Blog Entry

The NCAA is so hypocritical

Posted on: August 20, 2009 8:55 am
 
So the NCAA is about to vacate Memphis' Final Four from 2008, presumably because -- while he was in high school -- 2008 Memphis star Derrick Rose used a fraudulent test score to get into college in the first place.

Fine.

But what about the program that made it to a Final Four with a player who, the NCAA later found out, had accepted more than $2,000 from his AAU coach while still in high school? That player also should have been ineligible. That school also should have vacated the Final Four.

But that player was Corey Maggette. And that team was Duke. The year was 1999.

So nothing happened. To anyone. To this day. Nothing has happened, and it never will.

My point? My point is that the NCAA, even with as much progress as it has made under Myles Brand, still uses selective justice when crashing down onto various schools or coaches. Then-Memphis coach John Calipari is on the NCAA's hit list, and so the NCAA ostensibly holds him responsible for Marcus Camby's dalliance with an agent in 1995, and for whatever Derrick Rose did while he was in high school hundreds of miles away in Chicago.

But Mike Krzyzewski is not on the NCAA's hit list, so Maggette is fine, Duke is fine, 1999 is fine, the world is a happy place full of seashells and balloons.

Forgive me if I vomit up a conch.

I said conch.
Category: NCAAB
Comments

Since: Aug 20, 2009
Posted on: August 29, 2009 2:42 pm
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

We'll probably never see a retraction or correction or a mea culpa from Mr. Doyle...so I'll set the record straight.

So the NCAA is about to vacate Memphis' Final Four from 2008, presumably because -- while he was in high school -- 2008 Memphis star Derrick Rose used a fraudulent test score to get into college in the first place.

Fine.

Not fine, Gregg.  The NCAA is penalizing Memphis not because Rose used a fraudulent test score to get into college.  The NCAA is penalizing Memphis because they didn't comply with the NCAA bylaws and played an ineligible player.  The NCAA isn't taking a stand on whether Rose cheated or not.  They're taking a stand on Memphis's failure to comply with their obligation to suspend a player suspected of being ineligible.  Memphis rolled the dice and didn't suspend Rose.  The NCAA's Student-Athlete Reinstatement team was never asked to affirm Rose's eligibility, which is what should have happened before he played another game that season.  Instead, Memphis risked their season, and when Rose's test score was canceled by the ETS, it was as if Rose should never have been enrolled and was thus render ineligible.  Had Memphis suspended Rose and then appealed to the NCAA to reinstate him, they wouldn't be in this mess.

But what about the program that made it to a Final Four with a player who, the NCAA later found out, had accepted more than $2,000 from his AAU coach while still in high school? That player also should have been ineligible. That school also should have vacated the Final Four.

No.  Different situation, Gregg. 

For one, Rose's ineligibility was due to an academic issue in which he was unqualified for admissions.  Maggette would have been ineligibility due to compromise of amateur status.  The latter can be rectified to the satisfaction of the NCAA's Student-Athlete Reinstatement committee's satisfaction and they can rule the player eligible again after the player serves a penalty suspension and corrects what compromised his amateurism by paying back the value of what ever benefit it was he received.  Or, they can even rule that no ineligible conduct occurred and simply restore the player without penalty.   I don't know how you correct a missing test score.  You can't suddenly make someone academically eligible by suspending him for a few games and issuing a fine.  So I don't know what the SAR would have done, but if the NCAA had cleared Rose back in November and he'd wound up ineligible, NCAA would be able to punish Memphis because Memphis would have done all that it was supposed to do.

Which leads us to the 2nd point: Memphis was alerted to the allegation at the start of the season and had a responsibility, as a member NCAA institution, to comply with and enforce NCAA rules.  They didn't.  That's what the NCAA Committee on Infractions is punishing Memphis for.  On the other hand, Duke never had the opportunity to act and comply with the NCAA's rules.  They didn't learn about the allegation of their player until the player had already left.  Huge difference, Gregg.

But that player was Corey Maggette. And that team was Duke. The year was 1999.

So nothing happened. To anyone. To this day. Nothing has happened, and it never will.

