Observer Wrote:

ULCARDINALS Wrote:I'm glad your program was corrupt, but not quite corrupt enough, not to the level of C-USA partner SMU.  A 5 year suspension for a point shaving scandal is as close to the death penalty as you can get.

Sorry, wrong again. Tulane's program was not suspended. They weren't penalized in any manner by the NCAA. Tulane did their own investigation and learned that a certain group of players had gotten involved with a local crime figure and received payoffs for shaving points. Tulane took immediate action and shut the program down. The illegal actions of a few, outside of the knowledge of any Tulane official, did serious injury to many innocent bystanders, including but not limited to Coach Ned Fowler.

Too bad Louisville does not have the same level of moral values to take similar actions whenever they find an infestation of immoral student athletes.

1. Tell me where I said it was a suspension by the NCAA? Play was SUSPENDED by the university.

2. Tell me what Louisville has done to need to stop football or basketball because of "an infestation of immoral student athletes"? The worst thing we've had was not being eligible for the NCAA tourney for one year, and was over-ruled the next year because we fired the assistant coach that made the recruiting goof up.

Don't try to compare a point shaving scandal to a one year post season ban.

ULCARDINALS Wrote:

Observer Wrote:

ULCARDINALS Wrote:I'm glad your program was corrupt, but not quite corrupt enough, not to the level of C-USA partner SMU.  A 5 year suspension for a point shaving scandal is as close to the death penalty as you can get.

Sorry, wrong again. Tulane's program was not suspended. They weren't penalized in any manner by the NCAA. Tulane did their own investigation and learned that a certain group of players had gotten involved with a local crime figure and received payoffs for shaving points. Tulane took immediate action and shut the program down. The illegal actions of a few, outside of the knowledge of any Tulane official, did serious injury to many innocent bystanders, including but not limited to Coach Ned Fowler.

Too bad Louisville does not have the same level of moral values to take similar actions whenever they find an infestation of immoral student athletes.

1. Tell me where I said it was a suspension by the NCAA? Play was SUSPENDED by the university.

2. Tell me what Louisville has done to need to stop football or basketball because of "an infestation of immoral student athletes"? The worst thing we've had was not being eligible for the NCAA tourney for one year, and was over-ruled the next year because we fired the assistant coach that made the recruiting goof up.

Don't try to compare a point shaving scandal to a one year post season ban.

You said Death Penalty, if I recall. That has a specific meaning in college sports, its a term that indicates an NCAA decision to shutdown a scholarship sport at a particular university, for a number of years. And furthermore....The point shaving scandal was not the school's fault. It was individual players attempting to make money by cheating the system.

The SCHOOL did not cheat. The school actually did nothing wrong, and we were not found to lack institutional control, as far as I know. So hinting that we had our program shut down (by using the term Death Penalty) is wrong. The university took a pro-active stance at the first HINT of corruption among student athletes.

No school had ever responded to athlete misconduct so swiftly before, and has not since. Tulane is a model for institutional control and the true meaning of college athletics. It's a school that has the integrity to do things the right way, and stopped short of nothing to maintain that.

To pick on us for this is really missing the mark. This incident is actual a feather in the university's cap, when it comes to integrity.

Not to mention that, after the Tulane basketbal program was resurrected, it became arguably the bright spot of the Metro Conference through the mid 90s, getting the conference as much attention, TV coverage, NCAA tourney units and other benefits as anyone in the conference.

Another example of the selective memory of Bird fans everywhere.

ULCARDINALS,Dec 26 2004, 12:57 PM Wrote:

Observer,Dec 26 2004, 12:45 PM Wrote:

ULCARDINALS,Dec 26 2004, 12:22 PM Wrote:

Uh, you are aware that Tulane has never received the death penalty?

Close to it.

