The History of College Football Recruiting Cheating- Part 9

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 24, 2025 6:48 PM CDT

In this series, I have made very few claims that couldn't be supported by readily accessible independent info. One of the primary sources is the NCAA database of major violations. Here's the link:

https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LSDBi.MajorInfPackage.MI_Search_Inp

Note- this only works if you use the "pulldown menu" for a school's name (it is very sensitive to formatting).

I have read a lot of infraction reports. They follow a pattern. They describe the allegations that instigated the investigation. They describe the institution's response to the allegations. They list the findings, and the violations they believe were confirmed. They often salute the school for cooperating, and comment on institutional controls. They outline the punishment, and usually note that a school may appeal to the NCAA if it wants, but that the committee has more evidence it has been holding back that would come forward then. Think that's a threat? I do too.

The NCAA Death Penalty may be applied when a school has two major violations in one sport within a five year span. How rare would such an event be? I queried the database, and found that the following programs had two major football violations within a five year span from 1981 to 1990: Alabama State, Austin Peay, SMU (twice), Georgia, Illinois, Memphis, USC, Southern Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, and Virginia Tech.

The Death Penalty was not in force until the second half of the '80s, and was applied to SMU on February 25, 1987. This event scared the heck out of every program. In the past, a coach could consider cheating to improve his team, and if the NCAA penalized the school...well, maybe he would be in a new job then. The school might not like the penalties and black eye, but they could blame it on the coach (if he was gone) or their rivals. The Death Penalty changed everything. Now, a repeat cheater might see their program shut down for a couple of years. This meant that the biggest moneymaker in the whole department would be gone, forcing athletics to draw on the school and boosters to stay afloat. It meant that the talent would drop to zero, and the team would be a patsy for years after restarting. The coaches would almost certainly be released, and they might not be employable afterwards. The Death Penalty was a figurative nuclear strike- sure, you may live, but is it really living?

The SMU punishment served notice to everybody in D-1A that the stakes at risk in this game just went up. Now, schools weren't just risking black eyes; now jobs were at stake- for coaches, Ads, and even university presidents.

Of course, all of this was contingent upon there being two major violations. If a school only had one violation for a five year span, they were home free. If a coach had a major violation, and left for another job, his personal counter was clear. This reality was a factor in all organizational decisions once investigations began. With that in mind, let's take a look at the craziest infractions report I've seen- Houston's December 16, 2025 report. Check this out-

On March 21, 1986, the NCAA enforcement staff sent a preliminary letter of inquiry to the university, but the university apparently never received the letter. The enforcement staff submitted a subsequent letter to the university on October 30, 1986, that informed the university that the preliminary inquiry would continue. At a later date, because of the university's assertion that it had not received the first letter, the NCAA Committee on Infractions voted that the October 30, 1986, letter should be treated as the initial preliminary inquiry notice from the NCAA. Accordingly, this letter was used to determine the application of NCAA legislation that limits the consideration of rules infractions that occur more than four years prior to receipt of a letter of preliminary inquiry.

Huh. A cynic might wonder just what happened in the spring of 1982 that Houston didn't want to answer for. I wonder if the NCAA uses registered mail now.

It gets better.

In the spring of 1986, the university informed the NCAA that it would investigate possible improprieties in its football program. The university employed a Houston, Texas, law firm to conduct its investigation. More than a year after the university began its own investigation, it was learned that the investigation had been impeded by the former head football coach and several assistant football coaches who provided false or misleading statements to the university's investigator. This conduct by the former head football coach and members of his staff caused significant to delay in the investigation and processing of this case. Eventually, following the Committee on Infractions hearing in this case, certain individuals whom the committee determined had impeded the investigation were found in violation of the ethical conduct principles contained in the NCAA constitution. These unethical conduct findings are set forth in Part II of this report.

Take my word for it- you don't see this in every report. That head football coach was Bill Yeoman. Personally, I admire Yeoman for his work with the Veer offense, and his pathfinding in integration. He has a great history in football, spanning back to his playing days as a freshman at TAMU who was then recruited to transfer to West Point during WWII. That being said, this was not his finest hour.

throughout the period, student-athletes were given cash on an individualized basis by the former head football coach and several former and two current assistant football coaches. Some student-athletes received cash when they told members of the coaching staff that they had a special need for money; some student-athletes were given money by coaches who were pleased with the student-athletes' performances in practice or competition, and some student-athletes were proven to have received money for reasons that were never disclosed to the committee.

This is great! Some players were paid because they were poor, others were paid because they earned it through exceptional play, and still others were paid for reasons that nobody can remember! By the way, it was really rare for coaches to be the distributors of significant cash instead of boosters. There is more sordidness:

The former head coach refused to furnish information to the NCAA that was relevant to the investigation of the alleged violation of NCAA legislation described in Part II-A of this report. Specifically, on April 27 and May 27, 1988, during an interview by an NCAA enforcement representative, the former head coach refused to identify the individual who provided funds for cash that was given to players at the beginning of the season, and the former head coach declined to identify the assistant coaches who distributed this cash.

Yeoman resigned, and the NCAA removed scholarships, banned Houston from post-season eligibility, and banned the Cougars from TV. Take my word for it, not every infractions report is this exciting.

