scores, they were not actually invalidated until after the season…..

The scores were cancelled in May, after the tournament.

“Tish, that’s French!”

Sorry, ABC, that was the first thing I thought of with regard to your “French” comment.

Link

Dozier never admitted anything.

His test was statistically invalid and a faculty member from the high school questioned it.

I’m sure Calipari is at fault there too…….

Correct me if I am wrong but the Sidney situation is about his amateur status and not score.

Regardless, my viewpoint is that if you play with a player that is deemed invalid, whether before, during or after the season, you should be forced to forfeit all games the player played in. Michigan had to do it, UMass had to do it, and if it comes to light that Sidney misled Miss St and the NCAA, then the Bulldogs will have to do it.

Harsh world but I think it will make coaches think twice about taking chances.

And Duke should have to do it too.

There is no statistically improbable change. If so, ETS would have invalidated it on the strength of Ms. Harmless’ testimony. They require two items of proof to invalidate a test.

In fact, the NCAA said that they never reached the question of Rose’s alleged fraud. It was not a factor in their decision, according to the NCAA themselves.

The problem with your argument is that it utterly ignores mine. The moral imperative behind invalidating wins is fair play, and writing a wrong. The NCAA cannot reach that moral imperative with the facts it considered. It would be like sending someone to prison for contraband found in a house they had bought but had not yet entered — the equities do not balance.

… of a test score improving more than a certain amount diminishes the greater the improvement. Once that probability is outside of a threshold that ETS establishes, it is invalidated.

… here is the thing. The ETS did their part in the investigation. We really don’t know if Rose stalled or ignored the ETS, we just know that he didn’t respond timely. An explanation has been offered by the Rose camp, which is what it is.

The problem is that Rose was not required to respond to the ETS. They decided, presumably based on their procedures, that his failure to do so justified invalidating his exam. What we don’t know is why, or what procedure was used to reach that conclusion.

But at the end of the day, the NCAA has a duty, as we all do, to balance the equities. There was no conclusion that Rose cheated. Therefore, there was no possibility of concluding that justice would be served by invalidating the wins, since without cheating, invalidation lacks the moral imperative.

Did Rose obstruct an investigation? Maybe, but also maybe not. Before we conclude obstruction, we should do what the legal system does — presume innocence until guilt is established. Clearly, there has been no obstruction established, just as there has been no cheating established. Therefore, even under the rubric of obstruction, the NCAA lacks a moral imperative.

At the end of the day, the NCAA reached neither Rose’s alleged fraud nor his obstruction. They merely considered the fact of the test invalidation as the only determining factor. Given the seeming necessity for a moral imperative to validate the NCAA action, that would seem wrong.

Right on nocode! Alan Cutler quote from KSR:

ASK yourself this question, what coach would not have taken Derrick Rose? even Pat Forde’s dad….Rick Pitino would have taken him

can we get a vote….? There is a motion on the floor that the NCAA is corrupt…..is there any discussion?……lol

I doubt it’d be a topic of much discussion at all.

There’d be a fanshot or two, but we don’t spend all day talking about the comings and goings of other coaches here generally. (Unless they used to coach for us that is…)

by the hordes of people intimating that Cal and Kentucky either already have engaged in some wrongdoing or are certain to in the future.

They are the governing body of their membership.

The fact that Rose did not address the allegations did not figure in to the calculus of the NCAA according to their spokesman. The sole criteria they used was the invalid test.

I addressed this at length upthread, I guess you missed it. The fact of his failure to address those letters, whether by accident or on purpose are irrelevant.

Everyone is assuming that Coach can tell these kids what to do. I don’t think so, especially if it’s not in their best interest.

Tru; I know you have your hands full,Just hold your ground and someone will bring your lunch to you.

I believe the NCAA cleared him based on the score, and likely pending on ‘authorization’ that comes later. He failed the authorization, so to speak.

It’s just like when the ‘female’ athlete from South Africa recently won the 100m in track. She was declared the winner, but will certainly forfeit if the gender tests come back negative.

Have anything to do with the price of eggs in China?

( shouted into a phone during a conversation between Mike DeCoursey and the NCAA while jumping up and down wildly during his investigation of the ETS situation)

The NCAA will not admit they were wrong…..EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They cannot afford it. It would burst the bubble….

Rose took the ACT three times in Chicago and did not make the required score to be eligible.

Rose took the SAT in Detroit and made over the minimum score to become eligible. You cannot use statistical probability to compare the results of two different tests. Thus the ETS only had one point of contention and that was the handwriting analysis. The test was invalidated because Rose did not respond to ETS’ request for comment on the handwriting analysis. The score obtained had nothing to do with the investigation.

My question is who brought up the question of who took the test? I’m sure Ms. Harmless didn’t decide to approach the ETS based upon some kind of psychic experience in which an inhuman voice (think Bruce Pearl) whispered, “The handwriting is on the Wall in Memphis!”

Of course, not knowing anything about basketball recruiting, Ms. Harmless didn’t know the name John Wall. She trekked to Memphis, visited Graceland and overheard some folks from Chicago mention how great Derrick Rose was doing for Memphis. The light bulb went on over her head and the rest is…history.

