With yesterday’s news breaking about former Duke basketball player Lance Thomas purchasing $97,800 worth of jewelry during his senior season at Duke, speculation has arisen that it could potentially lead to vacating the Blue Devils’ 2010 national championship.
Thomas, according to the AP, paid $30,000 for the jewelry up front and is being sued for the remaining balance. If it is deemed he received that money or the credit from the store because of his status as a basketball player, an improper benefit as defined by the NCAA, he could be deemed ineligible, putting Duke’s season in question.
Read: Duke basketball’s Lance Thomas sued over jewelry payment
Two college basketball analysts—among others—have opined that if he were deemed ineligible, it will put Duke’s championship banner in question. To be clear, this is all speculation very early in the game.
Here is Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel:
Not only does the NCAA have a potential infractions case on its hands that could touch Mike Krzyzewski’s legendary program and cause the vacating of Duke’s 2010 NCAA title, it could serve as proof of whether the NCAA is truly willing to equally enforce its rules no matter the accused….
In this case, did Rafaello & Co. allow a 21-year-old to borrow $67,800 because that 21-year-old was a starter on the eventual national champions and thus considered a potential NBA player who would not only be likely to pay the balance but become a return customer? Is it standard practice to let young people make that substantial of a purchase with just 30 percent down?
If not, Duke could be in trouble.
That could mean Lance Thomas was ineligible by receiving that “extra benefit.” If he was ineligible, then every game Duke played from Dec. 21 on could be vacated. That would include the 2010 Final Four, which Duke won, delivering Coach K his fourth national title. And thus Duke would vacate the championship. (It would not be awarded to runner-up Butler, either. There would just be no champion.)
Gary Parrish of CBS makes a similar point, noting that there is even precedent from Memphis for one player’s ineligibility—without it being the school’s fault—to lead to a vacating of wins:
But how in the world was Duke supposed to know about this, Parrish?
In fairness, that’s a reasonable question. But it’s also beside the point because the NCAA set a precedent of “strict liability” when it stripped Memphis of its trip to the 2008 Final Four. The NCAA concluded after Derrick Rose’s college career was complete that somebody took the SAT for him, that his qualifying score wasn’t his qualifying score. So the NCAA ruled the subsequent NBA Most Valuable Player ineligible and stripped Memphis of its Final Four even though the NCAA never charged Memphis with any wrongdoing or suggested Memphis knew about Rose’s fraudulent SAT or even should’ve known about Rose’s fraudulent SAT.
The NCAA said it didn’t matter.
Memphis played an ineligible player so Memphis paid the price.
Again, to be clear, this is all just speculation at this point. Duke fans, what do you think? Fair or unfair? Realistic or unrealistic? Let us know in the comments section.
Follow @andrewlbeaton on Twitter
This is absolutely ridiculous!!! Just because one player decides to make a dumb mistake and not carry out a payment doesn’t mean you can take that away from the other players in that team that worked hard to win that title. Singler, Smith, Scheyer, Zoubek, and the rat of the championship team should not be punished for Thomas’ actions. It was his responsibility to make his payment and he failed to do so, therefore he should be the only person to be blamed or punished
How about making the jewelry store relinquish its title instead?
Pingback: Could Duke basketball lose its 2010 championship? — The Blue … | Basketball Report
Improper benefit is an improper benefit, so if the NCAA is consistent (which they are not) then Duke will lose their title. Strict liability. Sad thing is this is not the first time – look up Corey Maggette. Same situation but worse than Marcus Camby and NOTHING HAPPENED.
Then again UNC supposedly did nothing wrong with their academic fraud for basketball players.
Proof that the NCAA has favorites that will never suffer unless their coach is caught on tape handing a recruit a bag of money, and then others that if they jaywalk they will find a reason to vacate all their wins.
All this over a jewelry bill not paid yet; probably because its Duke! Since 2000-2001 UNC has held classes for atheletes mainly in football and basketball in some Afro-Ameri. class where there was no professor present and you just come and sign paper and you get credit for class and several other irregularities to give kid a high grade to average in with sorry grades from real classes,so they might pass Tthis shows real class and integrity for a school like UNC. they never lose games or championships for doing these cheating and detrimental and illegal farces Does The NCAA even have the ballsand cant cheat,invent classes to show UNC they are not God and have no authority to hsve phantom classes which give out phantom grades!All grades and all championships given during this long period of cheating should be abolished. All games these players were in should be vacatednad deleted to show their impoprieties. With Swofford as their roadie the NCAA kisses up to them and says its allright we’ll get Penn St., Indianna, Texas Tech.,Memphis, or anybody but our sweetheart baby blue unc because the liberals want like it11111
C
I don’t think Sara understands why he would be ineligible. It has nothing to do with paying back the loan.
This sounds like something that unc would start since their football team got a slap on their hand because players receiving money,air fare and above all passing grades in black studies that wasn’t even coducted .i don’t see anything wrong with what thomas did, whoever sold the jewelry was at fault if anyone was . i myself may have done the same as the store not thinking thomas as a basketball player but as a soon to be grad of DUKE UNIVERSITY.money from a great job future . this is plain BS .it has nothing to do with winning the championship
Duke Alumni, Class of 2007. Attended the Final Four in Indy and watched Duke win the title. It’s one of my fondest memories. We’re still pretty early in this process, but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think the title is in serious jeopardy.
Sarah it’s not “ridiculous” to think that one player’s eligibility can’t have an entire team’s efforts invalidated. See: Memphis in 2007-2008.
I think Coach K’s 4th championship is on the path to being vacated, and it doesn’t matter if Duke was directly involved. If Lance got an improper benefit, he’s ineligible. And if Duke played with a retroactively ineligible player, the title could be stripped. Period.
If the store really did extend the credit (still an if), then it is an improper benefit and Thomas would have been ineligible from that date on. If the NCAA is going to enforce it’s rules consistently, then Duke will have to retroactively forfeit every victory from that point forward.
Now, I think it will be a cold day in Hell before such a rule gets enforced against Duke, no matter what the facts of the case are.
lololololololololol