until FIVE YEARS into his Clippers career.
This stuff isn’t that hard.
As for RSD, you said it in your previous post that Duke (like USC) gets away with stuff…but fine, I will give you the benefit of the doubt…and then I will agree with you.
The NCAA has been uneven when it comes to this stuff. My feeling always has been-
- If a school can show they were vigilant in checking a player’s background prior to coming on campus, then they shouldn’t be punished for activities by the student.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 10:11 am- If however, the money came from someone associated with the school, then that’s a whole different issue.
i’m glad we can agree on something. unfortunately, establishing ‘proof’ in some of these matters is very difficult. which is why i really think it’s time to consider establishing some type of pay system for ncaa athletes. without even an attempt to compensate them for the millions that the ncaa makes each year off them, this hypocrisy will continue.
i look forward to checking in on your blog during the upcoming season. good luck to your blue devils…
Comment by RSD August 25, 2009 @ 10:21 amYes, I would agree that these kids should get paid. Sadly though, that’s still not going to stop kids like Maggette/Webber/Camby from taking money.
These kids are taking LARGE sums of money. Even if the NCAA gave them money, it would be chump change compared to the dirty cash they can get elsewhere.
Thanks and good luck.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 10:25 amOr is what you’re saying is…ALL SCHOOLS should vacate all wins/banners if a player is found ineligible, no matter what the situation, no matter if the coach did nothing or knew nothing, no matter how solid a job a University did to check everything…you want a blanket rule with a blanket punishment for any ineligible situation? That’s insane.
So how is this different than the Memphis situation? The coach did nothing and knew nothing about this. The clearinghouse CLEARED Rose to play and deemed him ineligible retroactively after the season.
Your argument for Duke is flawed and biased. A rule is a rule. If a player takes money before college they are no longer an amateur! Therefore Duke won a title with an ineligible college player. It really is that simple.
Comment by Pfunk August 25, 2009 @ 10:49 amYou are wrong. Read the damn report. The circumstances are IRRELEVANT when it comes to initial eligibility. I don’t care if Maggette was Mother Theresa like in his caring for the poor, and Tim Tebow like in his praise for the Lord JC. Strict Liability, means STRICT LIABILLITY. If you are ineligible, and the school plays you NOTHING ELSE MATTERS…If you play for Memphis. If you played for Duke it was treated as a different standard. There is absolutely no gray area here if you read the report and the basis of NCAA’s ruling.
Does that mean that it would be fair to Duke if they took the FF away? No. However, under the reasoning laid out in the Committee Report it is not fair to Memphis either.
Comment by Vince August 25, 2009 @ 10:59 amActually it doesn’t matter in the least if there was a connection to Duke or not, what matters is Maggette’s amateur status when he played for Duke. Once Maggette accepted that money he lost his amateur status, it doesn’t matter who knew or when it became known. The fact is when he played for Duke he was ineligible. What Mr. Parrish is pointing out is in both cases there was a player used who was later found to be ineligible to participate but only one program was punished for using an ineligible player. You can argue it any way you want but it does not change the facts in either case.
Comment by BobbyM August 25, 2009 @ 11:09 amDo you people simply not read the actual post?
You asked:
“So how is this different than the Memphis situation? The coach did nothing and knew nothing about this. The clearinghouse CLEARED Rose to play and deemed him ineligible retroactively after the season.”
The difference is…there are ZERO dots that connect the person who gave money to Maggette and Duke University. While there are some dots from Rose, Wes, his hometown and Calipari.
Just look at the facts we do know. Rose was brought to Calipari via Wes, who lives in Detroit. Rose can’t pass the SAT. Instead of taking the test a fourth time in his home town, his home state, he travels to Detroit, home of Worldwide Wes, and suddenly passes the test. You would think that Memphis, a school that has had many past problems with the NCAA, would be very vigilant, to eliminate any and all suspension.
However, like I said a dozen times already, if those dots can’t be connected by the NCAA, then I would argue that Memphis SHOULD NOT have to vacate any games…unless the free plane ride was that big of a violation. However, by itself, the free plane ride for Rose’s brother would not be enough to justify this punishment.
Second and this can’t be overlooked…Calipari has already had a Final Four erased from history. Fair or unfair, the NCAA has to take that into account.
Lastly (and dear God is it really that hard to research this stuff), Duke DID NOT WIN A TITLE WITH MAGGETTE. Jesus, know what you’re talking about before you comment. Maggette played in the 1998-1999 season. That team lost to Connecticut in the Finals.
