National Collegiate Athletic Association

NCAA Press Release Archive

« back to archive | Back to NCAA.org

For Immediate Release

Monday, March 22, 2010

Contact(s)

Stacey Osburn
Associate Director of 
Public and Media Relations
317/917-6117

INDIANAPOLIS – The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld the vacation of records and forfeiture of championship revenue for the University of Memphis.

In August 2009, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions issued a report that included findings of major and secondary violations involving the men’s basketball and women's golf programs.

The violations included a failure to monitor by the university, unethical conduct by the former head women's golf coach, impermissible benefits, ineligible competition and impermissible recruiting contact, among others.  Penalties included three years probation, vacation of records, scholarship reductions and forfeiture of championship revenue, among others.

The university appealed the vacation of records and forfeiture of championship revenue penalties, asserting that they were excessive.  Regarding the vacation of records, the university argued that the facts of the case were not sufficient to vacate the records.  However, the Infractions Appeals Committee found no basis to conclude that the penalty was excessive such that the Committee on Infractions had abused its discretion in imposing the penalty.

During this case, the Committee on Infractions found that a men's basketball student-athlete competed while ineligible during the entire 2007-08 season, including the 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship, due to an invalidated SAT score.

In its appeal, the university made two arguments as grounds for reversal of the financial penalty: (1) there was insufficient evidence to find that the university or the student-athlete knew, or had reason to know, that he would become ineligible; and (2) even if the evidence was sufficient to make such a finding, the Committee on Infractions erred by not specifically concluding that the university or the student-athlete knew, or had reason to know, that he would become ineligible.

The Infractions Appeals Committee, however, disagreed and upheld the financial penalty.  In its report, the Infractions Appeals Committee stated that a letter from the testing agency to the student-athlete “not only made the student-athlete aware that his eligibility was in serious jeopardy, but that he would be declared ineligible if he did not respond to the letter.”

Based on these conclusions, the Infractions Appeals Committee found no basis to modify the penalties.

In considering the university’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal, the transcript of the university’s Committee on Infractions’ hearing and the submissions by the university and the Committee on Infractions.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were: Christopher  L. Griffin, Foley & Lardner LLP, chair; David Williams II, Vanderbilt University; and Jack Friedenthal, George Washington University.