Cheating

Abe Lemmons once said to end cheating to give each coach a million dollars to pay recruits and tell the coach he can keep what’s left over.

You can’t stop it because the schools don’t really want to stop it. The only effective deterrent would be strong, consistent penalties combined with actual investigative powers and enough people to really get their noses in there. This would be disruptive and expensive, probably too much for the member schools to accept.

I disagree with the premise that UT cheats just like A&M, OU, etc., for the simple reason that UT, with over 400,000 alumni and truckloads of money, could easily outbid them all and end up with every player they wanted. Since they don’t get them all, they must not be buying players.

The never ending problem is that no matter what becomes legal there will always be programs that work the edges. Moving the boundaries just changes the form of the cheating.

The problem for UT is where to be on that line. If it starts to get really bad (and I’m looking at you Oregon and Auburn) do we stay clean or do we play the game.

I don’t envy anyone that decision and I wouldn’t fault either decision.

Is there a difference to a kid getting $10,000 laundered through a casino and a booster handing a kid $100 every now and then? Sure. Is it 10 X worse? Is it linear?

The line of demarcation, IMO, isn’t so much the amount of money involved, (although that obviously is a major part) its how systemic the cheating is within the department.

Have some Texas players had their hands out — yes some have. Have they found alumni willing to fill it with some cash so they can feel like an “insider” who believes they have had a part in making a winner? Of course. I am convinced that it happens just about everywhereat the BCS level (and below).

But at SMU (and other places) the cheating was ingrained into the culture so deep that it was accepted, organized and acknowledged by the very people who were on the front lines — the coaching staff and administration.

For those programs there is always “A Payroll To Meet.”

Abe Lemmons once said to end cheating to give each coach a million dollars to pay recruits and tell the coach he can keep what’s left over.

NBH, that reminds me of back when MLB players got the right to free agency. Charlie O. Finley recommended that in order to make sure salaries didn’t get out of hand, every player be a free agent at the end of the year, in perpetuity.

It obviously didn’t take. Would have been neat to see it in action, though, just like with Abe’s plan.

This is a very interesting discussion and one I think we should have in college athletics. The inequity in punishment by the NCAA is absurd.

In college basketball you have Jacob Pullen and Curtis Kelly getting suspended for 3-6 games for taking a couple hundred dollars in discounts on clothes while Josh Selby loses 9 games for taking $6,000.

In college football you have players from Ohio St. being suspended 5 games for selling personal possessions for what some would deem less than fair market value and on the other side you have Cam Newton rewarded with a chance at a National Championship for “not knowing” that his father shopped him around for $180,000.

That needs to be fixed first.

Second the notion of amateurism is dumb in my opinion. Olympic athletes pull down 6 and 7 figure endorsement deals but are considered amateurs. Riiiiiiight! I don’t see anything wrong with a players earning money while in school from endorsements or working a job. However, I do understand the argument that such a policy could open pandora’s box. I don’t necessarily think so.

To me this argument is very similar to the legalization of drugs. The naysayers will say that if you legalize it than everyone will do drugs. I disagree with that premise. I actually believe that if you allowed players to earn money from either employment, endorsements, a stipend or whatever there would be more transparency and enforcement would actually be easier. Instead of shady alumni sneaking around behind the backs of the NCAA now you have a proactive program and players will be less apt to take money from the agents runner or Boss Hogg booster.

That’s probably a very quick and sloppy description of the side of the discussion I stand on but it’s a much better discussion over a few beers.

Do you care?

Hopefully, the discussion can be interesting. For the purposes of this discussion we’ll just agree that Texas has cheated its ass off like SMU, OU and A&M.

If everyone is cheating then I don’t care. There’s nothing morally wrong with paying recruits, it’s simply wrong according to the NCAA rules. If literally everyone is cheating then it’s not really cheating anymore. It’s just a new set of de facto rules. The issue is that some schools choose not to participate, presumably because it’s illegal. So schools like Auburn are gaining an unfair advantage by breaking NCAA rules. And that’s cheating, and it damages the integrity of the game. That’s my issue. I don’t care about amateurism or anything like that.

Awesome. Another thread for more sour grapes, revisionist histories, urban legends, and general holster douchiness from blowhards that don’t know WTF they’re talking about.

Come on, barner. You’re telling me if a Bama player had been accused of what Cam Newton has been accused of you wouldn’t be up in arms?

Is it possible to fix? If so, how?

Al Capone knew the answer, and it has three initials rather than four.

Unless you’re in the SEC…

I agree with maninblack.

This type of policy would be impossible to place now, but if cfb goes to super-conferences, then a policy of stipends could be put into place. The penalty, in the event of a proven Cam Newton incident, could be loss of participation in the super-conference for X number of seasons in the sport of violation.

I think it’s ironic that Cam and Cecil got away with the ’didn’t know’ defense. Cecil didn’t know it was wrong, and Cam didn’t know it happened. Wow!

J.R. 69 and Keeton fail reading comprehension.

JR – he gets they don’t cheat as bad. He’s trying to steer the conversation to bigger questions.

