The wins have left the building

The NCAA announced today that Memphis men's basketball will be forced to vacate its 2007-08 record-setting 38 victories, which culminated in a Final Four appearance. Memphis gets slammed by the NCAA, but not really. The harshest penalty is the forfeiture of NCAA tournament money earned by Memphis's Final Four run. But, the economic brunt is actually felt equally by other C-USA schools, since they all agree to share basketball and football post-season revenues. New coach Josh Paster fortunately gets to move forward without further penalties and, best of all, everyone who could possibly be held accountable can make the reasonable argument that they are not at fault. The biggest losers will probably be lowest-paid athletic department employees at these already cash-strapped schools. Just what college sports doesn't need: More pink slips.

This is usually the point in my blog posts where I criticize the NCAA for its bungling of these situations. But I actually have to cut them some slack here. Why?

The most damaging evidence contained in the NCAA's Public Infractions Report...Before Derrick Rose ever played a college game, Memphis knew that his SAT test was questioned: "The institution began an independent investigation related to the allegations involving student-athlete 1 which included a November 2007 interview of him. The institution was unable to substantiate the allegations of academic improprieties involving student-athlete 1 and the institution cleared him to compete with the men's basketball team during the 2007-08 season."

If it was me, I am sure I would have cleared Derrick Rose to play, just as Memphis did. When a team has a legit chance to run the table, you take your chances that the mess gets cleaned up. But, the NCAA is not an "innocent until proven guilty" organization, so you do so at your own risk. Had Memphis brought this to the NCAA's attention in the Fall, I doubt Derrick Rose would have ever played college basketball. Interesting Catch-22.

Let's frame Derrick Rose's decision to get a qualifying SAT score by any means necessary as an economic, rather than a moral dilemma. What would you do? Consider these factors that might lead you to have a stand-in take your SAT... 1) This is your only chance to play college basketball, especially if your career is likely to only span one season. 2) You perceive the chances of getting caught to be low (Yes, Rose got caught, but he certainly didn't think that would happen). 3) The perception that others cheat in both academics and also when it comes to NCAA rules. Hey, if others are cheating, why shouldn't I? Maybe in your world, cheating is never the answer, but in the bizarro world of big-time basketball, cheating just may be worth the risk. Especially if you subscribe to Jerry Tarkanian's thesis that, "In major college basketball, nine out of 10 teams break the rules. The other one is in last place." (Related: my Basketball Times article on the basketball underground.)

Because Derrick Rose could not go straight to the NBA, college basketball was the most productive way he could spend his "gap year." He got great coaching, he played competitive games in big arenas and he led Memphis (according to the NCAA) to the most phenomenal 0-40 season ever. (Given that the NCAA erased Memphis's tournament appearance, I hope the NCAA can show some leniency by declaring their record a more respectable 0-34). Most importantly, he demonstrated his game was NBA ready.

After his Freshman season, Rose declared for the NBA Draft. He was the first selection, he earned NBA Rookie of the Year honors and, after just one NBA season, he projects to earn $100 to $200 million playing professional basketball. Taking everything into account, Rose may express regret about what ultimately went down, but the NCAA ruling will not adversely impact his basketball career or his life in any way.

College athletics only has itself to blame for creating a system that encourages academically unmotivated basketball prodigies to risk whatever some think he was supposedly risking. Think about it this way: Today's ruling is pretty much the worst-possible scenario for Rose. He cheated on his SAT, got caught, his former school gets penalized and everything is still awesome for Derrick Rose.

The last word: I think it is unfair to erase the 2007-08 basketball season from the record books. The entire team, not just Derrick Rose, worked incredibly hard to accomplish what they did. On the basketball court, they won fair and square. Spare us the notion that it was unfair to the other schools who allegedly fielded teams of "amateurs." If you want to punish the school and/or the coach, fine. But, taking a moral stand against the Memphis players is misguided.

Let us know what you think.

--Marc Isenberg

Comments

[Sandy Spell]

Marc, you are right on. If there was not a rule that kids coming out of high school have to play one year in college before they can go to the NBA, this would never have been the temptation. Here is a guy who didn't want to go to college, but was forced to in order to pursue his career in the NBA. You cannot fault him for wanting to do what it takes to get into the NBA. Once in school, he is the one who showed up for class daily, and he is the one who put out over 100% effort on the court. It is really sad that other players like Robert Dozier and Antonio Anderson have to suffer because of this situation. Why wouldn't Mr. Rose attend the U of M and play since the NCAA itself cleared him to play. How can they clear him to play, then come back after the fact, and pull everything out from the U Of M as if the season never happened? Seems to me the NCAA is to blame. If they were aware there was a questionable situation, they should never have cleared Rose until the matter was resolved.

Some people think that if the rule didn't exist for players to attend one year of college ball before entering into the draft, that the colleges would never have the great talent. I believe if we didn't force kids to attend, college ball would go back to being what it once was, a school pride issue, not a money issue. The playing field would be more fair and more competitive. There are plenty of good players that don't intend to go into the NBA, but would be thrilled to compete for their school. Coaches wouldn't have to make the ridiculously high salaries that they make.

Regardless, I am a huge Tiger fan and I attended all the games at home, many on the road, and All of the post season games. These were the most fun times and best trips I have had in my life, and I have taken some incredible trips. Being a part of a college family is awesome. I appreciate so much the effort our players made during this time, and the joy their desire to win gave to their fans. No one, including the NCAA, can erase my wonderful memories. Those games were real then and they will be very real 20 years from now.

Sandy Spell
Memphis, Tn.

[Marc Isenberg]

Very well put, Sandy. You have a great understanding of not only Memphis basketball, but also how college basketball really works. I would be fine if NCAA schools said it wants no part of the "one and done" players, for example by making freshman ineligible. But don't blame the Derrick Roses of the world for what happened here.

Deb and I are UCLA fans (Deb and both her parents went to UCLA)...we also root for players and coaches we like. I was a disappointed to hear UCLA fans this week on talk radio carping that UCLA got screwed because Memphis played an ineligible player. Give me a break.