So far on this comment thread, I have one guy claiming Duke knew that Maggette took money before he came to Duke, another guy borrowing “facts” from ‘Truth About Duke’ about Duke boosters and now I have a guy giving Duke a National Title in 1999.
Please…please…please, let’s keep the facts straight in this debate. It’s not that hard.
The basic argument here is…should the NCAA have a blanket rule that states, all schools should have to vacate wins if it is learned that a player is ineligible (either by taking money prior to attending school and/or cheating on grades/tests), no matter what the situation, no matter how vigilant the school was in investigation the player prior to his arrival?
If that’s your argument, then that’s a legit argument. It’s not one I agree with, but I understand it and I can appreciate it. It certainly would make things more simple.
If you believe in a blanket rule/punishment…do you believe there can never be a case-by-case difference?
Meaning, would the NCAA have the right to hand down a more damaging punishment if they learned a coach new about the money/cheating, but still brought the kid in?
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 11:13 amIn handling the Memphis situation, the NCAA asked one question…was Rose ineligible? The answer was “yes, the ETS vacated his test. At that point, the NCAA ended its analysis, refused to listen to any other arguments, and vacated all the wins based SOLELY on the fact that ETS vacated the score.
They did not examine why ETS vacated the score (simply because Rose refused to answer ETS’s requests for more info).
They did not determine that Memphis knew or even should have known that there was a problem with the SAT score.
On page 14 of its report, the NCAA states,
“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.
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.”
The did not examine whether or not Rose cheated on the test. In fact, they even dropped the allegation that he had engaged in unethical conduct.
They simply based their decision on ETS’s invalidation of the score, meaning Memphis used an ineligible player (even unknowingly), and required it to vacate the wins. The same rule applied to Kansas and Duke would have required them to vacate their wins. For whatever reason, the NCAA has chosen to apply this rule only to Memphis and not the other two.
Comment by cataholic August 25, 2009 @ 11:29 amDo you people simply not read the actual post?
No, we read the ACTUAL REPORT. The NCAA didn’t even look for any dots connecting Wes, Cal, or Rose to the situation. That is the entire point. IT IS IRRELEVANT.
Here is an actual statement from a committee member to Memphis legal counsel that should, if you are in any way a logical person, make you admit your stance is completely wrong under the facts:
Question: Since there was no knowledge the player was ineligible and cleared, why is the school held accountable?
Dee: The matter of initial eligible has strict liability. If student athlete had been a professional but the school didn’t know, the student athlete is still ineligible.
See also:
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: At the time he was admitted on the score that was provided at the time, is that your question? Was he eligible, in looking backwards, whether he was eligible or not?
COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes. He didn’t have the score.
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: We have acknowledged that.
COMMITTEE MEMBER: You have acknowledged that he was ineligible.
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, and we have to address that, based on the after-the-fact information.
COMMITTEE MEMBER: It doesn’t matter.
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: I understand, but that is the basis. We don’t believe — we do believe that the university proceeded appropriately based on the information that it had at the time in allowing him to play.
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.
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Okay.
COMMITTEE MEMBER: I am not saying they cheated. I am saying this young man was not eligible to participate.
Comment by Vince August 25, 2009 @ 11:42 amVince-
According to Paul Dee, Memphis first learned of Rose’s questionable test scores midway through his freshman year. They found out during the season that there might be a problem and according to the NCAA, did nothing to investigate. In fact, they didn’t even tell Calipari.
FROM ESPN:
“Paul Dee, the chairman for the committee on infractions, said in a teleconference that even though Memphis was not aware of Rose’s questionable test score until midway through his freshman year, once the score was invalidated by Educational Testing Service, Rose no longer met the initial eligibility standards.
“This is a situation of strict liability,” Dee said. “If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”
Calipari was not penalized because he was never included in the original notice of allegations, Dee said. But Dee did stress that vacating the record books carries with it an implied punishment.”