Keeton – you are just a garden variety tard.

So, would this be a bad time to bring up VY’s lakehouse?

No, bring it up. Was there a metric ton of unchained pussy?

Actually, this thread is more about the bigger issues and not the quotidian shit so go over to the forum and let us know what you got. I really want to hear about VY’s lakehouse.

srr50 is going to get on me again for being negative, but I have to say that it doesn’t look like we are getting our money’s worth. At least not this year. Now, 2005, that was worth every penny. Lets do it again, soonest.

Will there never be an evil railroad, oil company, enron, firestone, medical company, etc… There will always be scandals in in business. The scandals can range from management, accountants, engineering designs sales executives and etc… It is a shame. I am amazed how some people can sleep at night. Yea.. cheating may get you a winning battle but never bring a victory of war. Do you want to win a battle or win a war. Ethics and value will win the war.

Like JR69 and srr, I am not willing to concede that Texas is like SMU, OU and aggy regarding cheating. The difference is that the cheating at those schools was systemic. It was organized and administered by coaches and other school officials at those schools.

Eric Dickerson’s claim that Texas was doing the same thing but didn’t get caught strains credulity for the reason SMU’s scheme ultimately came out. There will always be a pissed off guy that it didn’t work out for who will talk to the press.

I’m sure individual players at all schools get illegal benefits from individual boosters. Not sure how to stop that.

OK, bigger issues: No it cannot be fixed. In this age of $1M assistants and multi-$M HCs, it is easy for me to see a scaled stipend starting at $50k per year for QBs running down to $5K per year for kickers. But then, wouldn’t it be illegal to fix the going salary for football players? Wouldn’t we have to allow free-agency? Who would police this system?

Dude -

Like JR69 and srr, I am not willing to concede that Texas is like SMU, OU and aggy regarding cheating.

NOT the point of the post. I am saying, for the members of our audience that are from OU or A&M, let’s just agree that we’re all dirty. Otherwise we spiral into that discussion which frankly bores the shit out of me it’s so obvious.

How do you fix the bigger problems? Are they even addressable? Does this become a battle of ethics vs. rules?

“Like I said, I don’t know how you fix it. The business is too big. There are too many people involved and the people in charge of enforcement are bureaucratically disorganized at best and badly conflicted at worst.”

This cuts to the heart of it.
Too much money and too many people with a stake in that money.

No. It’s not fixable. It can only be destroyed or embraced. Choose.

Lurker,

I can understand the embracing part, but I am not sure what you would destroy? Maybe you mean replace? But that begs the question, with what?

I think it works pretty well right now. The really extreme stuff gets generally beat down. The minor stuff by a few boosters is probably embraceable since it is at a low enough noise level that it universal and no program really gets much advantage from it.

Anything really different from what we have now courtesey of the NCAA might be much less manageable and very expensive. Maybe expensive enough that the NFL might have to finally contribute their fair share to what amounts to a free farm system today?

How do you fix the bigger problems? Are they even addressable?

No they are not addressable – not as long as the Police (NCAA) are getting “protection” money.

Fair point, SR.

I don’t think it is fixable unless the member schools are committed enough to stopping cheating to empower the NCAA to do what is necessary. Inmates running the asylum.

Sailor,

The problem is that you’re living in an alternate reality if you think this is still the “Pony Excess” era. The NCAA doesn’t get its info from chain emails or rival fans’ messae boards. Sometimes the reason the NCAA doesn’t act the way you think it should is bc the shit you read on the Internet isn’t true. Sometimes, despite what you read here and on recruitocosm, kids don’t come to Texas bc Texas screwed up in evals, or because someone else showed them the love, they didn’t like the cut of Mack’s jib, or bc of any # of reasons that teenage kids make decisions. It’s not always bc every other program is cheating, and bc every kid, except for 25 angels, is repped by a street agent. Not everything is a conspiracy to screw Texas. Nobody is 100% in compliance with NCAA rules (not even Texas), but the days of ocaches showing up with briefcases full of cash and no one batting an eyelash are over. There are too many people watching.

re:Flash
“Anything really different from what we have now courtesey of the NCAA might be much less manageable and very expensive. Maybe expensive enough that the NFL might have to finally contribute their fair share to what amounts to a free farm system today?”

That might be just the solution. Everything out in the open without the hypocrisy of “student-athlete.” Or keep the label “student-athlete” if he is pursuing undergraduate and/or graduate studies in Applied Football Science. Let it be an actual course of study with full scholarships paid by the NFL to promising youngsters. And let the players do endorsements.

Sorry, but the contrast between the NCAA’s handling of Dez Bryant and Cam Newton, just to name two, has made me very cynical about the whole idea of “college” football. But, at the same time, I love it. Maybe I need to cut down on the caffeine.

Dean -

You seem to be in the alternate reality.

The piece doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Texas. You are Quixotic in your attacks. Sailor went out of his way to make the point Texas isn’t clean.

We’re talking big picture here and you seem to have some other specific axes to grind. Try to stay on point.

