Here's the link to the Clarion-Ledger story
http://www.clarionledger.com/articl...expected-after-playing-ineligible-player-2012
http://www.clarionledger.com/articl...expected-after-playing-ineligible-player-2012
Ole Miss plays ineligible player in 2012? No penalties
- Thread starter cthoma29
- Start date
I'm sure they'll say they only told his mom which will make it perfectly ok for him to have kept playing since he didn't know he wasn't eligible.**
Further proving the NCAA is completely inadequate. Clearing someone, then not telling anyone they were reviewing it? Nice move
That happened at Memphis with Derrick Rose. They reviewed the case, and cleared him to play. Then they ruled after the fact that he was ineligible and they had to forfeit their wins for the season.
Whether you like Memphis or not, they shouldn't have cleared him to begin with.
ETA: my bad. Just read the article and see where they referenced this, too.
Last edited:
Even if it was 100% not ole miss's fault
The D Rose case is basically the perfect precedent - and if MSU were in that situation, we would have been forced to vacate 6 games just like the Memphis case. ole miss? Nope.
The D Rose case is basically the perfect precedent - and if MSU were in that situation, we would have been forced to vacate 6 games just like the Memphis case. ole miss? Nope.
Didn't this player jump 10-12 points on ACT? If so, the University of Ole Miss must be the Harvard of the South. Most folks couldn't get that big of a jump by staying in a Holiday Inn Express the night before the ACT.
Yes, the Memphis case is exactly the same,
except for the fact that Memphis was aware of the allegations concerning Rose’s SAT score in October of 2007, investigated the matter, and chose to play him during the 2007-08 season anyway; the fact that the NCAA concluded that Memphis obtained a “competitive advantage” by playing Rose (obviously), whereas Davis was a walk-on special teams player who played in 6 games, recorded a grand total of 6 tackles, and made no difference in the outcome of any game; the fact that Rose, after twice failing to get a qualifying score on the ACT in Chicago (where he lived), “took” the SAT in Detroit, but a handwriting examiner concluded that it was not his handwriting; and the fact that Memphis also provided impermissible benefits to Rose’s brother, which the NCAA concluded would have rendered Rose ineligible even without the SAT fraud. (Google NCAA public infractions report Memphis.)
With all of that said, if you think the NCAA is going to treat a high profile player such as Derrick Rose, playing under a high profile repeat offender coach such as Calipari, the same as a walk-on player who we didn't even recruit, well . . . ok then.
except for the fact that Memphis was aware of the allegations concerning Rose’s SAT score in October of 2007, investigated the matter, and chose to play him during the 2007-08 season anyway; the fact that the NCAA concluded that Memphis obtained a “competitive advantage” by playing Rose (obviously), whereas Davis was a walk-on special teams player who played in 6 games, recorded a grand total of 6 tackles, and made no difference in the outcome of any game; the fact that Rose, after twice failing to get a qualifying score on the ACT in Chicago (where he lived), “took” the SAT in Detroit, but a handwriting examiner concluded that it was not his handwriting; and the fact that Memphis also provided impermissible benefits to Rose’s brother, which the NCAA concluded would have rendered Rose ineligible even without the SAT fraud. (Google NCAA public infractions report Memphis.)
With all of that said, if you think the NCAA is going to treat a high profile player such as Derrick Rose, playing under a high profile repeat offender coach such as Calipari, the same as a walk-on player who we didn't even recruit, well . . . ok then.
I must have missed the part where an NCAA decision was ever based on "Davis was a walk-on special teams player who played in 6 games, recorded a grand total of 6 tackles, and made no difference in the outcome of any game"... That is all cute information about the high profile punishments... Please make sure and go tell that to the girls volleyball team at valdosta state or wherever that got penalized a couple of years ago... I don't blame you for hoping for the best but your rhetoric here is nothing but rose colored classes... The NCAA has proven time and again that they do not care that they have 'cleared' a player through the clearinghouse only to later say 'nope, that kid is ineligible' and vacate wins. Derrick Rose is an example of they don't care who you are or what program you play for, they penalize the same.
So why do you think Memphis had to forfeit games and our only punishment will be having Davis sit out 6 games?
The article I read wasn't clear but it didn't sound like the NCAA has ruled yet. It just said that you don't expect any further penalties. Sounds like you've self-imposed a 6-game suspension for the player next year and expect the NCAA to accept that. Which they don't always do. Personally, I don't much care either way. You won those games no matter what the NCAA might say. Pretty stupid on your part to just ignore the fact his ACT score went up so much though.
Sounds like the NCAA has ruled.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...els-cornerback-carlos-davis-suspended-6-games
I agree we were stupid if we knew or had reason to know of the jump in the ACT score. With that said, would Ole Miss have had access to the prior score? I honestly don't know. The article says the jump occurred between June 2011 and September 2012. When an unrecruited walk-on like this is admitted (unlike a recruit whose scores we're monitoring during the recruitment), I wonder if we even had the June 2011 test score or the ability to get it. Not saying we didn't; just asking the question.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...els-cornerback-carlos-davis-suspended-6-games
I agree we were stupid if we knew or had reason to know of the jump in the ACT score. With that said, would Ole Miss have had access to the prior score? I honestly don't know. The article says the jump occurred between June 2011 and September 2012. When an unrecruited walk-on like this is admitted (unlike a recruit whose scores we're monitoring during the recruitment), I wonder if we even had the June 2011 test score or the ability to get it. Not saying we didn't; just asking the question.
That still just says the school doesn't expect any more penalties. Not that the NCAA has made a final ruling. I don't necessarily expect any more penalties, but the wording of both of those stories (ESPN probably just got theirs from the Clarion Ledger or vice versa) is poor.
according to the articles, the NCAA HAS NOT ruled. These are all based on what UOM 'expects or hopes'. The NCAA has released nothing on this. And, to answer your other question, if he applied to UOM, yes, they would have access to all of his scores. They would have definitely known of this jump.