Now if Coach K learned that Maggette had taken cash prior to coming to Duke and did nothing about it, then these two issues would be the same.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 12:01 pmIn the ESPN article http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=4412279&type=story, which I believe is where you are getting the quotes from Paul, it never mentions anything about this statement “They found out during the season that there might be a problem and according to the NCAA, did nothing to investigate. In fact, they didn’t even tell Calipari.” Do you have a link to that quote? Also, from what I have read elsewhere, is that Rose, not the university, was the first person to be contacted by a letter sent to his home in April, while his was at the final four. There is nothing that Memphis or Calipari could have done to prevent this. But your argument that Memphis knew he was ineligible before April is wrong. I do not believe Paul Dee meant that Memphis knew before the fact by saying “If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”, he is simply stating the fact that he was ineligble, regardless of who knew when. If you have a link to an article that says Memphis was notified of issues with Rose while he was playing games, I would like to see a link to it. If you can’t, then the Rose and Maggetti situations are identical. Both did things before being enrolled at school that made them ineligible.
Now having said all of that, I do not believe either Duke nor Memphis should have to forfeit games since there is nothing they could have done to prevent it.
Comment by Troy August 25, 2009 @ 3:18 pmWell just to make a response……tennessee football player (Bryce Brown) #1 overall player in his class accepted money through a fundraiser to allow him to take visits to schools in his sophmore year. This was done previously before ever enrolling into a college and yet if this was determined after this season was i over i guarentee you that the University of Tenneessee would have to vacate all of thier wins. But since it was found out prior to the start of the season they have suspended him 2 games. Now tell me do you think its fair that he was suspended for 2 games or do you think it shouldnt matter since the coaches and university have nor had any ties to his handler? This is similar to Maggete and thus should be punishable. Do i agree with the punishment? NO but it is the rules and the NCAA was being very selective towards DUKE and Coach K.
Comment by tomtom August 25, 2009 @ 12:13 pmGreat question/point TomTom.
I do agree this is a better comparison to the Maggette situation.
Having said that and only knowing what you’ve told me, I would say ‘yes’ the two-game suspension is fair. If the NCAA had learned that Maggette had taken money prior to playing his first game at Duke, then he would have been suspended as well. In fact, because the dollar amount was bigger (I think), Corey probably would have been suspended longer.
Do you really not believe this would have happened? Or are you so convinced that the NCAA’s man crush on Duke/Coach K would have prevented that?
We don’t know for sure if UT would have had to vacate their wins if we learned all this after the fact. It’s hard to determine because people have been throwing up ‘red flags’ around Brown since he was committed to Miami. In fact, the Brown recruiting saga may bring us into a whole new era of recruiting and rules regulating it.
Having said that though, if there was no prior knowledge that Brown took money and then after the season was over the NCAA learned of it, cleared UT of any wrongdoing, but still vacate their wins, then yes…it would be wrong and hypocritical.
Good luck against Florida this year.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 12:33 pmYou are missing one main point in your arguement. The rules state that the athalete also has the burden of maintaining his/her amatuer status.
Did Maggette know that taking money from Piggie was wrong and may cost him his amatuer status?
I bet he did. He was going to Duke afterall. He must have been smart.
This is why the NCAA has no credibility when it comes to enforcement. When you throw out terms like “strict Liability” in one instance and then turn around and say there was “insufficient evidence” in another instance how can they be taken seriously.
Comment by Hammer August 25, 2009 @ 1:07 pmTo me, the Camby/UMASS situation is more similar to the Maggette situation than the recent Memphis case.
Both players accepted cash and/or other gifts that made them ineligible. With Camby it happened late in his UMASS career, with Maggette it happened before he ever came to Duke.
When the payments were received, both players immediately became ineligible. Neither UMASS or Duke had knowledge of the ineligibility until after the player in question had left.
UMASS had to forfeit their wins and vacate their Final Four appearance.
Comment by BearcatBill August 25, 2009 @ 12:53 pmDuke was not punished at all. Is that fair?
Actually no. I refuse to believe that you are an idiot, but I guarantee you have not read the actual report. Again, here is the quote that COMPLETELY blows up your argument.
Question: Since there was no knowledge the player was ineligible and cleared, why is the school held accountable?
Dee: The matter of initial eligible has strict liability. If student athlete had been a professional but the school didn’t know, the student athlete is still ineligible.
That’s it. Settles it.
Comment by Vince August 25, 2009 @ 12:56 pmIf you truly believe there is no difference between what a player does prior to college and what a player does while on campus…then I agree…no, it’s not fair.
Again, I see a difference. Like I said, unless the NCAA can prove that a coach or university knew of the eligibility issues prior the kid coming to the school, then I don’t think the school should be punished.