Having a win vacated does not automatically increase the win total of your opponent.

that he will, however you leave way too many doors open here cocknfire, so you get the full brunt of your own conclusions.

When a player was determined to be ineligible does not matter in regards to NCAA sanctions and never has. You’re conflated when he was determined to be ineligible with when he was ineligible. Are you honestly saying that if ETS had launched and/or completed its investigation before Derrick Rose had played basketball for Memphis it would have been different? Even if the outcome was the same?

This is the core of the problem with this and every other situation that the NCAA brings up. IT SHOULD MATTER. If the NCAA had any reason to question Rose’s admittance, it should have been done in the Clearinghouse. The NCAA’s system is the one that is flawed here. Once a player is admitted by the Clearinghouse (which the NCAA operates) then they should not be able to come back after the completion of a season and say “sorry folks we goofed!” And if the Clearinghouse had not admitted Rose, I dare say that Memphis would not have been able to use him.

NCAA simply mistakenly thought he was. Rose was no more eligible than were the Alabama players who were misusing the university’s textbook program or the Florida State players who were taking part in academic fraud. They were also considered eligible by the NCAA until evidence surfaced that they were ineligible. Players involved in things are always found retroactively ineligible; otherwise, everyone would be able to get off by saying, "Well, you didn’t say I was ineligible at the time." To borrow a phrase from our legal system, a student-athlete is presumed eligible until proven ineligible.

Admissions again are handled by the NCAA’s Clearinghouse.In the other cases which you cite, the activities could not have been found out in advance. They are investigated “after the fact”. The system for admissions is created differently that the system for dealing with a violation that occurs outside the NCAA’s own direct control. And your quote of the legal system should answer your own question, there has been no proof in this case that would meet even the minimalist legal standards.

I avoided commenting on this at all out of respect. Apparently, I shouldn’t have shown such restraint. It’s worth noting here that the federal courts recognize hand-writing comparisons as legitimate evidence with which to convict someone of a crime. You’re right that it’s not much — but it’s almost all that ETS had to go on because … wait a minute, what was the reason for that? Oh, right, Derrick Rose didn’t cooperate with the investigation.

You should have stuck with your original thought here. Handwriting evidence can be used to verify if a signature or writing document are actually considered to be “consistent” with samples of a person’s own writing. They are NEVER used as the sole piece of evidence to convict someone of a crime. Ask ANY proscecutor. They may use it to get a confession out of a suspect, but it won’t hold water in a courtroom alone. And the fact that Derrick Rose has not YET cooperated in this, is one of the keys to it all. You get his information on record as to all of the facts, then make a decision. The ETS, who have a record of making mistakes in this area ( this has been verified in multiple situations, including a major motion picture) has not made their reasons, other than the handwriting expert and a scoring variation, ( which I admit fully that may be wrong, but we do not yet know that).

Now, you want to make irreverent comments about letting everyone walk, and that the teams who follow the rules are the only ones hurt here, fine. If you wish to walk off that plank go right ahead. The truth of the matter is that the NCAA can do as it damn well pleases with no worry of retribution or backlash from its member institutions because it has positioned itself to be where the schools cannot operate without it. Your “backroom lawyer” reasoning fails because it doesn’t meet the standards that all citizens in this country have to live by. If we as citizens must stay within the law or face punishment, then the NCAA should be required to do the same. The fact that you stated that you didn’t want to be “bothered” by basketball at this point in the season shows where you place the importance of the situation.

You dont want to be bothered with this right now, fine. Go back to your one sport at a time world. We here at ASOB are multi-taskers, we can do both and still have time to argue with individuals who’s reasoning is not only flawed, but of no importance to anyone who truly understands the situation.

… I’m sorry you are so incensed about the “crawling from under a rock.” That wasn’t aimed at you at all, but at the others (and more) linked above. I suppose I should have made that clear. I have many issues with your comments that I did not, out of respect to you, discuss. They will remain undiscussed here.

I’d like to respond in detail to all your points, but most of them were addressed in the comments, so I won’t rehash all that. But you did raise a couple of fair points that deserve rebuttal:

Was Rose actually eligible when he was playing basketball? Why, yes, he was.

No, he wasn’t. The NCAA simply mistakenly thought he was.

You are mistaken. At the time of his qualification, there were no known issues. He was therefore qualified, and he was cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse. ETS did not have pending issues with his test, or if they did, they did not notify either Rose, the Clearinghouse, or Memphis until much, much later. He was therefore fully qualified. Your example of the Alabama case is inapt — they were ineligible the minute they broke the rules. There is no proof that Rose ever broke the rules. Absent proof, the violation does not exist. Ipso facto.

Those darned pointy-headed rule-making people! They’re so darned concerned with making sure the rules are followed! Rose’s "failure to cooperate" likely made it difficult if not impossible for ETS to conclusively determine whether the test results were true or false. That doesn’t mean ETS should just give up. And if the results are invalid, they cannot count toward Rose’s academic eligibility. Period. When they were invalidated really doesn’t make that much of a difference.

