UCLA’s statement on tennis sanctions

Here is a statement from UCLA about the Pac-10 removing the Bruins’ 2008 conference title in men’s tennis because of an ineligible player:

The men’s tennis student-athlete involved was earning money working at a job. The employer paid his student fees, thinking it was okay because the student-athlete would be earning the money to cover the fees.
When the UCLA compliance office found out that the employer had paid the student fees in advance, it reported the situation to the NCAA and the Pac-10 Conference. The NCAA reinstated the student-athlete’s eligibility, deciding the employment and the rate of pay appropriate, and required him to pay a portion of the fee value to a charity. The student-athlete was eligible to compete in the 2008-09 season and did so.
The Pac-10 Compliance and Enforcement Committee requested the student-athlete forfeit his singles and doubles matches in Pac-10 competition in 2007-08. That action was approved by the Pac-10 Council. The changes in scores ultimately changed the final results of UCLA’s matches versus USC and Arizona State from wins to losses.

Share this post:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page
  • Joey Liningham

    So he was “eligible to compete” however they requested to forfeit the games he played in……yea that makes real sense.

    At least Arizona State didn’t win it!!

  • Sid

    Joey, He was eligible to compete in 08-09, not 07-08. The matches he must forfeit were from the 07-08 season.

  • MoeBruins

    He might not have been eligible to compete but it is typical NCAA. Cracking down hard on a kid and a minor program for what was temporarily a technical violation of the rules. While moving slowly or not at all when major violations occur in money producing schools at major sports.

  • bbruin

    That was stupid in the first place. Just pay the kid for @#$$$@ sake!! This does not bode well for the boys across town. The hammer stroke will be harder although the BB program so anemic not much to lose. Will they have the cajones to hit the FB program is real ??

  • Anonymous

    As you can see, he was cleared by the NCAA to play and did so…UCLA did no wrong doing on this matter. Everything was upfront and honest; there was no malicious or illegal acts of anyway in this case.

    It was a certain coach at a certain school who purposely brought this fact BACK up (after this player played all year long) to the Pac-10 and petitioned that the Pac-10 not allow it even though the player was cleared by the NCAA. And when the coaches vote, well, when a school goes down in rankings, they go up.

    For those of you who said this is absurd, well, it is. This was an honest mistake, brought up by UCLA before the season started, got officially cleared by the NCAA and a certain school trying to cause trouble. It is what it is unfortunately.

  • silverlake-bruin

    So can someone explain to me why SUC hasn’t had to forfeit all their games played by reggie bush and OJ mayo, both of whom took tens of thousands of dollars in illegal benefits while at SUC?

  • GoTroyGo

    All anyone has to do is PROVE the illegal benefits took place and USC knew about it or participated. It’s not that difficult.

  • TruBruin

    If this 19-20 year old kid is that important of a player on the tennis tean then UCLA should be paying those fees in the form of a scholarship! Everyone knows the NCAA IS A JOKE!

  • RodneyGuillory

    GoTroyGo…testimony and proof of free rent will take care of Reggie Bush. Receipts of wire transfers to OJ Mayo will take care of him.

  • GoTroyGo

    TB- Agree.

  • GoTroyGo

    Rodney-What you don’t understand is that IF all this took place AND SC knew about it, SC DESERVES any sanctions. Don’t you get it? You just want to convict and impose penalties before all the facts are known. Do you think the NCAA has proof and is letting SC off the hook? If you do, you’re as stupid as the NCAA. The NCAA would love nothing better than giving sanctions to top rated programs, including your (oh this hurts) basketball program. They hate success. You seem to be just like them and after SC no matter what. I could care less what happens. If ANY school is guilty, that school should pay the price. ANY.

  • Anonymous

    “The NCAA would love nothing better than giving sanctions to top rated programs. They hate success.”

    is this a joke? at what point do the delusions end? Your inferior and absurdly over-priced education becomes more glaring with every post.

    This is why so many people hate $c. The idiocy never ends at fig tech. Miami of the west (hint….case study). Cheat on!!

  • GoTroyGo

    Your jealousy is overwhelming. Grow up and face the facts. If you want to get into the mud, there has NEVER been a been a bigger cheater than Sam Gilbert and your basketball program.

