|Memphis argues for protection in appeals process|
|Written by Admin|
|Wednesday, 09 December 2009 14:56|
Memphis argues in its 28-page rebuttal to the NCAA's response to the university's appeal that the Committee on Infractions puts the Tigers at risk of double jeopardy.
If the appeals committee decides to restore the vacated wins or cut the fine, the Committee on Infractions has asked that the case be remanded back to it to consider other punishment not handed out originally. That includes a possible ban from postseason play as well as possible scholarship cuts.
re consequences for initiating an appeal.''
Memphis filed the rebuttal Monday, and a hearing is expected to be scheduled in either late January or February. The Commercial Appeal first reported the university's response on its Web site Wednesday afternoon. The newspaper also has a poll on its Web site with 15 percent of fans saying Memphis should drop the appeal.
The NCAA ordered Memphis to vacate the record 38-win season that ended with an overtime loss to Kansas in the national championship game on Aug. 20 after ruling a player believed to be NBA star Derrick Rose was ineligible. Memphis also was fined approximately $530,000 in tournament revenue.
The NCAA Committee on Infractions noted in its response that Memphis was a ``repeat violator.'' Memphis also had its 1985 Final Four berth vacated for violations under then-coach Dana Kirk.
Memphis responded that the university did not take its appeal lightly and carefully evaluated the circumstances before deciding to fight unprecedented penalties based on improper reasoning.
``If an institution that has been the subject of a major infractions case cannot pursue an appeal in good faith without putting the institution, staff and its student-athletes at greater risk, why would any institution initiate an appeal no matter how legitimate the basis?'' Memphis argues in its rebuttal.
ity admittedly ``took a risk'' in letting the student play when knowing of questions over his test scores.
But the university admitted Rose based on his SAT score, and he was cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse twice and by a university probe in which the athlete insisted he took his own test. The university was not notified by the Educational Testing Service until May 5, 2008, that the score was canceled because Rose did not respond to requests for information about the test.
Memphis takes issue with being held to such a strict liability.
``The Committee passed on a chance to review the evidence and decide whether a finding of academic fraud was justified,'' according to the rebuttal.
Next the NCAA enforcement staff can answer any of the questions raised. Memphis will get one last chance to respond before the hearing.