“Second the notion of amateurism is dumb in my opinion. Olympic athletes pull down 6 and 7 figure endorsement deals but are considered amateurs. Riiiiiiight!”

That would have been an interesting argument a couple of decades ago. Since the Olympics stopped restricting competition to amateur athletes about that time, it isn’t particularly relevant now. The Olympics doesn’t consider anyone to be amateur (or not to be amateur) because that is simply an irrelevant distinction for them now. They may expend a lot of effort in seeing that the female competitors are actually female, but they don’t spend any time checking to see who is an amateur.

“I don’t see anything wrong with a players earning money while in school from endorsements or working a job. However, I do understand the argument that such a policy could open pandora’s box. I don’t necessarily think so.”

You probably think that you could devise a system that would be reasonable and work to eliminate cheating. Perhaps you could. The chances that such a system wouldn’t destroy the existing structure of college football seems to me pretty slim. If the pay comes directly from the schools, how do Baylor/TCU/Boise/KState/et al. survive in such a system? Do you want to restrict the competition to the 20-40 schools that can actually afford to compete in the high-dollar pay system? And if it’s not going to be sufficiently high-dollar to cut those other guys out of the herd, why do we think it would eliminate cheating?

The chances that the system itself would evade destruction by legal challenges seem to me even smaller. If you’re going to pay football players then you certainly have to pay basketball players. Of course, many in both groups would undoubtedly be taking a pay cut in any system that could be justified, but that’s a separate problem. And what happens when baseball, volleyball, tennis, soccer, etc., players file lawsuits? Not being a lawyer, I’m not entirely certain about the answer, but I don’t anticipate that it would end well.

If the money doesn’t come from the schools, then you still end up with a similar problem. Do we really think that Iowa State fans can compete with UT/OU/USC/Oregon/et al. fans in providing “jobs” or “endorsement deals” for players? I certainly don’t. Hell, if we put in something to restrict endorsement deals to those with athletic equipment companies, I doubt that anyone could compete with Oregon. Of course, I guess that monied fans of various schools could then either buy up existing companies or start new ones to funnel endorsement money to players at their schools.

If you were god-emperor of the universe, then you could certainly come up with a system that would work. Unfortunately, I think that it might take that degree of power to implement and maintain a workable system. Anything less than that and I believe that you have a system that can and will be subverted. If there is still cheating then all that we have accomplished is to spend even more money on college sports. I wouldn’t see that as a particularly noteworthy improvement.

Juan,

Sailor said to assume, arguendo, that Texas was as guilty as the average cheating program. I’m saying, big pic-wise, that the cheating isn’t of the character that he’s describing. Those days are gone. There’s too much info out there, and too many people with access to that info,

Like it or not, billu and Dean Keeton are both pretty much right on. The status quo is pretty much preferable to something probably much more expensive and totally uncontrollable.

  The NCAA is not consistent and, worse, takes too long to close big cases. However, most of the rest goes undetected and as long as it can go on pretty much anywhere then no program is going to get a jump on us. In the final analysis, that is all that really matters. Ethics and fairness be damned.

Dean -

I have to say you missed the point by a country mile and whether that’s my inability to communicate or your ability to comprehend is a matter of debate.

The problem is that you’re living in an alternate reality if you think this is still the "Pony Excess" era.

Nowhere did I say this was the Pony Excess era. I watched the show and it made me consider the modern era of collegiate athletics. Your assertion I equated the two as tantamount is lazy reading. By the way, have you heard anything about Cam Newton, Rhett Bomar, Reggie Bush, John Blake, et al.? There is some shit going on. I’m not making this up.

Sometimes, despite what you read here and on recruitocosm, kids don’t come to Texas bc Texas screwed up in evals, or because someone else showed them the love, they didn’t like the cut of Mack’s jib, or bc of any # of reasons that teenage kids make decisions. It’s not always bc every other program is cheating, and bc every kid, except for 25 angels, is repped by a street agent.

Sweet creeping Jesus. You are making assertions that have nothing to do with the post. The point of this post has virtually nothing to do with Texas specifically. As somebody said up there, clearly you have an axe to grind but it isn’t with me.

Nobody is 100% in compliance with NCAA rules (not even Texas), but the days of ocaches showing up with briefcases full of cash and no one batting an eyelash are over. There are too many people watching.

Again, this is NOT about Texas. We’re talking big picture. I also stipulated for the point of the debate Texas is not in compliance with all NCAA rules/regs.

I do think if you believe there isn’t pervasive rule breaking of many levels of severity your naivete or willful ignorance is showing. No, coaches are not doing it themselves but if you think there aren’t boosters handing out serious dough, often orchestrated, with coaches’ knowledge, we’ll agree to disagree. It’s also about loopholes. Stuff the NCAA can’t or isn’t interested in keeping up with.

In an attempt to get this debate back on track.

If you, like I do, assume there is a decent amount of cheating, can it be cleaned up or is that a fool’s errand? If it’s the latter, how would you want your program to behave?

This is the real issue – I don’t see how it ever goes away and I feel like programs may have to adjust to deal with the landscape.

