This article by Jerry Tipton has provoked outrage on several of the UK fan sites. Of course, Tipton predictably finds ways to outrage many in the Big Blue Nation.
After having read the piece, there is relatively little controversial about it except for this one paragraph:
The NCAA ordered Calipari's Memphis team to vacate its 2008 Final Four appearance, in part, because star guard Derrick Rose was judged to have cheated on an entrance exam. Memphis is appealing the ruling.
I hate to nit-pick Jerry, but this is factually erroneous. Derrick Rose has never been "...judged to have cheated..." on an entrance exam. The NCAA ruling explicitly rejects the need for them to reach any conclusion about Rose's behavior, instead deferring to the Educational Testing Service, which canceled the exam.
But ETS did not cancel it because they "...judged [Rose] to have cheated ..." They canceled it because they found some discrepancies that ETS could not adequately explain, but which in isolation were not sufficient to make a judgment that Rose cheated.
ETS asked Rose to answer some questions about the discrepancies by mail, but Rose failed to respond. Based on Rose's failure to respond to their queries, the ETS cancelled Rose's qualifying SAT score, and on that basis alone, the NCAA declared him ineligible for the entire 2006-07 season. On the basis of alleged "gifts" to his brother, they declared Rose ineligible for most of the 2006-07 season.
For the record, here is the relevant part of the NCAA's finding in the Memphis investigation:
In its response to the allegation that student-athlete 1 engaged in unethical conduct through his knowing involvement in the fraudulent completion of his SAT, the institution wrote the following:The only evidence known to the Institution suggesting that (student-athlete 1) did not take the May 5, 2007, SAT is that provided by (the) forensic document examiner retained by the NCAA. Even (the forensic document examiner) does not conclude definitively that (student-athlete 1) did not take the exam. She wrote only that (student-athlete 1) "probably (emphasis added) did not write the questioned hand printing or cursive writing" on the exam form. …This is not sufficient evidence for the Institution to conclude that student-athlete 1 knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct related to the exam.
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.
Poor Jerry, he must feel like he's in that Geico commercial with the eyeballs -- only instead of being on a stack of money, they're on top of a big UK logo.