I'm glad your program was corrupt, but not quite corrupt enough, not to the level of C-USA partner SMU. A 5 year suspension for a point shaving scandal is as close to the death penalty as you can get. [/QUOTE] I'm glad to hear that you are close to being aware. [/QUOTE] Not sure what that has to do with a contract extension - I guess more 3rd rate lou chest beating.We didn't get the death penalty, genius.
Actually, we put that penalty on ourselves - the NCAA didn't sanction us. We dealt with our issue Lou, of course, has been sanctioned before, and whined the whole way through;

Good thing for Lou that the NCAA doesn't put penalties on spitting on academics and academic standards, because if that were the case, Lou would be on constant probation -

Back to the subject, it's ridiculous that a coach who averages 4.1 division 1 wins a year, who took over a 11-0 team, who has never had a great season in 6 tries, and who has had only 2 winning seasons in those 6 tries (only 1 if you count only division 1 competition) is given an extension that puts Tulane on the hook for another 5 seasons.

tufinal4 Wrote:Knight Light, who gives a sh$t what you think will be going on at Tulane two years from now.  One thing's for sure, it will be light years ahead of UCF.  Welcome to the conference, d$ckhead.

I'm glad Tulane has a coach that you guys are happy with.

Just out of common courtesy, could you find the post where Knight Light offended you?

DrBox Wrote:Back to the subject, it's ridiculous that a coach who averages 4.1 division 1 wins a year, who took over a 11-0 team, who has never had a great season in 6 tries, and who has had only 2 winning seasons in those 6 tries (only 1 if you count only division 1 competition) is given an extension that puts Tulane on the hook for another 5 seasons.

Bowden left that 11-0 team with NOTHING except Patrick Ramsey.

Scelfo went 6-5 in his second season when NO ONE thought that team was going to win more than three games.

The Hawai'i Bowl season was another where TU was picked at or near the bottom of CUSA, came into the game as double digit underdogs and won by double digits.

This season, they replaced the best ever backfield in school history, played with two freshmen and two sophomores on the D-line, had only 10 seniors on the team, and was able to salvage a 1-4 start to finish 5-6.

This with academic restrictions on recruiting and academic casualties (school imposed standards, not NCAA).

If Frank Beamer deserved a shot after his first six years (look up his record, you'll be surprised) playing against similar competition at a MUCH less restrictive school, then Scelfo deserves his extension.

But this board has one of the lower collective IQs out there, so I can see why so many don't get it.

It was The Knight Time who said that TU wouldn't exist in two years.

Sophandros Wrote:It was The Knight Time who said that TU wouldn't exist in two years.

Thanks, I know that it was Knight Time. It was just a "character test" for tufinal4.

Sophandros Wrote:

DrBox Wrote:Back to the subject, it's ridiculous  that a coach who averages 4.1 division 1 wins a year, who took over a 11-0 team, who has never had a great season in 6 tries, and who has had only 2 winning seasons in those 6 tries (only 1 if you count only division 1 competition)  is given an extension that puts Tulane on the hook for another 5 seasons.

Bowden left that 11-0 team with NOTHING except Patrick Ramsey.

Scelfo went 6-5 in his second season when NO ONE thought that team was going to win more than three games.

The Hawai'i Bowl season was another where TU was picked at or near the bottom of CUSA, came into the game as double digit underdogs and won by double digits.

This season, they replaced the best ever backfield in school history, played with two freshmen and two sophomores on the D-line, had only 10 seniors on the team, and was able to salvage a 1-4 start to finish 5-6.

This with academic restrictions on recruiting and academic casualties (school imposed standards, not NCAA).

If Frank Beamer deserved a shot after his first six years (look up his record, you'll be surprised) playing against similar competition at a MUCH less restrictive school, then Scelfo deserves his extension.

But this board has one of the lower collective IQs out there, so I can see why so many don't get it.

Is it necessary to insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?

You made some statements that are simply false, but are part of the spin that has been put out around this coaching staff.