I think the NCAA turns a blind eye toward cheaters because it is more interested in parity than honesty. And how better is it for a have-not program to achieve parity than to cheat?

“Is there a difference to a kid getting $10,000 laundered through a casino and a booster handing a kid $100 every now and then? Sure. Is it 10 X worse? Is it linear?”

Sure there is a difference. Calvinism is a fine philosophy for determining worthiness for salvation (“None are worthy”), but it’s a poor method for regulating society. There is a difference between running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme and undervaluing an inkjet printer in a home office on your taxes. Yes, both are wrong, required conscious decisions, and line up the perpetrator for punishment. Is anybody interested in the thoughts or opinions of somebody who sees the acts as equivalent?

There is a difference between a player being comped a meal, and a coach allowing boosters to participate in bidding wars. The irony is that the former, if discovered, results in sanctions far more severe than the benefit, while the latter results in sanctions far less severe. So be it. Let’s just not allow the crooked programs to claim moral equivalence.

“Is it possible to fix? If so, how?”

I believe so. There are some programs with huge institutional advantages- proximity to talent, great football tradition, and institutional commitment to athletic success. These programs are Texas, Florida, Miami, Florida State, Notre Dame, PSU, Michigan, tOSU, and USC. There are other programs with 2 of the 3 major advantages noted above- TAMU, UCLA, Georgia, and OU.

If the schools in the first group were to band together, set up strict rules of operations, and agree to unbiased auditing, they would set a standard fr the NCAA to follow. They could create a star chamber, and strengthen it through scheduled competition.

Why do I think other programs would follow suit? Because they did before, 100 years ago, when the first conferences were formed primarily to regulate recruiting.

Ronnie Chalmers was retired before working with kansas basketball and is again retired. He only wanted the almost minimum wage job to work with his son. Sexy story until you understand how little he got paid (and how comfortable they were/are financially).

If you, like I do, assume there is a decent amount of cheating, can it be cleaned up or is that a fool’s errand? If it’s the latter, how would you want your program to behave?

Fix? I don’t think so, but as Taylor suggests there can be a sort of “Code of the West” where outlaws are somewhat regulated and it isn’t at the out-of-control level it reached during the Pony Excess era.

My late Father-in-Law played for SMU over 60 years ago, and he got extra benefits (tickets to sell, fraternity dues paid, free clothes, etc). Again as Taylor points out there are programs with institutional advantages and the level of competition will always make one side or the other look for an edge.

But how can the problem be truly fixed when no one involved at the deepest level is really, truly interested in fixing it?

The NCAA? Certainly not. They feed at the buffet line that March Madness puts out, and they play a “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell,” game when it comes to the perils of AAU teams and black market recruiting in that sport. Now with the advent of 7-on-7 tournaments we are seeing more and more of the coaches/agents problem creep into football. Again, the NCAA isn’t going to do all that much about it, because in football they are merely an interested bystander when it comes to the money.

The programs with built-in institutional advantages have found out that at the BCS level, college athletics can make a lot of money, and fund a lot of other activities.

They understand that some of the factors that make them so strong can also bite them in the butt (enthusiastic fan base, some of which is very wealthy and powerful — who can sometimes get out of control), and they are not exempt from letting rules slide. Other programs who are more aggressive in cheating can be seen as an irritant, as long as it doesn’t reach epic proportions. Those without the built-in institutional advantages still have some tradition and they don’t want to drop out of the competition for wins (and $$$$).

You have whole conferences out there (I’m looking at you SEC) who have a “Keeping up with the Joneses” mentality that makes it easy to push the rules envelope for everyone.

Nobody is truly interested in fixing the problem of cheating in collegiate athletics because nobody is willing to acknowledge what college athletics has become —at least at the BCS level. The idea of college athletics as an extention of the educational mission of the University where scholar-athletes are involved is long dead.

A lot of factors went into the evolution, some out of control of the Universities (such as the explosion of TV revenue), but those in charge are spending a lot of time and money trying to keep the collegiate athletics myth alive.

At the BCS level, college athletics is a hybrid public relations firm, minor league feeder system – and for a few – a profit center.

I don’t see how you could really fix the problem of cheating at it’s most basic level until all the major parties involved actually acknowledge who they are and what they really want.

TTR, I can’t see how that would even work in today’s NCAA.

The truth is that every program, to some extent, cheats. There is a gentlemen’s agreement about what is allowed – the restaurant kids know they can go to for a free or greatly reduced price meal – the special lease deal on the car that isn’t generally available to the public – the clothing and sports gear – the summer job.

I can honestly tell you that the meals and clothing are almost universal. After my son signed his senior year, his position coach made sure he had gear (and I had gear) to wear to school to advertise where he was going. When he was at the university, there were several restaurants to go to – one where football players could always get a $5 steak.

What is becoming difficult in today’s football is that the SEC has cranked up the game. When it was the penny-ante stuff mentioned above, the NCAA and other schools generally turned a blind eye. We now are talking big game hunting, and that has to be eradicated, no matter how big the program.