Right. And nothing happened to Oklahoma St either when the player was Andre Williams.  And nothing happened to Missouri when the player was Kareem Rush.  And nothing happened to Michigan either when the player was Jamal Crawford.  And nothing happened to Cincinnati when the player was DerMarr Johnson.  And nothing happened to Temple when the player was Kevin Lyde.  And nothing happened to St. John's when the player was Erick Barkley.  You didn't point any of those out.  You chose to fixate on Duke, as if they got special treatment.  Why?

Something did happen to UCLA when the player was JaRon Rush, but there was something different about that.  JaRon also took money while at UCLA from an agent.  Something happened to Arizona when the player was Jason Terry, but Jason Terry too money from an agent too while in college.  Same with Marcus Camby and UMass...and Connecticut with Kirk King and Ricky Moore.

But in Duke's case, the NCAA acted consistently with a player who was ineligible for reasons that occurred before becoming involved with the college, and the institution was unpenalized as long as they acted appropriately and weren't culpable in the player's loss of eligibility.  The only difference for Duke was that Maggette escaped suspension because he left before the problem came to light.  In all the other cases, the player's eligibility was restored.  Player suspension and eligibility restoration is the NCAA dealing with the player, not the school.  Those aren't school sanctions.  So why should Duke be singled out and penalized.  Penalizing Duke would be the inconsistent ruling here.

Memphis is different.  Memphis, unlike UCLA, Michigan, Temple, St. John's, Cincinatti, Missouri and Oklahoma St. didn't suspend their player and petition the NCAA for reinstatement.  That's what they should have done.  They didn't and risked their season.  It's come back to haunt them now.  

My point? My point is that the NCAA, even with as much progress as it has made under Myles Brand, still uses selective justice when crashing down onto various schools or coaches. Then-Memphis coach John Calipari is on the NCAA's hit list, and so the NCAA ostensibly holds him responsible for Marcus Camby's dalliance with an agent in 1995, and for whatever Derrick Rose did while he was in high school hundreds of miles away in Chicago.

But Mike Krzyzewski is not on the NCAA's hit list, so Maggette is fine, Duke is fine, 1999 is fine, the world is a happy place full of seashells and balloons.

Forgive me if I vomit up a conch.
Context does influence the judges, and it's true that Memphis and Calipari were on a sort of double-secret probation while Duke was not.  But your point is wrong...and your spite about being dissed by Coach K is showing.





Since: Aug 20, 2009
Posted on: August 28, 2009 8:31 am
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

5. UMass played an ineligible player who never had his eligibility reinstated.  Duke did not play an ineligible player. Delete that one.  Can't make that claim.



Since: Aug 20, 2009
Posted on: August 27, 2009 10:48 am
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

At UMass, Marcus Camby took money from an agent. UMass forfeited the Final Four appearance. ... Camby took money, Maggette took money. One school lost out on a Final Four, the other did not. That's just weird. Weird that UMass was penalized?  Or weird that Duke hasn't been?

The NCAA has acknowledged the following distinctions between the two beyond the simplistic "took money" similarity:

1. Camby took money while playing for an NCAA member institution.  Maggette took money while a high school player, before being recruited by the NCAA member institution. 

2. Camby took $28,000 that he knew was a violation of NCAA bylaws.  Maggette took $2000 that he thought was an allowable reimbursement for expenses while traveling with is AAU team.

3. Camby took money from a (actually two) sports agent(s) which he knew was not allowed.  Maggette took money from his AAU coach which he thought was allowed if it for expenses.

4. The NCAA ruled Camby had violated his amateur status rendering him ineligible.  The NCAA never ruled that Maggette had violated his amateur status for the mitigating reasons stated above, and so was never deemed ineligible.

5. UMass played an ineligible player who never had his eligibility reinstated.  Duke did not play an ineligible player.

6. UMass forfeited its 1996 Final Four appearance as a sanction for having played an ineligible player.  Duke has received no sanction since it has not been ruled to have played an ineligible player.

You may take issue with the way the NCAA holds an institution "strictly liable" in a case like Camby's or where it draws the line between the situations UMass and Duke found themselves in, but it is explicable if not agreeable.  It's not weird.  Even in UMass's case, there were valid arguments for why the NCAA shouldn't punish UMass.  If that's true, then going even further beyond the Reasonable Man Theory to punish Duke would only make it worse, not more fair.  It's not weird.  It's only weird (or appears to be inconsistent) if you look at it superficially and ignore the key differences. 