    Go with the facts. It always cracks me up at you guys that WISH you could be a Trojan. You know I’m right. BTW, get a user name. What a chicken.

  • Bruins095

    I wasn’t able to log in. I’m here troscum, and ready to counter your absurd allegations.

    The Sam Gilbert argument is so old and tired. Show me the evidence, the facts you speak of. Show me where the bruin stars were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ther are documented receipts and a money trail for Bush and Mayo. Wooden’s players exhibited character and intelligence. Almost all met the academic criteria and excelled in the classroom. The OJ Mayo scandal is under federal investigation. The NCAA, Pac-10, FBI, IRS and U.S. Attorney’s office are actively involved. There is no comparison.

    What is so pathetic is the very same papa sam you throw at us was closely connected to your football program. Are you admitting massive corruption and cheating at $c during this time period? You actually believe bruins want to be trojans??? $cum are beyond deluded. Why would we want to go to an inferior school? Why would we want to waste tens of thousands of dollars on an education just above JC level? What a crackpot. We are incredibly jealous of the fine representatives of your institution. Those good kids just go bad at fig tech; murder, rape, aggravated assault, felony assault with a deadly weapon, sexual assault, indecent exposure, soliciting prostitution, spousal battery, vandalism, resisting arrest, obstruction, and on and on and on. Endless blotter and character problems. Your stars can barely put a sentence together. There is no way McKnight should be allowed into a JC, he can’t even speak.

    USC is OJ and John Wayne U. UCLA is Jackie Robinson, Arthur Ashe, Lew Alcindor, Monique Henderson, and so many more. Incredible human beings who exhibited class and contributed to both the academic and athletic excellence of a world renowned institution. Their legacies extended well beyond their time at UCLA. Bring something more to the arguement. Show me the facts you speak of. lol, ignorant trojans are just to damn funny.

  • GoTroyGo

    SC wouldn’t have taken any of those rebel rousers. Your tirade is boring. It is a cover up for your jealously. You also have NO proof of anything, nor does the NCAA. If they did, they’d produce it. ucla has all the same problems or aren’t you counting your football dbag, er dback that has two counts pending? Like I’ve said before, if there are PROVEN allegations that SC knew, we WILL pay the penalty. Unlike your bottom fishing program that takes the scraps left over from SC. Both in academics AND athletics. AND YES, SC does have HIGHER SAT & GPA scores than Westwood Tech.

  • GoTroyGo

    Yoda- It’s BO(95)

  • Ri-L


    From http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/9392.html

    and http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/9149.html

    Costs (2006 – 07) USC

    * Comprehensive fee: $44,036 includes full-time tuition ($33,314), mandatory fees ($578), and room and board ($10,144).

    Costs (2006 – 07) UCLA

    * Tuition: state resident $0 full-time; nonresident $18,168 full-time
    * Required fees: $6522 full-time
    * Room and board: $12,415. Room and board charges vary according to board plan and housing facility

    Freshmen – USC

    * Admission 33,979 applied, 8,634 admitted, 2,763 enrolled, 3.71 average high school GPA
    * Average high school GPA 3.71
    * Test scores SAT verbal scores over 500 100%, SAT math scores over 500 100%, ACT scores over 18 100%, SAT verbal scores over 600 89%, SAT math scores over 600 92%, ACT scores over 24 98%, SAT verbal scores over 700 36%, SAT math scores over 700 50%, ACT scores over 30 54%

    Freshmen – UCLA
    * Admission 42,227 applied, 11,361 admitted, 4,422 enrolled, 4.0 average high school GPA
    * Average high school GPA 4.0
    * Test scores SAT verbal scores over 500 93%, SAT math scores over 500 96%, ACT scores over 18 99%, SAT verbal scores over 600 66%, SAT math scores over 600 77%, ACT scores over 24 76%, SAT verbal scores over 700 21%, SAT math scores over 700 39%, ACT scores over 30 29%

    As you can see, the average GPA is significantly higher at UCLA than at USC. The test scores at a public university are in line with its mission of serving the public, not just those that can afford to pay. I don’t think your argument holds any water, whatsoever.