And as an aside – it’s proper to talk about A&M cheating in the late 80’s – early 90’s- I worked for the athletic department and I know what was going on. But suggesting A&M falls in the same category as OU today is really kind of silly.

the days of ocaches showing up with briefcases full of cash and no one batting an eyelash are over.

Assuming you meant “coaches”, then the truth of your statement depends on the standard lawyers’ trick of controlling the definition of “coach”, dunnit?

BTW, Cecil Newton sez “Hey”,

It’s a very interesting and multi-faceted question – here are a few of my thoughts:

In talking about the ability to control or abate ‘cheating’, I think an important distinction has been touched on above – the difference between the “100 dollar handshake” and laundering $10K through a casino. The difference is not just in degree but in the purpose and result of these kinds of shenanigans. The first is most often handed out by wealthy alums who want to feel ‘part of the program’ and more importantly, is something athletes HAPPEN TO RECEIVE once they are playing for a certain school but wasn’t likely OFFERED AS AN INDUCEMENT TO ATTEND. The prevalence of this kind of behavior is such that it’s not too likely that Young Johnny decides to attend Institution A over Instutition B because of it. The hand-wringing over this type of stuff comes from the whole ‘athletes can’t receive any treatment or benefit not available to a normal student’ mindset. To my mind, if you’re of the opinion that someone with differentiated and highly valued skills won’t or shouldn’t receive different treatment or compensation from someone lacking those skills you’re in a fundamental argument with everyone from Adam Smith on down. So to me, the ‘hundred dollar handshake’ side of things falls out of the substantive discussion.

The big-money INDUCEMENTS TO ATTEND ONE SCHOOL OVER ANOTHER is I think what we’re really discussing here. The biggest takeaway from TaylorT’s terrific series on this topic is that a scholarship from one school inherently has more value to most people than a scholarship from another school. Everything from tradition to weather to enhancing one’s NFL prospects to proximity to Mama to pussy to ease of staying eligible to truly arcane concerns like “quality of education” factors in, but on balance more kids are gonna want to come to Texas over Toledo. Recruiting and competing are related, zero-sum games – there are X number of difference-making athletes available at any time, and the more of them you have the more likely you are to be a consistent winner. Should schools that have less inherent competitive advantage in recruiting be allowed to even the playing field through ‘upping the ante’ of the total value of their scholarship?

There are a lot of interesting side discussions to be had on this point. Everyone wants to win – if you’re a fan of one of the ‘haves’ in terms of natural or accrued program advantages you’re likely to favor a system that prevents extra inducements so that the natural appeal of your school/program wins out. If you’re a fan of one of the ‘have nots’ then you’re more likely to favor a system that equalizes your shot at landing some of those difference making athletes. Is there a natural state of affairs that’s ‘better’ for the overall game/the fans in aggregate/the afoletes? College football is ‘tradition’ as much as anything else, and a lot of that ‘tradition’ comes from traditional powers kicking ass over decades. The NFL seems to have taken a different stance in changing rules over the last 20 years to promote greater parity. Which approach lends greater strength (read: more excited fans willing to shell out more money) to the overall system?

From the athlete’s standpoint, are they in aggregate better off getting an upfront payday based on a more complete ‘market value’ for their services, or does an openly payola-driven system further erode the ‘student athlete’ ethos and make them even less likely to concentrate on the learning and degree that will be of more benefit to most of them in the long run?

It seems like the actual rules that govern the behavior of programs are more based in gentlemens agreements between schools than anything by the NCAA. Do different conferences have different unspoken rules as to what is fair game? It feels like what is acceptable behavior in the SEC would rock the boat in the Big 10. I guess that probably goes hand in hand with what shenanigans the academic part of the school is willing to accept from the athletic part.

During the initial debate over McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform over a decade ago, Tom Delay ( of whom I’m not much of a fan) suggested the best way to clean up politics was simply let anyone give whatever they wanted, just make it all reported and accessible to anyone in a database. The cleansing value of sunlight would do the rest. Delay, offered the proposal cheekily, as was his nature, but over the year’s I’ve come to believe there was a kernel of truth (or whatever) to his idea.

I tend to believe the same thing about this issue. I don’t know how it would work, but the byzantine and behind the curtains nature of the NCAA’s enforcement doesn’t really stop the problem, but drives it underground. Adding light and transparency to a process that everyone knows is going on may improve the issue while bringing some fairness to the exploitation of “amateur” athletes.

What about giving college players a stipend for spending money? The stipend could be a percentage of the average income generated from the athelete’s sport for several years prior. Cap it at $1000 a month. By giving them enough dough to buy smaller wants like clothes, jewelry, tats, car leases, etc you take away a lot of the incentive to deal with shady characters. Police the big stuff and crack down on those types of violations hard as hell.

As long as there are wealthy boosters and athletes with little to no money there will be cheating. Teams like Auburn that are flagrant about it will be beaten down by their own conference counterparts. It’s like driving on the freeway. If you blend in with other traffic and are speeding you won’t generally get caught, if you drive like a maniac you might get away with it for a while but will eventually get nailed.