Once again, you are imputing rulebreaking which has never been proven. The ETS invalidated the test because Rose didn’t respond, but that doesn’t make Rose necessarily guilty of any wrongdoing. Rose had an explanation for that, and whether you accept that as fact or fiction is entirely up to you. The ETS was no doubt following procedure, but that does not mean Rose did wrong — to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence that he did. No crime, no punishment. Again, straight-line logical reasoning.

RE: Lee Ann Harmless

I avoided commenting on this at all out of respect. Apparently, I shouldn’t have shown such restraint. It’s worth noting here that the federal courts recognize hand-writing comparisons as legitimate evidence with which to convict someone of a crime. You’re right that it’s not much — but it’s almost all that ETS had to go on because … wait a minute, what was the reason for that? Oh, right, Derrick Rose didn’t cooperate with the investigation.

Out of respect for what? I acknowledge above that Harmless’ finding is evidence, and it is. However, it is insufficient by ETS’ own procedures — they require two proofs of cheating, not just one. Therefore there was no cheating absent further proof. It is not disputable on a factual level, only an emotional one.

Your additional point that Rose did not cooperate is at odds with what the Rose camp is saying. You have chosen to impute wrongdoing to Rose, but there is insufficient evidence to support such a finding, and the NCAA didn’t even try to do so. My point here is that you have chosen to construe the available evidence in a way that is factually unsupported, and requires an additional element of “I just know he’s guilty” to get there. Common sense, right?

The fact that Rose did not address the allegations did not figure in to the calculus of the NCAA according to their spokesman. The sole criteria they used was the invalid test.

Um, which was invalidated because he didn’t cooperate. Look, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that the reasons for the invalidation should be taken into account but when someone questions why Rose didn’t try to cut off the reasons for that invalidation, that’s irrelevant.

No, it’s not, because my larger point, the point you evidently missed altogether, is that you cannot right a wrong that does not exist. There is no evidence that Rose deliberately did not respond to ETS, and there is furthermore insufficient evidence that he cheated. Therefore, no reasonable person can conclude that there was wrongdoing based strictly on the available facts. If there was no wrong, there can be no justification for forfeiting games, because the entire moral imperative for such an act depends upon the games being wrongly won.

What would I propose the NCAA do? Investigate the matter and either find sufficient proof of a wrong, or let it drop. That’s what they do for everyone else (Hello, Phil Fulmer), why not Memphis? The facts simply don’t support the finding vis-a-vis Rose, and no amount of emotionalization or rationalization will make it fair for the NCAA to void wins without proving there was a wrong committed to justify that.

• They didn’t investigate the allegations of Rose’s cheating;
• They didn’t investigate whether or not Rose deliberately obstructed ETS’ investigation.

These are facts, and they are undisputed. Facts, as it has been said, are stubborn things. The NCAA doesn’t have enough of them to prove a wrong, and therefore, there should be no punishment. Ipso facto.

I don’t like how we’re being so defensive on ASoB lately. If we believe he didn’t do anything wrong, why give it any further credence by discussing it?

 Memphis lost no scholarships,no tv time,just vacated wins. Coach is their real target.

The NCAA looks at Coach like a 16 year old boy looks at Ashley.
They both become tumescent.

We are in for a wild ride,might as well EMBRACE IT and enjoy it.

The NCAA asked Memphis to vacate all its wins. The Reggie Rose incident happened seven games into the season, so it would not be reasonable for the NCAA to ask Memphis to vacate wins prior to the event that created the violation.

The overarching driver of the vacated wins is ETS invalidating the score. But, as I make the point above, if the NCAA is being consistent in claiming that Reggie Rose’s extra benefits rendered Derrick ineligible, then the best Memphis could hope for on appeal is to save seven of the 30-something games.

Worth it? Maybe not.

I think it’s highly coincidental that the coach of the biggest rival of Memphis in the State of Tennessee. Mr. Bruce Pearl, has a history of accusing other institutions of cheating (Illinois).

But surely Mr. Pearl wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunity to kill two of his most hated rivals with one whistle. Would he?

are what we do until basketball season. lol

becoming a communist state. The only reason you dont have to worry about the NCAA’s version of the KGB is because they dont want to have to deal with the publicity. They can just kick you to the curb…..it’s quicker, less painful for them and they can just claim whatever the hell they want!!

The only thing coaches get credit for are wins and bad things. Everything else just happens all by itself. :-)

Just because a kid has some grade difficulties does not mean that he should be abandoned as hopeless. We have seen many people in both football and basketball struggle with grades, sit out a year, and come back with the right attitude. Scott Padgett is just the first case that comes to mind. Should we have abandoned Scott after he had a bad year in school? I’m thinking no.

I get your point that there is often a question about whether the athletes are really learning, or are just being allowed to attend school, float through classes with nothing more than four years of sport to show for it. And if you are suggesting that Calipari should be very careful when considering academically challenged athletes, you are right. Calipari is going to lose a lot of players early to the NBA, and that does not help UK’s APR. Bringing in guys who might flunk out, no matter how talented, could wind up putting UK in the lurch APR wise.

So if you are advising caution, I’d agree.