As soon as the NCAA ruled that the University of Memphis would have to vacate all games won by the 2007-2008 Tigers, Memphis made it clear that it would appeal. Today, after an open records request by Dan Wolken of the Memphis Commercial Appeal, we learned about the schools argument.

Memphis does not deny that violations took place, namely the use of a player later determined to be ineligible, but argues that the NCAA’s assertion that Memphis was “strictly liable” for the violation is not accurate or supported by precendence:

Memphis’ appeal, which was obtained by The Commercial Appeal through the Freedom of Information Act, calls the NCAA’s use of that rationale a “procedural error” that is not supported by current NCAA legislation. Furthermore, the school argues that by upholding the penalties given to Memphis under the “strict-liability” standard, it sets a precedent that “will apply to (future) situations that do not warrant such treatment and could result in outcomes unacceptable to the Division 1 membership.”

In the report, the school found just one other example of the term “strict liability” being used in an NCAA decision — a November 2008 case involving Indiana’s basketball program.

Memphis, however, argues that the context of the phrase in Indiana’s case is different, relating to the adherence of former coach Kelvin Sampson to penalties that were issued from his time at Oklahoma before changing jobs.

In essence, Memphis’s argument is the same one that basically every UK fan has used to defend John Calipari: Memphis nor anyone associated with the program had any reason to believe that Derrick Rose was ineligible, therefore he played. He was ruled ineligible after the fact by the NCAA, so how is it fair to hold the school fully responsible for playing him when he was initially approved to play by the NCAA Clearinghouse:

Memphis also states in the appeal that it found three secondary violations cases (but no major infractions cases) in which student-athletes were certified as eligible by the NCAA and the school but later ruled ineligible based on new information. In none of those cases were records vacated.

“In each case, the institution was held responsible for having allowed the student-athlete to compete, but the consequences of that participation were clearly mitigated by an evaluation of the facts, including the determination that the institution had relied on the NCAA certification and that it did not have a reason to withhold the student-athlete at the time he competed,” the appeal states.

In arguing for a reduction in penalties, Memphis cites two cases in which the Infractions Appeals Committee ruled that four factors should be considered before a vacation-of-records penalty. Those factors include academic fraud, serious intentional violations, direct involvement of a coach or high-ranking administrator and a large number of violations. Memphis argues that it was not accused of any of those factors by the Committee on Infractions.

Once the appeal is received by the NCAA, the Committee on Infractions will have 30 days to issue a response. Memphis can submit a rebuttal 14 days after that, at which point the NCAA enforcement staff will make a written statement on Memphis’ appeal. Memphis gets 10 days to respond to the enforcement staff’s statement before a hearing is scheduled.

In case you skipped over that last paragraph, the bottom line is that this is not going to be a quick process. Does that really surprise with the NCAA involved?

Anyway, the football ‘Cats play in just over an hour and Big Blue Madness in a week…don’t waste too much time thinking about this!!!