In theory, I have no problem with players getting a stipend. I am fairly certain, however, that whatever system is proposed for offering players a stipend will have glaring flaws that will results in the system’s failure. Whether it is inequality (football players getting $1K/month, per FGD’s proposal, while softball players receive a greatly reduced amount) or the inevitable slippery slope argument (why don’t band members get paid?!?), I think there will be so many lawsuits that it won’t work. Sorry, because I really don’t have a problem with players being paid.

NBH, that reminds me of back when MLB players got the right to free agency. Charlie O. Finley recommended that in order to make sure salaries didn’t get out of hand, every player be a free agent at the end of the year, in perpetuity.

Which explains why Marvin Miller negotiated a limit to the number of free agents each year.

Football players currently do get things of value. They get over $50,000 in the form of a scholarship, relaxed graduation requirements, paid tutors, and many of them get relaxed admittance requirements at a university they otherwise would be rejected by purely academic critieria.

And since 99.9% of college football players have to ultimately make their living/retirement in something other than football, an opportunity to get a college degree, or close to a college degree, and access to a tremendous alumni base at a school that accepted them ONLY because they could play high school football——-is pretty valuable. Lots of other high school kids with the same academics who can’t play football don’t get any of that.

The Vince Youngs, Cam Newtons, Tim Tebows, Terrell Pryors are different. Perhaps each school should be allowed to fund 1-4 scholarship(s) with an additional $50,000 each, on top of the scholarship. That way, each school can pay 1-4 “marquee” players. These will inevitably be two-way QBs, RBs, or defensive tackles.

Lets factor in the cost of the scholarship to the university. Tuition, food, housing, books, etc. Also, the requirements to be a student at UT are lowered for athletes. That is a cost too.

Bill, the question then is, who decides how many special scholarships can there be, and who decides the rate of pay, etc. Whatever number you choose, you are going to tick off the next guy on the list.

This creates more problems than it solves. As much as we would like our scholarship athletes to be Achos, quite a few are people looking for a way up and who need whatever they can get beyond opportunity.

See, that’s the problem with the scholarship system. It offers a opportunity only — you can get a college education (if you work for it). You can become a star (if you’re good enough and don’t get hurt), and you might be able to pluck one of the two to three percent of spots at the next level in your sport (if you have an extra dose of talent and, again, are willing to work). But the willingness to work is on you, and you are the one who has to organize your time between the value of the degree for your future and the demand that you maximize your sports ability NOW. And the currency used is the cheapest commodity the school has — a seat in class, books, room and board. And for most sports, it’s only a partial payment.

It’s not a deal that people with enough ability and drive to get to the pros would take willingly, unless it was the best path to the pros.

I view the NCAA and its member institutions as by and large conspiring to use as much talent as possible for its own gain without having to pay money for it. It’s easy to say, look, most of the athletes will wash out and the value offered will be, in a sense, wasted. But it’s the school that holds all the cards regarding whether you actually get the chance for that degree. You could have an Acho-like GPA, but if you turn out a step slow when you put on a few pounds of muscle in the weight room, or you got injured and there is someone younger and faster that they can put in your spot, your shot at the degree that is so valuable will be taken from you.

“BTW, Cecil Newton sez "Hey",”

Cecil’s experience proves my point. A huckster persuaded him there was big $$ to be made on Cam’s recruitment. Turns out, there wasn’t. THose days are gone.

Reggie bush is an agent thing. The FBI is after them, and will solve that problem. With street agents, the first thing to do is repeal the 12.3.3.1 exception for recruiting agencies, and classify those people as agents under 12.3.3.

Also, the FBI is after street agents, too. They’ve got them nailed in Columubs, GA. When that case goes to trial, and the evidence becomes public (and available to the NCAA), street agents will be scared shitless, and schools will realize they don’t need to do business with SAs anymore. FWIW, that case actually will provide a potential death penalty case or two.

I love college baseball, which is a squeaky clean pure sport compared to basketball or football. That’s because if someone wants money, professional baseball is ready, willing, and able to take care of that want far better than any college can. The cheating that goes on is pretty small beans – extra book money, tiny little benefits and perks that are common at just about any college.

Those little perks go all the way down at every level of college and in most sports – I’ve seen it at D-III women’s sports. Honestly, it’s human nature – I worked at a restaurant (way back in the day) that used to provide discounts for Texas baseball players , and free meals if they did something exceptional in their game that day. I don’t know anyone who thought anything of it, since, well, they were Texas Baseball Players. If we couldn’t give them a free meal for throwing a no-hitter, why the hell run a restaurant?

I think it’s obvious that the big cheating is the problem, and so long as there are $millions controlled by the NCAA and schools, there is going to be cheating. It’s not ever going to happen, but there should be minor leagues for football and basketball. and let the pro sports pay players who want to cash in at age 18. It’s just simple economics – if there is that much money at stake, there is going to be cheating. I don’t know why college sports would be any different than any other part of society.

But…. having one organization that represents, say, D-III Southwestern or Trinity University, and The University of Texas and OU is insane. My 5’1" daughter was a college athlete! Just like Vince Young or Adrian Peterson. I think it would be a far better solution to let the top schools make their own rules, decide how they want to enforce them (or not, as the current situation shows), and just pay smaller schools money to shut the hell up.

