What exactly was SMU's Death Penelty? I was too young to even care about CFB in the early to mid 80's. Anyone a lil older than me care to explain what SMU's sanctions were.

Forced to disband the program. Game, set, match.

If you're serious about this (not sure if it's tongue in cheek with the spelling of penelty (sic), the general story as I recall it was that SMU had a slush fund from some boosters that was used to lure certain players (including, allegedly, Eric Dickerson and Craig James (yes, that Craig James)), and that it was discovered by the AD and the president of the university. They decided that they needed to phase out the paying of these players, but that they couldn't simply stop it outright since the money had been promised to them, as this would be effectively reneging on a contract. When it finally came out that this was effectively sanctioned all the way to the top, the NCAA stepped in and told them they could not field a football team for one season. I believe SMU then decided on their own not to compete for a second season before beginning the rebuilding process. Obviously their program has never recovered to the level of those SWC days...

There are a bunch of SMU fans on the C-USA board, and I'm sure they can give a much better account.

USFFan

(01-13-2010 03:31 PM)usffan Wrote:  If you're serious about this (not sure if it's tongue in cheek with the spelling of penelty (sic), the general story as I recall it was that SMU had a slush fund from some boosters that was used to lure certain players (including, allegedly, Eric Dickerson and Craig James (yes, that Craig James)), and that it was discovered by the AD and the president of the university. They decided that they needed to phase out the paying of these players, but that they couldn't simply stop it outright since the money had been promised to them, as this would be effectively reneging on a contract. When it finally came out that this was effectively sanctioned all the way to the top, the NCAA stepped in and told them they could not field a football team for one season. I believe SMU then decided on their own not to compete for a second season before beginning the rebuilding process. Obviously their program has never recovered to the level of those SWC days...

There are a bunch of SMU fans on the C-USA board, and I'm sure they can give a much better account.

USFFan

I was serious. Just spelled penalty wrong. I was just curious to what happened just because of USC wierd hiring of Kiffin. Kiffin isn't exactly a clean fellow when it comes to recruiting as well. I was just wondering if Kiffin could actually lead USC down the road to a penalty similar to SMU.

(01-13-2010 03:36 PM)animus Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 03:31 PM)usffan Wrote:  If you're serious about this (not sure if it's tongue in cheek with the spelling of penelty (sic), the general story as I recall it was that SMU had a slush fund from some boosters that was used to lure certain players (including, allegedly, Eric Dickerson and Craig James (yes, that Craig James)), and that it was discovered by the AD and the president of the university. They decided that they needed to phase out the paying of these players, but that they couldn't simply stop it outright since the money had been promised to them, as this would be effectively reneging on a contract. When it finally came out that this was effectively sanctioned all the way to the top, the NCAA stepped in and told them they could not field a football team for one season. I believe SMU then decided on their own not to compete for a second season before beginning the rebuilding process. Obviously their program has never recovered to the level of those SWC days...

There are a bunch of SMU fans on the C-USA board, and I'm sure they can give a much better account.

USFFan

I was serious. Just spelled penalty wrong. I was just curious to what happened just because of USC wierd hiring of Kiffin. Kiffin isn't exactly a clean fellow when it comes to recruiting as well. I was just wondering if Kiffin could actually lead USC down the road to a penalty similar to SMU.

I don't think they'll ever give anybody the death penalty again after seeing how drastically it affected SMU. I think severe penalties similar to what they did to Miami after Dennis Erickson is more likely.

BTW, I wasn't trying to be a tool about the spelling, but since you put it in quotes, I wasn't sure if you were asking because somebody else had misspelled it and you were playing on that...

As for USC, if every allegation turns out to be true, I suspect they'll get some combination of scholarship restrictions, limited recruit contact and probably a year (or two) bowl ban. When you throw in the basketball program, they may get creative, but I tend to doubt it.

USFFan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Me...ll_scandal

The NCAA handed down the following
-Full season ban for 1987
-No home games in 1988, playing only their away games so other institutions would not be affected
-Existing probation extended to 1990, existing bowl & TV ban extended to 1989
-Loss of 55 scholarships over 4 years
-Certain boosters were completely banned, and if SMU was found to still have contact with them, further punishment would occur
-Only five full-time assistants instead of nine
-No off-campus recruiting until August '88, no paid visits by recruits until this time.

I guess SMU didn't get the full death penalty which would have shut the team down for the 1988 season and they would have no representation at NCAA conventions until 1990.

Full releases were granted to every player on the team so they could transfer without losing any eligibility. Because of the lack of available players, SMU, on its own, cancelled its 1988 season as well.

