“Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2), the institution [Ed.: that’s Memphis] shall vacate all wins in which student-athlete 1 [Rose] competed while ineligible during the 2007-08 men’s basketball regular season. Further, in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4, the institution’s participation in the 2008 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship shall be vacated and any trophy awarded as a result of that ineligible participation shall be returned to the NCAA.”
That was the ruling issued last week on conclusion of the Committee’s investigation of this sordid affair. With just a few keystrokes and the posting of a PDF report, gone are all the victories accumulated by Memphis with Rose on the court, including the win over UCLA. Poof!
In the wake of the Committee’s ruling, UCLA fans have been nailing themselves to the cross. Many with whom I’ve spoken argue that UCLA should have had its shot at Kansas and, at worst, should be considered tournament runners-up. Jill Painter, who covers UCLA sports for the Los Angeles Daily News, wrote that Calipari “got away with a crime and doesn’t have to do any time. It’s schools like UCLA that suffer. Could UCLA have beaten Kansas for the championship? We’ll never know.”
The righteous outrage is understandable. The 2008 team was our best chance at hanging a 12th banner in Pauley Pavilion, and it would’ve been nice to face opponents whose best players hadn’t defrauded their way onto the team. It also would’ve been nice if the NCAA’s band of elite crimefighters hadn’t needed two full years to crack the case. To review: Rose failed three straight times to get a qualifying score, then somehow – defying the laws of probability – passed the SAT in Detroit. Getting to the bottom of this one didn’t mean consulting Scotland Yard or retasking spy satellites.
Don’t Believe the Truth
Does it follow, though, that Bruin fans are entitled to imagine, Sliding Doors-style, what might have happened in a title game against Kansas? Not really. In the Orwellian dreamworld of NCAA rules enforcement, vacating a win is not the same as declaring a forfeit. The latter would have reversed the outcome of UCLA-Memphis, taking the Bruins’ loss and deeming it a victory instead. The former... well, the former is confusing. Memphis’s win gets stricken from the historical record, but UCLA’s loss does not. There were, the NCAA is saying, only three teams at the Final Four that year. UCLA lost to no one.
Article comments
1 - Matthew T. Sussman
I knew something was amiss when Derrick Rose was asked how he did on analogies and said he didn't see any questions on old televisions.
My HS vacated a state championship because of an ineligible rarely used freshman. The guilt was so bad, he transferred away the next year.
Now, Rose was no bench bum, but what difference does it make to him? What punishment does Rose serve? It wasn't entirely his fault, but he was an adult and he enabled it.
2 - James Cauthen
You have to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. It wasn't UCLA that was robbed, it was Texas. Texas, who lost to Memphis in the regional final, had already beaten both UCLA and Kansas that year. So, obviously, had Memphis not cheated Texas would be the National Champions.
Also, Rose was caught cheating way before the NCAA tournament, only Calipari and Memphis decided not to do anything about it. In October of 2007, Memphis was notified of allegations that he cheated on his SAT by the Chicago school system. It is unclear from the NCAA's report whether the NCAA was also notified. Regardless, Calipari disregarded the allegations (they interviewed Rose) and played Rose knowing that the validity of his SAT was in question. It looks like that worked out okay for him.
3 - The Desert Rat
Great article - how long will it take for this nation to wake up to the fact that the NCAA is a)a monopoly that b)serves only to better itself - salaries, etc, and c) uses a system that is just a little better than slave labor.
These "kids" in big time NCAA sports are simply "labor" that aren't being paid a "living wage". In the "major sports" - football, basketball especially - they are being taken advantage of by their schools, their coaches, and the media. And when they get hurt or their playing days are over they are quickly tossed under the bus.
Someone - think it was NE - once proposed created a degree in football. Arguing that like music or engineering where a student is encouraged to practice his chosen field of endeavor at every opportunity - an "athlete" is in fact prohibited from doing so except at the school (and NCAA of course) which would benefit from his/her efforts. And in fact is prohibited from earning almost any kind of wage - thus keeping them as "indentured servants" to the NCAA.
4 - Dexter Fishmore
@Matthew - Yes, the whole affair appears to be a matter of indifference to Rose, who's responded only with a feeble statement along the lines of "I didn't do anything wrong." He's fat-stacking benjamins in the NBA and is beyond the NCAA's jurisdiction, so I doubt any of this is keeping him up at night.
@James - I assume when you say "Texas" you mean Texas-Arlington, the 16th seed that lost to Memphis in the first round. Were it not for Rose's chicanery, they could have become the first 16 seed to win a game in tournament!
@Desert Rat - Good points all. As someone (not I) once put it, big-time college sports are essentially salary-capped pro leagues, with the salary cap set at zero.
5 - El Bicho
Great article. Humorous and insightful, though you failed to cover the biggest impact this chicanery had: March Madness pools.
"So, obviously, had Memphis not cheated Texas would be the National Champions."
Yes, because everyone knows one win against a team ensures all future wins that season, although how would you explain Texas splitting with Oklahoma, OK State, Texas A&M, Baylor, Kansas State this past season?