The great irony is…none of it really matters. Is everyone really going to not remember that Kansas beat Memphis in the Title game or that UMass was in the Final Four. Those things happened, I got the DVD’s to prove it.
I don’t think the schools care about the stupid banners. What they do care about is the lose of money. For a program like Memphis, every dollar matters.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 1:00 pmYes Vince…that settles it. You sure showed me.
I guess we’ll just pretend that Paul Dee never said this:
““This is a situation of strict liability. If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”
Nope. Never happened.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 1:07 pmMaggette accepted money before he went to Duke. That voids his amateur status and thus making him ineligible to play college sports. Those are NCAA rules. I’m fine with Duke not knowing of Maggette’s acceptance of money and personally do not think they should be punished for it. However, other institutions have been punished for ineligible players (i.e. Memphis) so why does Duke get a pass? Whether they knew about it or not means nothing. The fact is they played an ineligible player and their wins from that season were not vacated. Now, if the NCAA wants to do the right thing they’ll just over-turn their rulings on the punishments they’ve dished out to other institutions for similar violations and then nobody will have a reason to be upset at the Maggette issue. Either that or punish Duke like everyone else. It doesn’t matter that it happened 10 years ago. The NCAA always conveniently finds out afterwards and punishes the school anyway. This situation is no different.
Comment by Maggette's Money August 25, 2009 @ 1:35 pmHow does it prove my point? One team found out about the problem five years later…the other found out during the freaking season. You don’t see a difference in that?
I know what you want to be true. You’re saying, if a player is deemed ineligible, whether it’s during the season or 20 years later, then the team should forfeit those wins.
However, that’s not the RULE now. If there was a blanket rule that states, all schools must vacate wins if at a later date is proven to be ineligible, then yes, you’re right.
Fair or unfair though, that is NOT the rule…according to the NCAA. Finding out a player is ineligible later does not automatically mean they punish the school…no matter how many comments you leave on this site.
If you are stating that it should be the same punishment no matter what the situation, then that’s fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree on what the rule SHOULD be, but the way the rule is written, not all situations are alike.
The NCAA looks at each case differently. In this case, Memphis was informed prior to playing in the Final Four that one of their players might be ineligible. They decided that Memphis did not take the proper steps in dealing with this matter. Again, you can disagree with their conclusion, but it doesn’t change the rule.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 1:38 pmIt doesnt matter when they found out, Maggette took money before going to Duke. He was ineligible when he walked on campus.
Maggette knew that he took the money. It doesnt matter if the University did.
The player bears responsibility for his amatuer status as well as the University.
Comment by Hammer August 25, 2009 @ 1:47 pmFurther, Memphis did not find out during the season that he was ineligible. If you are trying to lay out differences, you should at least read the official ruling to see the facts. Second the committee very clearly stated Memphis’s knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant.
That is the problem with the “strict liability” standard. Bill Walton admitted in a book that he took money from Sam Gilbert while playing basketball at UCLA. Therefore, he was ineligible, and under the rational used by the NCAA any games played on or after the date Walton accepted money should be forfeited.
Comment by Vince August 25, 2009 @ 2:46 pmNow Maggette’s Money’s argument, that’s one I can agree on.
Remember, this post was never about proving Memphis deserved punishment and Duke didn’t. In Parrish’s original story, he said there was NO difference between the two situations.
I believe I have proven that wrong. In fact, there are lot of differences, although the one underlying theme with both is…the simple fact they both made themselves ineligible. I’m not questioning that.
Now if you feel like ineligible is ineligible, no matter what the circumstances, and all punishment’s should be the exact same, then I would say that’s a fair and legit argument.
However, I have been consistent in my opposition to that. In fact, I have stated that if the NCAA cannot prove that Memphis knowingly played an ineligible player, then Memphis should not be punished.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 1:50 pmHammer, buddy…old pal.
I hear ya. I’m not saying I don’t agree with you…but according to the NCAA, it does matter some “if the University did (know it).”
This isn’t a new thing. In fact schools (not just Duke with Maggette) often don’t get punished for what student athletes did prior to attending the University, as long as the NCAA feels like the school has shown a level of “CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT” over the situation.
I understand…you don’t agree with the rule. In your eyes, an ineligible player is an ineligible player, it doesn’t matter when and how we found out. I get it. I’m just saying, the NCAA rules are not written that way. That’s why Maggette didn’t cost Duke anything, that’s why Arthur didn’t hurt Kansas.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 1:58 pmAs I understand it, the committee said they had “insufficient evidence” that Maggette would have known he had lost his eligibility by taking the money. Therefore they would not punish Duke even though he admitted in court to taking the money.
