Quo, here is a good example of competing conflicting statements in the public domain, and thus the danger of relying on whatever side you pick.
NCAA:
“The university chose to play him and ultimately is responsible for ensuring its student-athletes are eligible to play,” the NCAA wrote on Twitter while Wiseman played his first game under a court order.
https://apnews.com/1e5190409cca4a76b58deacef01fb199
Straight from the court order Monday:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Nominal Defendant, University of Memphis, is hereby restrained and enjoined from withholding the plaintiff from intercollegiate competition as a member of the men’s basketball team on the basis of the NCAA decision, and that the University of Memphis is hereby authorized and allowed to play Mr. Wiseman as the coaching staff deems appropriate."
(A Memphis attorney sent me this, so I don't have the link, but the TRO is on threads on this site).
So, the NCAA (and much of the national media) is wrong about Memphis choosing to play Wiseman in the face of sanctions, and the media saying Memphis went rogue on them, and "gave the NCAA double birds."
Also, the U of M press release made it sound like it was a university decision to play Wiseman.
Nope. The court ordered Memphis not to withhold Wiseman on the basis of the NCAA decision.
That's why I say believe court filings over press releases. Or even over NCAA Twitter declarations.