(11-13-2019 03:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  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.

I don't see the conflicting statement here. The NCAA says the university chose to play Wiseman. It did exactly that, as Wiseman can't play if the coaches choose not to play him. Now true, if they chose not to play him on the basis of the NCAA decision, then they would be violating the court order and would have to answer to the judge about that. But Memphis did choose to comply with the court order and disregard the NCAA ruling. That's a choice. It's like if my probation office says "don't go into a bar, or you are going back to jail", I can still choose to go into a bar, I just have to pay the price.

The NCAA is just saying that by complying with the court order over its ruling, Memphis may have to pay the price for that in the realm of the NCAA.

That said, I agree the choice isn't your typical free one, as Memphis is under the gun of the court order. It's a choice, but a coerced one. For that reason, I don't think the NCAA would be right to sanction Memphis for playing Wiseman at home, only if he plays in road games, as the Memphis court wouldn't seem to have jurisdiction over what happens outside of Memphis. But that's too legally technical for me to know for sure.

All that said, not sure what this has to do with the Memphis statement that it helped the NCAA conduct further investigations in to Wiseman's eligibility after May. You want to dismiss that as a "press release", but press releases are the university speaking, and usually are only to be dismissed as propaganda if they are self-serving. In this case, the self-serving thing for Memphis to do would have been to deny that the NCAA dug up any new information after May, and certainly not with their help, which gives the release added credibility. Has Memphis withdrawn the press release?