(01-14-2010 09:06 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  Was the decision to disband Tulane's MBK program an institutional or NCAA matter? It was gone from 1984-1989 I believe.

That was a decision made exclusively by Tulane's then-President, Dr. Eamon Kelly, in March 1985, after revelations of a point-shaving scandal had come out in court proceedings (I think it was a federal trial, but no longer sure about that). And it was also Kelly's exclusive decision to bring basketball back. Georgia Tech assistant Perry Clark was hired as Tulane's HC in summer 1988 and began recruiting and administrative duties, but the team did not actually play a game until November 1989. So it was four seasons that Tulane's record was 0-0. The women's basketball team was also disbanded for those four seasons, even though it was not implicated in the scandal.

(01-14-2010 06:00 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

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

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...

I agree with everything you have said in that post. My point is not that these differences don't exist, merely that it is understandable, in light of the Kentucky precedent, how the NCAA overlooked them in 1987. SMU's image at that time was not "small private school in C-USA" but rather "super-rich private school in SWC" and I just don't think the decision-makers fully appreciated what was going to happen.

(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.

Tennessee deserved it in the late 80's. They were put on probation for Pell Grant abuses and allowing athletes to spend weekends in luxurious ski chalets. Then, while still on probation, they were caught red-handed hosting a secret summer football camp to which only blue-chip high-school prospects were invited.

(01-14-2010 10:44 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  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...

You're right...I thought their history was better than it is (just looked up their records). Good years then bad years then good years...rinse and repeat.

(01-14-2010 01:05 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Tennessee deserved it in the late 80's. They were put on probation for Pell Grant abuses and allowing athletes to spend weekends in luxurious ski chalets. Then, while still on probation, they were caught red-handed hosting a secret summer football camp to which only blue-chip high-school prospects were invited.

You might want to watch the stone throwing. My understanding is we could have very easily gotten it in the late 80's as well.