(01-13-2010 03:49 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Me...ll_scandal

The NCAA handed down the following
-Full season ban for 1987
-No home games in 1988, playing only their away games so other institutions would not be affected
-Existing probation extended to 1990, existing bowl & TV ban extended to 1989
-Loss of 55 scholarships over 4 years
-Certain boosters were completely banned, and if SMU was found to still have contact with them, further punishment would occur
-Only five full-time assistants instead of nine
-No off-campus recruiting until August '88, no paid visits by recruits until this time.

I guess SMU didn't get the full death penalty which would have shut the team down for the 1988 season and they would have no representation at NCAA conventions until 1990.

Full releases were granted to every player on the team so they could transfer without losing any eligibility. Because of the lack of available players, SMU, on its own, cancelled its 1988 season as well.

Well DAMN.

Thanks for the breakdown Matt.

According to some SMU fans I know, SMU was paying players and gave them freebies like new cars. There's a famous quote where either Dickerson or James said he was taking a paycut by going to the NFL.

The entire SWC minus Rice was cheating. From what I've been told, the NCAA was ready to give TCU the death penalty as well but unlike SMU, TCU cooperated with the NCAA committee and just got on probation. SMU's administration refused to cooperate and even denied the allegations, that's why some SMU fans say their school deserved the Death Penalty. The NCAA is on record saying they will no longer give the Death Penalty (at the Div I-A level) because it basically destroyed the SMU football program. So it's safe to say USC or any other elite BCS cheater will not get SMU's treatment.

Since 8 of 9 SWC schools were on probation, Arkansas saw the writing on the wall and lobbied the SEC for membership. Supposedly, Arkansas and Texas A&M were a done deal to the SEC and UT-Austin wanted to go to the Pac-10......until the Texas state gov't got involved and we know the rest of the story.

I was 9 years old and living in California when SMU got the Death Penalty so what I know is basically from SWC fans who remember those days.

You can go to the C-USA board and ask SMU fans, they should be more knowlegable on this subject.

(01-13-2010 03:36 PM)animus Wrote:  I was just curious to what happened just because of USC wierd hiring of Kiffin. Kiffin isn't exactly a clean fellow when it comes to recruiting as well. I was just wondering if Kiffin could actually lead USC down the road to a penalty similar to SMU.

Kiffin really hasn't been all that bad. Most programs have just as many secondary violations as UT did in the last year. The biggest difference is that his violations were very public and reported by the media.

The violations he's been making are those that any coach with half a brain wouldn't make, and he's done each and every one in such a public manner that his credibility is very suspect. The only reason Tennessee had a decent team this year was because of Lane's daddy. If it weren't for Defensive Coordinator Monty Kiffin's defense, the Vols would've had one miserable season. As it was, it was a disappointing season for folks in the Big Orange Navy...

I still think Al Davis had the right idea. I've said it all along, and even the media is starting to pick up on it...

Baylor came close a couple years ago. When the whole Patrick Dennehy murder happened, uncovering some fraud regarding tuition payments, etc., the Bears self-imposed a postseason ban in 2003-04, including the Big 12 tournament, and when the investigation finished, they were not allowed to play any non-conference games in 2005-06.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_Univ...ll_scandal

Don't expect the "Death Penalty" to ever be used again, at least for football. Even the NCAA was surprised at what applying the DP to SMU caused. Not only was one of the top programs in the country basically obliterated overnight, but the shockwaves from it helped cause the collapse of one of the oldest major conferences. Had the Southwest Conference not collapsed it's doubtful that there would be a BCS today.

(01-13-2010 06:11 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Don't expect the "Death Penalty" to ever be used again, at least for football. Even the NCAA was surprised at what applying the DP to SMU caused. Not only was one of the top programs in the country basically obliterated overnight, but the shockwaves from it helped cause the collapse of one of the oldest major conferences. Had the Southwest Conference not collapsed it's doubtful that there would be a BCS today.

I'm not too sure about that last sentence but I agree with everything else, 100%.

When the NCAA dropped that hammer on SMU, there was still some memory of the time the NCAA banned Kentucky from playing basketball for one season in the early/mid 50s. When the Cats took the court again the following year, they basically just picked up where they had left off, as if nothing had happened. I think maybe there was some notion that SMU would be able to do the same thing. Obviously not, and I agree the NCAA will never do that again, at least not to a BCS school.

(01-14-2010 02:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 06:11 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Don't expect the "Death Penalty" to ever be used again, at least for football. Even the NCAA was surprised at what applying the DP to SMU caused. Not only was one of the top programs in the country basically obliterated overnight, but the shockwaves from it helped cause the collapse of one of the oldest major conferences. Had the Southwest Conference not collapsed it's doubtful that there would be a BCS today.