    “You have not point.” GoTroyGo

  • Bruins095

    Tall tales from the obtuse trojan. The delusions are beyond laughable. Some say thug U is now on par with Stanford. This is entertaining.

  • GoTroyGo

    Check it out big mouth. Hard to swallow that our academics are better than yours. Only Stanford has higher scores. Look it up….if you can read.

    Dbag RI- Those numbers are from FIVE YEARS AGO! Moron. hahahahahahahahahahaha

  • GoTroyGo
  • GoTroyGo

    95- Your degree is worthless. Cry On.

  • Ri-L


    This will be my last discussion with you, you clearly do not even read your supporting documentation. You submitted the very same data I did – from the Fall 2006 admissions classes. Hardly five years ago! (9 minus 6 equals 3) The data supports one assertion you made, that SAT scores were higher at SUC. The data does not support your assertion that GPA’s are higher.

    It also proves the point that UCLA admits a higher percentage of students who were top of their class. Again, in keeping with its mission of enrolling students from a broad spectrum of experiences.

    Freshman admission statistics barely tell the story however. In reviewing all the characteristics of a school, US News and World Reports ranks universities yearly. This past year, UCLA ranked 25th, USC ranked 27th, which was much higher than I expected. USC has done much better in the academic area in the past 5 years, anything before that (except in select departments, like Cinema) was a joke. So, if you did actually graduate with a degree from USC, and you did so more than five years ago, realize that most people just don’t take you very seriously. If you graduated within the last five years, realize that you are just a toddler and should wait a while before you try to play with the big kids. Rant on!

  • GoTroyGo

    GPA means virtually nothing. A suck up can get a better grade (i.e. you) SAT testing is unbiased. Anyway, doesn’t matter, you bRuins ending up working for us anyway. Oh, and just for your information, it’s usually the C students that make the big bucks. How’s the weather today in Palmdale?

  • Anonymous

    What you don’t realize or are unwilling to accept is that data from private institutions are skewed. sc has become more academically rigorous. You are essentially saying sc is now better than ucla and cal. This is just plain absurd. You are putting sc in a class with Stanford, Harvard, Yale and the elite schools in the country. Seriously, do you actually believe this? It’s impossible for a university to rise to such heights in such a short period of time. It just doesn’t happen.

    How old are you? do you go to sc? I know it’s hard to accept that ucla’s academics have always been better than sc. I know many people and colleagues who have gone to both schools and can say without hesitation that academics at ucla are more rigorous. Unless one received financial aid and/or grants, I just couldn’t imagine spending that kind of money to go to sc.

    I own my own business, so my degree is hardly worthless. I’ve worked below and above sc grads. Your generalizations are ridiculous. What you fail to realize is that you are on a bruin board. You fail to see what not just ucla folks, but most others around the country see. Obtuse is the only way to describe it. The debate isn’t rational, that’s why it goes nowhere.

    You are now coming back to say gpa means nothing. SAT scores are unbiased? This clearly shows ingorance of the standardized testing structure.

  • GoTroyGo

    Yes I am. Putting the cost aside, which is hard for you cheap guys to do, and ANY bRuin would rather go to USC. I’m old enough to have made millions, live within 100 yards of the ocean, drive a six figure sports car and travel where and when I want. I don’t care if you believe me or not. You are certainly below my standard of living. If anyone is ignorant, it is you. So big shot, what type of company do you own? Where do YOU live? What size engine is in your truck?

  • Bruins095

    wow! You win kid. Seriously grow up and go back to the sc blogs. Your reinforcement of the trojan image provides for endless fodder. Stay classy.

  • Anonymous

    I applied and got accepted to both schools and chose UCLA over USC in a heartbeat. It’s almost laughable….better area and more prestigious school and half the price.

  • CAJason80

    “I’m old enough to have made millions, live within 100 yards of the ocean, drive a six figure sports car and travel where and when I want.”

    I don’t mean to be glaringly obvious here, but if I had that kind of scratch, I don’t think I’d be wasting me time here…over and over.

    Also, good to know you have a nice car. How about a fulfilling life and family? Apparently in the land of USC, this doesn’t count as much as having a six-figure sports car. Awesome. Glad I didn’t go there.