NCAA defends Memphis appeal secrecy
November 18, 2009
The University of Memphis refused on Wednesday to release the NCAA’sresponse to its appeal of a ruling that vacated the 2007-08 men’s basketballseason.
Memphis’s legal counsel Sheryl Lipman said they can’t produce the documentbecause they didn’t receive a copy, and instead read a version of it through theNCAA’s Web site. The university says NCAA rules prohibit the university fromprinting the document for the media off the association’s Web site.
The Associated Press had requested the document under Tennessee’s OpenRecords Act.
The NCAA did not immediately return a telephone message left late Wednesdayafternoon at the association’s office in Indianapolis.
In a similar public records case, a Florida court ruled last month the NCAAmust release documents on Florida State University’s appeal of an academiccheating penalty. The NCAA tried to keep them secret on a read-only, secure Website.
Memphis filed a brief supporting its appeal Oct. 8, and the NCAA’sInfractions Appeals Committee had 30 days to respond. Now both Memphis and theNCAA’s enforcement staff have a chance to comment. Memphis will get the lastchance to respond before the appeal hearing before the committee.
Memphis is arguing that the NCAA Committee on Infractions imposedunprecedented penalties and used improper reasoning to wipe out the Tigers’ 38wins in a season that ended with an overtime loss to Kansas in the nationalchampionship.
The school’s 45-page brief targets the so-called “strict liability”standard imposed after the NCAA ruled a player believed to be Derrick Rose wasretroactively ineligible because of an SAT score that was invalidated by theEducational Testing Service in May 2008.
“The Committee’s statement concerning the finding that this is a ‘strictliability situation’ is not supported by evidence, precedent or logic,” Memphisargued in the brief.
By upholding the penalties given to Memphis under the “strict-liability”standard, the school argues it sets a precedent that “will apply to (future)situations that do not warrant such treatment and could result in outcomesunacceptable to the Division 1 membership.”
A copy of that appeal was obtained under Tennessee’s open records law. Theuniversity has complied with all previous records request involving this case.