Nothing except Ramsey? JuJuan Dawson was nothing? Fact is we had to replace 3 offensive starters in 1999. We lost a lot of D, but had THREE players on defense who returned in 1999 that eventually had try-outs in pro camps.

What we did was hire a ridiculously inexperienced coach for whatever reason, who was over his head in 1999. He's getting better. He's played pretty easy schedules, , has managed 1 winning season (if you count only 1A competition) in 6 years and we've now tied him up for 11 seasons. In year 6, the team was completely non-competitive for the first 1/2 of the year. Our attendance never recovered (blow-outs matter)

Yes we have recruiting standards - however, 50% of our classes can meet just minimum NCAA standards (although they have to go through a committee).

Yea, he may be a Beamer - he may also be a Davis. We'll have 11 years of Scelfo, at least, to find out - no rush for him.

We lost the majority of the 1998 defense, and that was what killed us. No, JaJuan wasn't nothing, but Patrick was in his first year as a starter, and the OL was green in more ways than one.

That said, they were able to put some points on the board.

And to the academic point: remember that we don't have remedial courses, or even courses like College Algebra, as other schools do. Are there some easier courses that athletes "happen" to take? Sure, but there are no basketweaving type majors for them to get, unless you count business as one of those. :D

PaulDrake Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:

DrBox Wrote:Back to the subject, it's ridiculous  that a coach who averages 4.1 division 1 wins a year, who took over a 11-0 team, who has never had a great season in 6 tries, and who has had only 2 winning seasons in those 6 tries (only 1 if you count only division 1 competition)  is given an extension that puts Tulane on the hook for another 5 seasons.

Bowden left that 11-0 team with NOTHING except Patrick Ramsey.

Scelfo went 6-5 in his second season when NO ONE thought that team was going to win more than three games.

The Hawai'i Bowl season was another where TU was picked at or near the bottom of CUSA, came into the game as double digit underdogs and won by double digits.

This season, they replaced the best ever backfield in school history, played with two freshmen and two sophomores on the D-line, had only 10 seniors on the team, and was able to salvage a 1-4 start to finish 5-6.

This with academic restrictions on recruiting and academic casualties (school imposed standards, not NCAA).

If Frank Beamer deserved a shot after his first six years (look up his record, you'll be surprised) playing against similar competition at a MUCH less restrictive school, then Scelfo deserves his extension.

But this board has one of the lower collective IQs out there, so I can see why so many don't get it.

Is it necessary to insult everyone who doesn't agree with you?

You made some statements that are simply false, but are part of the spin that has been put out around this coaching staff.

Nothing except Ramsey? JuJuan Dawson was nothing? Fact is we had to replace 3 offensive starters in 1999. We lost a lot of D, but had THREE players on defense who returned in 1999 that eventually had try-outs in pro camps.

What we did was hire a ridiculously inexperienced coach for whatever reason, who was over his head in 1999. He's getting better. He's played pretty easy schedules, , has managed 1 winning season (if you count only 1A competition) in 6 years and we've now tied him up for 11 seasons. In year 6, the team was completely non-competitive for the first 1/2 of the year. Our attendance never recovered (blow-outs matter)

Yes we have recruiting standards - however, 50% of our classes can meet just minimum NCAA standards (although they have to go through a committee).

Yea, he may be a Beamer - he may also be a Davis. We'll have 11 years of Scelfo, at least, to find out - no rush for him.

Yes Paul, he did exaggerate to make a point. But so do you. The fact is no-one can be successful with as few div. 1A players as Scelfo inherited. Go through the list of Bowden recruits and it will become obvious.