He just didnt know any better. (convenient)
Now, in the Memphis situation there still is no evidence of cheating or anyone at the University was involved in cheating but they have lost the season and FF appearance.
If that is not a double standard I dont know what constitutes one.
Comment by Hammer August 25, 2009 @ 2:27 pmHow are the rules not written that way? The committee states the rule as such in it’s official finding in the Memphis case. Everything you are saying is in direct contrast to what I posted. What I posted was stated by a committee member responsible for applying the rules.
Yes, your interpretation of the rules makes sense, and I agree with you on that. However, your interpretation is NOT the current NCAA rule. The current rule, as stated by Paul Dees, is “strict liability” for initial eligibility issues. He clearly states, that the fact Memphis did not know Rose was ineligible is IRRELEVANT. Under the NCAA’s analysis in the ruling, this is a 100% factually similar situation to the Magette case. If you dig deeper, of course the situations are not 100% the same. However, the NCAA did not dig deeper. Here is the situation in hypothetical form of how the NCAA applied the ruling.
Player X is cleared by clearing house to play for School X during season X.
School X finishes the season as NCAA runner up for season X during the year Player X played.
Subsequent to the season the player X is deemed ineligible.
School X is forced to forfeit all games from season X for using an ineligible player.
Comment by Vince August 25, 2009 @ 2:41 pmI am saying the rules are written for interpretation. The NCAA interpretes them however they want depending on who they are dealing with.
That is what leads to the fairness question in giving out sanctions.
If they thought Maggette was too stupid to know that taking money from an AAU coach was not wrong. Is it such a leap to think that the Memphis had done nothing wrong when there has never been proven that he actually didnt take the test?
Comment by Hammer August 25, 2009 @ 2:37 pmUsually if there is one flaw in an article, there are more. Rose had taken the ACT 3 times then took an entirely different test, the SAT in Michigan. The tests are scored differently. Also, the test was invalidated because Rose failed to respond to their ETS questions. Finally, according to the NCAA Rose was notified about the ETS issues March 16 and again at a later date BEFORE the test was invalidated. I have seen absolutely no doccumentation that Memphis was notified or that the test was invalidated prior to the NCAA Final Four.
Comment by Jonathan August 25, 2009 @ 2:40 pmCorrect me if I am wrong.
Hammer, you wrote:
“As I understand it, the committee said they had “insufficient evidence” that Maggette would have known he had lost his eligibility by taking the money.”
I’ll be honest, I don’t recall that, but it’s been a while since I read those findings. However, if that is true…I would say that’s some pretty shady wiggle room.
Convenient? Sure. Can it be proven? Unlikely. Personally, I would agree with you. Even at a young age, he should know that taking that money was wrong.
However, the difference with Memphis was simple…they were informed while Rose was still playing…and didn’t investigate.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 2:42 pmVince, Hammer answered the question for you…
“As I understand it, the committee said they had “insufficient evidence” that Maggette would have known he had lost his eligibility by taking the money. Therefore they would not punish Duke even though he admitted in court to taking the money.”
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 2:44 pmOhmygaush. I don’t care how he understands it. It is not how the NCAA applies the rule according to their own words. Again, I personally think this is VERY VERY VERY stupid, but that is the rule.
I understand you are a Duke fan, but you need to step back here. I’m not saying Duke should get in trouble, and I’m not saying Memphis shouldn’t get in trouble. I’m just saying that the NCAA examined two situations that, under the facts AS ANALYZED BY THEM, are 100% factually similar and they ruled two different ways.
Take from that what you want, but that is absolutely 100% what happened.
Comment by Vince August 25, 2009 @ 2:51 pmJonathon-
I read that here:
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 2:46 pmhttp://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4412279
Informed of what? That something may have happened that has never been proven to have happened.
In your arguement you keep dancing around the fact that this happened while Rose was still at Memphis.
If that was important then why doesnt Memphis get to keep the first eight games that he played?
From what I know of the case, this was not an issue until the season had already started and they had played eight games before the NCAA alerted them of the allegations.
Comment by Hammer August 25, 2009 @ 2:57 pmAgain, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this baby. I see differences between the two situations. If you want to call it bias because I’m a Duke fan, I can live with that. The blog is called, “Big Duke Balls” for a reason.