I think you could split cheating into two silos. One to entice a kid to come to a school and one to pay for performance.

I think enticements are very rare as too many kids become disgruntled and transfer.

Pay for performance is much more prevalent but declining as the disgruntled kids would report on it.

There are too many professional and WAY too many wanna be professional reporters looking under every rock for scoops and rumors do not need to be substantiated to be posted.

All of the 5 star recruits were born about 30 years too late to cash in.

I don’t see how you stop people from “cheating” in the sense of getting family members, friends and girlfriends jobs. I really don’t. If someone could explain to me how a non-governmental organization could prevent two people, who have no direct affiliation with that organization, from entering into an employment contract, I’d love to hear it.

Basically, if I was Auburn, I would hire Cecil Newton as a “pastoral care specialist” for “disadvantaged youth” next season and pay him $250K as a giant middle finger to the NCAA. If anyone said anything I would play the race card and accuse them of not caring about the spiritual development of urban youth. Done and done.

I’ve never understood why people thought cheating and getting an unfair advantage were bad things — isn’t that the whole point of capitalism? As a first-generation American, the entire concept seems ridiculous to me. Like go to a slum in Manila, where people literally live on top of giant mountains of trash and refuse, and tell them that playing the right way is more important than winning.

50 Cent: “I’m sorry, I was just trying to make it / But where I’m from, when you want something, you got to TAKE it.”

I’ve never understood why people thought cheating and getting an unfair advantage were bad things — isn’t that the whole point of capitalism? As a first-generation American, the entire concept seems ridiculous to me. Like go to a slum in Manila, where people literally live on top of giant mountains of trash and refuse, and tell them that playing the right way is more important than winning.

Jesus. The rule of law enables capitalism and ultimately wealth, you callow goose. It is precisely in countries where lawlessness prevails that progress doesn’t happen, causing people to live in penury.

Rules matter.

This discussion is about has the situation changed so dramatically that the rules should be changed.

Later on Barking Carnival, Steve Forbes and Fiddycent will debate capitalism and law. Mack Brown, who has 50 Cent on his iPod will act as moderator.

Haha — I agree with you in the aggregate that rules matter. But look up “free-riding” on Wikipedia, why do they have to matter to each individual person?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the “Pony Excess” years were the best years in SMU’s history. If you’re not UT/A&M/OU, you have two choices in the long-run: 1) cheat or 2) lose.

If fans of those programs have a problem with that, maybe they could set up a revenue sharing system like they do in the pros to ensure competitive balance ……..

Also “Guns, Germs & Steel” … the reasons the USA is an economic powerhouse and the Philippines isn’t … very very little to do with morality.

Many dual-sport athletes are able to pull in a professional baseball salary while maintaining NCAA football eligibility (Ricky Williams etc.). Can we just INVENT a professional sport exactly like football in every way except there are no games? …call it Feetball. Then we simply sign the college football players to lucrative Professional Feetball contracts where they practice year-round.

Take your Geographic Determinism and GTFO!

;)

Let’s get back on track.

I’ve never understood why people thought cheating and getting an unfair advantage were bad things — isn’t that the whole point of capitalism?

Not trying to start a flame war, but you come across as a borderline sociopath. It’s difficult for me to understand a person not understanding why most people strongly dislike cheating, which is why I’m guessing that you’re just playing of a bit of devil’s advocate here.

Bigdukesix — Yes and no. I have a lot of friends on Wall Street. That IS their mentality. This convo really has nothing to do with NCAA cheating though. So feel free to message me if you want to talk about it.

“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying.”

tjarks has a valid point.
Consider: We Americans love the IDEA of “fairness.” But how many Americans cheat on taxes, in business, on traffic rules, you-name-it? It seems “fairness” and “rules” are primarily for the other guy so much of the time. Not everyone does it. I don’t think I do, so that makes me one of the “other guys,” the “losers” as some would have it. I don’t think I have to go on at length for you to see the point here.
As in life, so in football. It seems that an awful lot of people are OK with that. It seems to be part and parcel of the human condition—losers lose, winners cheat. But what IS cheating? Being better at something than your rival in whatever field of endeavor? In that case is “fairness” even a viable concept? Is cheating?
Hooboy! This makes my head hurt!

Lurker In The Dark: Or put another way — “YOU NEED ME ON THIS WALL!!!”

Dean Keeton said: There are too many people watching.

Nope. There are too many people telling in this age of teh internetz. It’s easier to track what people are doing, hence “too many people watching” is valid as far as it goes, but the opportunities to tattle are legion now.

I’d like to go long on this one, but I’ll tick everybody off and just write a Greg Davis bubble screen. One that works for maybe seven yards . . .

I HATE the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the NCAA. It’s arbitrary, it’s unfair, it’s self-serving. That said, the more eyes that watch, the more sports call-ins that care, the more bloggers who do detective work, the harder it is to cheat. Is it a clean game? No. Is it better than it used to be? Yes, far better. The era of rogue street agents and boosters shaking hands with recruits or players. and the young man finding a $100 bill on his palm, is much reduced if not almost eliminated.