Meldon Barnes -- failed to develop, div. 1AA caliber
Ryan Brewer -- failed to develop, left school, div. 1AA caliber
Adrian Burnette -- excellent sign
Charles Caldwell -- failed to develop, div. 1AA caliber
Tony Converse -- need anything else be said, Angola caliber
Kerwin Cook -- excellent sign
Tony Cunningham -- undersized, div. 1AA caliber
David Dorsey -- filed to develop, marginal div. 1A skills
Derrick Elzy -- div. 1AA caliber
Corey Jones -- late developer, adequate div. 1A backup
Jamal Jones -- adequate div. 1A player
Glenn Lemoine -- marginal div. 1A ability
Jon-Robert Mouton -- good skills, bad grades
Stephen Parrish -- adequate skills
Patrick Ramsey -- Excellent sign
Zander Robinson -- excellent sign, injury
Casey Roussel -- excellent sign
Barry Smith -- good sign
Mark Tyler -- div. 1AA caliber
Bryson Westbrook -- marginal capabilities
John Wilson -- div. 1AA caliber
Kenan Blackmon -- excellent sign
Kern Blackmon -- awful sign
Percy Branon -- div. 1AA caliber
Derick Bugg -- good sign
Chrys Bullock -- excellent sign
Allen Davis -- div. 1AA caliber
Delandro Davis -- good sign
David Dunlap -- adequate
Matt Groff -- excellent sign
Terrell Harris -- very good sign
Derrick Joseph -- excellent sign, misused
Gennaro Reshard -- div. 1AA caliber
Corey Sewell -- adequate
Roxie Shelvin -- excellent sign, injury hampered
Torie Taulli -- good sing, undersized
Chris Washington -- adequate
Seth Zaunbrecher -- adequate

After reviewing the list I'm surprised Scelfo did as well as he did.

To the Memphis fan above, I checked back and you're right. I'm sorry, Knight Light, I mixed you guys up. As for Knight Time, my original response stands.

Sophandros Wrote:

DrBox Wrote:Back to the subject, it's ridiculous  that a coach who averages 4.1 division 1 wins a year, who took over a 11-0 team, who has never had a great season in 6 tries, and who has had only 2 winning seasons in those 6 tries (only 1 if you count only division 1 competition)  is given an extension that puts Tulane on the hook for another 5 seasons.

Bowden left that 11-0 team with NOTHING except Patrick Ramsey.

Scelfo went 6-5 in his second season when NO ONE thought that team was going to win more than three games.

The Hawai'i Bowl season was another where TU was picked at or near the bottom of CUSA, came into the game as double digit underdogs and won by double digits.

This season, they replaced the best ever backfield in school history, played with two freshmen and two sophomores on the D-line, had only 10 seniors on the team, and was able to salvage a 1-4 start to finish 5-6.

This with academic restrictions on recruiting and academic casualties (school imposed standards, not NCAA).

If Frank Beamer deserved a shot after his first six years (look up his record, you'll be surprised) playing against similar competition at a MUCH less restrictive school, then Scelfo deserves his extension.

But this board has one of the lower collective IQs out there, so I can see why so many don't get it.

Yep. We just gave an extension to Frank Beamer.

Next year Scelfo has none of his built in excuses. The pressure should be on him and his staff to break it out next year, barring LEGITIMATE circumstances. That pressure has now been substantially reduced.

You (or nobody else) has explained why it was the right thing to do to offer the man an extension NOW. Recruiting? That, to me, is not good enough. I also saw someone make an attempt to explain it by characterizing it as a preemptive strike on some team trying to hire him away from us. Please.

IMO you hold his feet to the fire for 2005 when there is no reason why he shouldn't have a big year. If he breaks it out in 2005, which he should, give him his extension. If he doesn't, I'm sure you and the rest of the folks on the Tulane board will be ready with a litany of excuses for why he didn't, and a litany of insults for anyone who disagrees.

1ndabag Wrote:IMO you hold his feet to the fire for 2005 when there is no reason why he shouldn't have a big year. If he breaks it out in 2005, which he should, give him his extension. If he doesn't, I'm sure you and the rest of the folks on the Tulane board will be ready with a litany of excuses for why he didn't, and a litany of insults for anyone who disagrees.