Since: Aug 20, 2009
Posted on: August 25, 2009 10:59 pm
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

How about this Kansas series of transgressions:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket

ball/news?slug=kansasncaaviolations&prov=
st&type=lgns
Punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. 
NCAA LEGISLATION

12.1.1 Amateur Status. An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual:

(a) Uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport;

(b) Accepts a promise of pay even if such pay is to be received following completion of intercollegiate athletics participation;

(c) Signs a contract or commitment of any kind to play professional athletics, regardless of its legal enforceability or any consideration received;

(d) Receives, directly or indirectly, a salary, reimbursement of expenses or any other form of financial assistance from a professional sports organization based upon athletics skill or participation, except as permitted by NCAA rules and regulations;

(e) Competes on any professional athletics team (per Bylaw 12.02.4), even if no pay or remuneration for expenses was received;

(f) Subsequent to initial full-time collegiate enrollment, enters into a professional draft (see also Bylaw 12.2.4.2.1); or

(g) Enters into an agreement with an agent.





Since: Aug 20, 2009
Posted on: August 25, 2009 10:48 pm
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

Are you serious? At UMass, Marcus Camby took money from an agent. UMass forfeited the Final Four appearance. Do you think a head coach would allow this to happen with their knowing? Calipari was not held accountable, I repeat, not held accountable. Camby took money, Maggette took money. One school lost out on a Final Four, the other did not. That's just weird.



Since: Aug 20, 2009
Posted on: August 25, 2009 10:28 pm
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

How do you explain the Fab Five then? It took years for this all to come to a head. It doesn't matter when they cheated, just that they did. Typical Dukie response. It's always someone else's fault. They would never break any rules. They'd never arrange housing, vehicles,  and over paid jobs for player's parents either. Yeah, right.



Since: Jan 30, 2008
Posted on: August 24, 2009 6:17 pm
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

Wow, two totally different scenarios.  Look at all the Duke HATERS.  For one, having someone else take your SAT and for Memphis to allow it into the school is alot different than the Maggette situation.  Second, this is the second time Calipari has been apart of something deceptive.  Maybe THATS the reason the NCAA is punishing Memphis.  I love how everyone just points at Duke and cries.   You think when Plaxico Burress pleaded for two years he said "Judge Micheal Vick only got 18 months, and Stallworth only got 45 days and he killed someone!"   Once again DIFFERENT situations.  



Since: Dec 21, 2006
Posted on: August 24, 2009 2:37 pm
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

Honestly, I think the parents getting jobs deal happens at every major program.  Obviously it happened at Carolina and Duke, and Memphis hired Dajuan Wagner's dad as an assistant coach for one year while he played there.  Really, to some degree, every program has some discretions, but I think as long as the major programs aren't blatant about it and don't put themselves in a position where fans are seeing repeat violations all the time, the NCAA isn't going to bother them.  Everybody loves to hate Duke, even me sometimes, but that program isn't nearly as dirty as people make it out to be.  Coach K has proven time and again that he is an excellent coach, and for the last few years, he has done it with kind of sub-par talent.  You can't say that he's violating a lot of recruiting rules, because he doesn't get those Memphis/Kentucky John Calipari recruiting classes.  I'm looking forward to another good campaign for the Devils and Heels, and won't even be thinking about this stuff when the season fires up.  College basketball is simply at it's best when those two programs are playing at a high level. 



Since: Apr 20, 2008
Posted on: August 24, 2009 8:48 am
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

I have another point on this one!   What about UNC hiring Tyler's mom? The job was to raise funds for the dental school at UNC. Might not be a violation of any sorts, but how is a high paying job any diffrent than a new car provided by the school, or a 2,000 check. 

http://www.tarheeltimes.com/article

15292.aspx


link to the story!



Since: Apr 20, 2008
Posted on: August 24, 2009 8:33 am
 

The NCAA is so hypocritical

Yes Sir!  Great post!


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com