However, as a person who often criticizes the team and Coach K in the past on this blog…I believe I’m quite good at seeing things clearly…which is why I’ve also stated from the beginning that the Memphis punishment is wrong.
My issue with the NCAA and the reasons why I don’t think Memphis should be punished is when they use the term ‘strict liability’.
I can’t recall anytime before where they have used that term. I DO thin they’re splitting hairs.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 3:02 pmI can’t answer that question for you. I can only go by what Paul Dee says. If what Dee is saying is false, then I certainly walk that point back, but it doesn’t change my original argument.
You’ve said it yourself…the NCAA cleared Maggette because he says he didn’t know taking that money was wrong. It doesn’t matter if both you and I agree that that’s probably B.S.
What matters is that little thin line makes all the difference in the world, at least according to the NCAA. That bit of information, along with other small details were left out of Parrish’s article and that’s my whole point.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 3:08 pmHey Troy-
Here is the actual quote from the ESPN article:
Paul Dee, the chairman for the committee on infractions, said in a teleconference that even though Memphis was not aware of Rose’s questionable test score until midway through his freshman year, once the score was invalidated by Educational Testing Service, Rose no longer met the initial eligibility standards.
“This is a situation of strict liability,” Dee said. “If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”
Calipari was not penalized because he was never included in the original notice of allegations, Dee said. But Dee did stress that vacating the record books carries with it an implied punishment.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 3:22 pmThe issue I DO have with Dee quote is that he’s saying one thing and then another…this is where Hammer has issues.
Dee is basically saying, because of “strict liability” as soon as the ETS erased the SAT results, Rose was ineligible, thus Memphis loses its games. That’s it. That’s basically what the report says too.
However, Dee goes on to ask, “Did (Rose) play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”
Too me, that’s huge and a game changer if true. However, both Hammer and Vince (who have been commenting on this) are right…the NCAA didn’t use that against them.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 3:26 pmYou are misstating Dee’s statement.
In the complete context it is apparent Dees meant after being ineligible, meaning after taking the test. Stupid comment.
Second, Memphis was not informed of ineligibility until after the season. The score was “flagged” during the season. Memphis compliance and legal counsel looked into and declared him good to go. Clearinghouse has to agree to that. (Rose was informed score was invalidated after the elite 8 by “constructive receipt”. Letter sent to mom’s house. Still, nothing sent to Memphis, which is VERY STUPID.)
Comment by Tom August 25, 2009 @ 3:52 pmBTW, Tom is actually “Vince” since you have apparently disabled any posts from me. Pretty shallow if you really did that.
Comment by Tom August 25, 2009 @ 3:57 pmThanks Tom for the info-
I’m not sure I’m “misstating” Dee since I just posted that section of the ESPN article in full.
He says, “Memphis was not aware of Rose’s questionable test score until midway through his freshman year.”
I have never heard about the letter going JUST to Rose’s mom. If this is indeed true and Memphis really wasn’t ever made aware of it prior to the end of the season, then I would agree…that’s important.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 3:59 pmTom (Vince)-
I’m happy to have you here. I love debate and trust me, I’ve been proven wrong often in my life and on this site. However, I drawl the line when commentators want to throw insults my way. I have better things to do with my time…although you wouldn’t know that from this chat.
Comment by robioland August 25, 2009 @ 4:03 pm“This is a situation of strict liability,” Dee said. “If he is ineligible and does not meet initial requirements, the penalties are related back to that time and a determination is then made: Did he play in any contests after the fact? In this case, he did.”
That is the completed quote. It is clear when looked at this way that “related back” means eligibility. As in his test score rendered him ineligible and therefore it “relates back” to then.
Comment by Tom August 25, 2009 @ 4:07 pmNice content indeed! i will visit as often as i can.
cheers
Comment by migraine solution September 19, 2009 @ 1:02 am[...] with respect to Rose’s test (allegations of high school grade changes; the test-taking venue change to Detroit; the handwriting analysis), but nothing so apparent that the NCAA could hang its lily-white hat [...]
Pingback by Rush The Court » Blog Archive » Revised Itinerary: Memphis Vacations During Entire 2008 Season March 22, 2010 @ 3:57 pmI’m struck with the notion that this is the key committee quote:
Comment by Michael Procton March 30, 2010 @ 8:41 pm“I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact.”