I'll probably be right there with everyone else with excuses - they'll be necessary to soothe my mind; because after all, if he can't win next year, there really is no hope. I don't like to live in such situations, so I'll likely dream up excuses along with everyone else

Stability, loyalty, showing commitment to a coach who's gone through thick and thin for you and who's shown that his teams are getting better, etc.

Funny how the traits that I mentioned above are so rare today in sports, yet people want to bash Tulane for showing them...

I think the extension for Scelfo was a good idea. His team showed improvement last year during the season. Winning at Tulane has its challenges and firing Scelfo would not change any of those.

Sophandros Wrote:Stability, loyalty, showing commitment to a coach who's gone through thick and thin for you and who's shown that his teams are getting better, etc.

Funny how the traits that I mentioned above are so rare today in sports, yet people want to bash Tulane for showing them...

Nobody is questioning loyalty, etc. Heck Buddy Teevens was a loyal, good natured guy too. He was just not the coach for us. And as far as Tulane bashing, I've not seen any of that here from Tulane posters. In fact, the only bashing I've seen is from you insulting the intelligence of the folks on this board.

The only point I've tried to make is that an extension THIS YEAR was premature. If the team kicks butt next year like I think we will, extend coach all day long, announce it in a press conference after the CUSA championship victory and before the bowl victory.

I just don't see the point in doing it now and, again, nobody (including yourself) has explained it to me. But what's done it done. As I've said in other posts; if we have the season next year that it looks like we should, nobody will be taking issue with any extension (not even me )

1ndabag Wrote:You (or nobody else) has explained why it was the right thing to do to offer the man an extension NOW.

I agree. No-one has adequately explained why it was proper to give Scelfo an extension. I will attempt to give some reasons. Certainly, only Dickson or the president could give a complete accounting for the decision.

Tulane recently had a review of the total athletic program, including, and especially football. The review formulated some specific guidlines and goals that hed to be maintained/achieved in order to guarantee the future existance of football. Scelfo was made aware of his responsibilities relative to these guidlines. According to Dickson, Scelfo has met or exceeded all objectives he was assigned. Further, Dickson reviewed Scelfo's yearly and cumulative performance and weighed that against what he was given or inherited to accomplish his mandate. Although Tulane has not yet reached the level of success (winning) that they plan to achieve, certain benchmarks have been reached. Dickson has said that Scelfo's performance has been exceptional and warranted an extension. I say he and his staff warrant a raise as well.

Observer Wrote:

1ndabag Wrote:You (or nobody else) has explained why it was the right thing to do to offer the man an extension NOW.

I agree. No-one has adequately explained why it was proper to give Scelfo an extension. I will attempt to give some reasons. Certainly, only Dickson or the president could give a complete accounting for the decision.

Tulane recently had a review of the total athletic program, including, and especially football. The review formulated some specific guidlines and goals that hed to be maintained/achieved in order to guarantee the future existance of football. Scelfo was made aware of his responsibilities relative to these guidlines. According to Dickson, Scelfo has met or exceeded all objectives he was assigned. Further, Dickson reviewed Scelfo's yearly and cumulative performance and weighed that against what he was given or inherited to accomplish his mandate. Although Tulane has not yet reached the level of success (winning) that they plan to achieve, certain benchmarks have been reached. Dickson has said that Scelfo's performance has been exceptional and warranted an extension. I say he and his staff warrant a raise as well.

That was not my statement. I said that nobody has adequately explained why it was important to give Scelfo an extension NOW (and I even put NOW in all caps).

The things you put forth are all true. But none of them address my point. I stand by my position that this year, after a 5-6 season and just before the supposed "break out year", was too soon.

But what's done is done. As I've stated before, if we do next year what everyone agrees we should do (winning season, bowl game, win or at least contend for CUSA title) then everyone will be happy and the extension issue won't matter much. If we don't break it out next year though, there will be a lot of questions to answer.

Either way, I'll be there, screaming my head off at the games as usual and annoying the sport jacket/pinky extended group in my section.