I'm not too sure about that last sentence but I agree with everything else, 100%.

When the NCAA dropped that hammer on SMU, there was still some memory of the time the NCAA banned Kentucky from playing basketball for one season in the early/mid 50s. When the Cats took the court again the following year, they basically just picked up where they had left off, as if nothing had happened. I think maybe there was some notion that SMU would be able to do the same thing. Obviously not, and I agree the NCAA will never do that again, at least not to a BCS school.

There's a big diff, though. The logistics of bball are quite different than fball. W/ only 12-13 players, it is much easier to recover. But w/, at the time, what 100 players? Soooo much more difficult. Fball is a war game, unlike any other sport I can think of. If you lose your edge, you are conquered. Some few can recover, if they have the 'mojo', as it were, but a small private school? Doomsday scenario...

Wasn't part of the rationale behind SMU's death penalty the fact they continued violating NCAA rules while being on probation? If memory serves me right, that is a key component of the "death penalty"...and USC should be safe based on that. SMU is the only school that has received that punishment in the modern era, but were far from the only school eligible. I think it is done for as an enforcement tool. It destroyed a very storied program...well, they destroyed themselves by inviting the punishment in the first place.

(01-14-2010 02:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-13-2010 06:11 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Don't expect the "Death Penalty" to ever be used again, at least for football. Even the NCAA was surprised at what applying the DP to SMU caused. Not only was one of the top programs in the country basically obliterated overnight, but the shockwaves from it helped cause the collapse of one of the oldest major conferences. Had the Southwest Conference not collapsed it's doubtful that there would be a BCS today.

I'm not too sure about that last sentence but I agree with everything else, 100%.

When the NCAA dropped that hammer on SMU, there was still some memory of the time the NCAA banned Kentucky from playing basketball for one season in the early/mid 50s. When the Cats took the court again the following year, they basically just picked up where they had left off, as if nothing had happened. I think maybe there was some notion that SMU would be able to do the same thing. Obviously not, and I agree the NCAA will never do that again, at least not to a BCS school.

Was the decision to disband Tulane's MBK program an institutional or NCAA matter? It was gone from 1984-1989 I believe.

(01-14-2010 08:28 AM)99Tiger Wrote:  Wasn't part of the rationale behind SMU's death penalty the fact they continued violating NCAA rules while being on probation? If memory serves me right, that is a key component of the "death penalty"...and USC should be safe based on that. SMU is the only school that has received that punishment in the modern era, but were far from the only school eligible. I think it is done for as an enforcement tool. It destroyed a very storied program...well, they destroyed themselves by inviting the punishment in the first place.

The NCAA can place the deathy penalty on a school if another program at the school is currently on probation. Baylor's MBK program was a candidate because the men's tennis program was also under NCAA probation at the time.

(01-14-2010 08:28 AM)99Tiger Wrote:  Wasn't part of the rationale behind SMU's death penalty the fact they continued violating NCAA rules while being on probation? If memory serves me right, that is a key component of the "death penalty"...and USC should be safe based on that. SMU is the only school that has received that punishment in the modern era, but were far from the only school eligible. I think it is done for as an enforcement tool. It destroyed a very storied program...well, they destroyed themselves by inviting the punishment in the first place.

Yes, they continue to pay the players after they were placed on probation. Then they refused to cooperate in the investigation, and tried to cover it up. This wasn't a case of a few overzealous boosters. These decisions were made at the institutional.leadership levels.

USC was continuing to allow players to be paid (i.e. Joe McKnight and O.J. Mayo), while their football program was being investigated for Reggie Bush. The only difference being the fact that USC wasn't on probation because they hadn't cooperated in the investigation in a timely manner, so the issue was still being dragged along. It's pretty much the same thing...

Also, SMU wasn't what you'd call a storied program. They were a decent program in the SWC, who by the running of Eric Dickerson and Craig James (yes, the jerk on ESPN) were nationally prominent at the time of their demise...

(01-14-2010 02:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

49RFootballNow Wrote:Had the Southwest Conference not collapsed it's doubtful that there would be a BCS today.

I'm not too sure about that last sentence but I agree with everything else, 100%.

Two problems were solved in one stroke:

1) A 7th BCS conference (Who do you choose? Texas or Miami? Pitt or A&M?, Syracuse or TTech?)
2) A 5th BCS Bowl (Cotton went from the top SWC bowl and a Bowl Coalition partner to the 2nd Big 12 bowl)

Before the SWC collapsed the BCS had a lot more questions to answer about money distribution. The SWC disappearing and it's "better" schools merging into the Big 8 made the BCS formation a lot easier and lot more profitable.