There are rules that seem wrong, but for the most part they’re logical and they tend to be upheld in a reasonably uniform manner. The problem is WHO’S BEING INVESTIGATED.

Guarateed . . . Texas can get away with more than Texas Tech. Oklahoma can avoid punishment that Tulsa could not. The more bottoms you put in your stadium or in front of the 52-inch flat screen, the more you can get away with. But the only true solution is professionalize the game. Not saying I want that, but it’d deal with this as the business it is, not the art form its apologists wish it were.

edsp — That makes a lot of sense to me. If you want fair play and competitive balance, go to the NFL, they’ve basically set up a socialist system where revenue is distributed more or less evenly and the draft (as well as onerous restrictive free agency rules) ensures talent is dispersed through all 32 NFL teams. The way it is now in NCAAFB …… well it’s not that. Until the UT’s and OU’s of the world are willing to be like Dallas Cowboys and NY Giants of the world and split up their revenue base, the only option the Baylor and SMU’s of the world really have (if they want to consistently compete with the big boys) is to cheat.

This a great thread minus a couple of posts. I don’t think eliminating cheating would be easy and it may be impossible. However, I do believe in the freedom and the free market above anything else and that when you prescribe regulation on free market forces you always have trouble.

Billu brings up some good points in relation to my post and I don’t necessarily think I can address them on a simple post on a message board but I do think that college athletes, specifically in revenue making sports (football and basketball), can be compensated in a fashion commensurate with their value to the institution.

- If it’s Garrett Gilbert than that is a scholarship.
- If it’s Vince Young than it’s as much cheddar and poon tang as will fit in his supposed lake house.

I don’t know how an equitable system would be set up exactly and that discussion gets into more of the micro discussion than I want to delve into but from a macro perspective I do think that athletes in college should be allowed to collect income in some form or fashion.

This all seems to revolve about questions such as “how come SMU got gobsmacked and USC is still alive?”

I deal, well-nigh daily, with politicians who can’t – or don’t seem to – understand why anyone would argue that it’s unfair for them to drive around or serenely through the “DWI enforcement” roadblocks while everyone else is subjected to scrutiny and occasional punishment.

The answer is quite simple, and it comes from Jacques Thibault, who is said to have written (as translated) “the majestic equality of the laws… forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.”

Tex Long — yea it’s no different than this really … http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wealthy-fund-manager-avoids-felony-charges-running-cyclist/

Bringing it to football, Donte Stallworth bought his way out of a long prison term. The fund manager will be paying up for the rest of his victim’s life.

This all seems to revolve about questions such as "how come SMU got gobsmacked and USC is still alive?"

SMU’s crimes went to the top of the school’s administration. They don’t have that in the USC case. Plus, they’re just not going to shut down a school again. They took 30 scholarships, right? That’s a lot of football players.

Was USC in a window? Don’t think so; therefore, they weren’t death eligible.

Alabama has been in a window basically for the last 15 years (still are in one). That’s the one for comparison.

SR – “Jesus. The rule of law enables capitalism and ultimately wealth, you callow goose. It is precisely in countries where lawlessness prevails that progress doesn’t happen, causing people to live in penury.”

Fuck that. Might makes right.

I think the inequity lies in the way NCAA delves out the punishments and to whom they decide to punish. That is the biggest farce of it all.

I believe that a majority of the schools in the BCS Conferences cheat to some degree yet the NCAA picks certain victims to either monitor heavily or investigate. Non investigation goes unpunished it seems.

I sure don’t want it to be unenforced and let the cheating get blatantly obvious, just fair enforcement which is beyond anything the NCAA can or will do. With them like some conferences it is all about the MONEY. The latest scandal in the SEC is truly scandalous more so for the NCAA than the SEC. If anyone needs investigating this time it is the NCAA.

As a former scholarship athlete, I hate to see people rail against the NCAA for supposedly exploiting players, and I’m glad that this thread hasn’t largely gone that route. As for whether it’s fixable, I think that like anything it is partially fixable, but not entirely fixable. There are measures that could make things better, and honestly, I’m in the camp that believes that progress is better than letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Among the measures should be much harsher and stricter sanctions with the sanction equivalent of minimum sentences. Another would be greater oversight and compliance on the part of the NCAA investigative body, because it needs to be fully independent of the business and branding arm of the NCAA. Right now it looks like a sham tribunal.

The best friend the NCAA has is a free and investigative press. The Pony Express would never have been collared had it not been for a Dallas TV station and the DMN and Dallas Times Herald. The competing newspapers took turns breaking the story, and Dale Hansen followed suit. If there were that kind of curious press in Oklahoma, the Big Red Sports and Imports scandal would have resulted in a holocaust for OU since they were already on probation. Instead, the dealership was bought by an alumnus, the payroll records disappeared, and the usual tap on the wrist happened. The best friend OU has is its sycophantic press.

Several thanks for your own write-up. It was quite interesting to read. Thank you once again.