From the Daily Bruin
http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2...rushs-ineligi/
"In the last step of the case, the NCAA ruled that because UCLA used Rush, an ineligible player, during the 1999 NCAA Tournament, the school must return 45 percent ($45,321) of its earnings from its participation in the Tournament, in which the Bruins suffered a first round loss to Detroit Mercy. In addition, UCLA’s performance in the 1999 Tournament is deleted...Rush was suspended for 44 games by the NCAA after its discovery that the forward took $6,125 from his summer league coach
during high school. After a UCLA appeal, the suspension was reduced by 20 games."
Perhaps more to the point is this quote from the same article:
"“The precedent in these types of situations is if the school did not know nor should have known about the student-athlete’s participation in activities that could render the individual ineligible, the penalty is 45 percent,” [NCAA spokesperson Jane] Jankowski said. “If the school knew or should have known, then it most likely would have been higher.”
If this comment is true, then it seems Duke should have returned a percentage of its earnings from the 1999 NCAA tournament. This only feeds into the conspiracy theories about Duke's preferential treatment. I would be curious to hear an explanation for why we got off with no penalty whatsoever. (IIRC, we did not return any money from the '99 tourney.)