Now we'll look at another crazy case from the late '80s, involving a program at an ethical crossroads. Jackie Sherrill joined the Ags before the '82 season, and immediately started upgrading the talent (although the results wouldn't reflect that for a few seasons). He wanted a fast team, and did some smart things like recruiting big HS QBs to play linebacker for him. He ran a pro-style offense at first, run by the era's best SWC passer- Kevin Murray.

Allegations were made to the NCAA that Murray, and others were being paid, and an investigation was opened. Sherrill was the coach and AD, which was common in that era. The September 9, 2025 report shows that the investigation took a very long time, in large part due to a superficial TAMU internal investigation. When the official NCAA investigation began, TAMU's new president, Dr. Mobley, stepped in and assured the NCAA that he would nsure institutional control. The infractions report shows a program that was promising cars and cash to recruits, with those promises made by a couple of (unnamed) assistant coaches. The assistants weren't fired, but they weren't allowed to participate in recruiting (this is actually a pretty good punishment- take the schmoozers who specialize in recruiting, and make them stay on campus and game-plan; meanwhile you also force your best strategists to get on the road and recruit), and they weren't given raises. The TAMU staff at the time included Bob Davie, R.C. Slocum, Kirk Doll, Joe Avezzano, George Pugh, Lynn Amedee, and Curly Hallman.

So, what happened next? I'm not going to describe it. Instead, why don't you see for yourself? I am linking New York Times articles because their archives are free. You can find other accounts at other papers. Note- you need to read these in order.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DF153FF933A15752C1A96E948260&n;=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Footballhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DF113AF930A25751C1A96E948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6D81F39F93AA15752C0A96F948260http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3D81331F931A35757C0A96F948260It was a crazy time while this was breaking. With no talk radio or internet, the newspapers were the key source for developments. Every work office in the state was buzzing, wondering if this would bring Sherrill and the Ags down. The answer, as you saw, was "yes" to the former, and "no" to the latter.

So, there are two narratives proposed here. The first is that Smith threatened to expose TAMU to the Death Penalty if he wasn't paid off, showed the DMN the money, recanted at TAMU when interviewed by the TAMU AD internal investigation, and admitted later that he was paid to do so. Per this narrative, TAMU cut Sherrill loose because his presence had grown too distasteful to tolerate.

The other narrative is that he was a hard luck former player who needed help, but unfortunately was a fantasist, making up stories as a whim. Under this scenario, TAMU cut Sherrill loose because they lacked the fortitude to "stand by their man". Even under this scenario you have to wonder about Sherrill loaning money to a player, while on probation, without telling his boss up front.

Which do you believe? My opinion is that Occam's Razor supports the former. This whole sordid event is summed up a couple of years later as a portion of this "Sports Illustrated" article about the Mississippi State hire-

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136023/index.htmYou have to love a search that has Bobby Collins and Jackie Sherrill as the finalists.

Back to TAMU. With Sherrill gone and the NCAA giving up (the investigator said he could not separate fact from fiction), the Ags could continue on. The staff stayed intact, with Slocum promoted to the top position. The Death Penalty averted, the Ags could now really install institutional controls.

But wait. There was one more development- an off-season job program that paid players even when they weren't working.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D61F30F932A05751C1A964958260The infractions report shows that the university cooperated with the investigation, and the booster paying the players didn't (he may have been concerned about potential criminal charges, since the federal government funded many of his projects). This fell in the five year window from the 1988 infractions, but TAMU convinced the NCAA they were sincere in wanting a clean program. The NCAA did penalize them heavily, perhaps because they were still cognizant of the George Smith fiasco.

Wow. There you have it. A period in the SWC where cheating directly led to the end of three of its most successful coaching careers (Yeoman, Sherrill, and Collins), and the eventual downfall of the conference.

There is no telling how many careers ended because coaches refused to cheat, and so suffered more losses than they would on a level playing field.

I think I've got one more chapter in me, summing up what we've learned.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The links kind of run into the text, but I checked them and they worked for me.

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 24, 2025 6:50 PM CDT reply actions

“There you have it. A period in the SWC where cheating directly led to the end of three of its most successful coaching careers (Yeoman, Sherrill, and Collins), and the eventual downfall of the conference.”

Meanwhile the one SWC coach during that period who did everything to bring his program into compliance and to rid the program of its “problems” (Jim Wacker) was rewarded with the NCAA essentially punishing him out of town.

BTW, should the NCAA ever get a real play off in D-1 football, I am convinced that one of the “unintended consequences” will be a dramatic return to the kind of cheating we saw in the SWC in the 1980’s.

The NCAA has proven already that it will avoid slamming one of its cash cows with serious penalties in College Basketball at all costs.

by srr50 on Jul 24, 2025 7:10 PM CDT reply actions

I thought that was really shitty how they did Wacker and TCU. Yes, there was a lot of cheating from Ft Worth, but as forthright as Wacker was, the NCAA should have been less severe. (I think he called it “The Living Death Penalty,” as someone recently reminded)

All that bull did was encourage other schools (like a&m) to do much to stonewall and fudge around the facts as much as possible.

Stupid move by the NCAA.

by SlickStreet on Jul 24, 2025 8:49 PM CDT reply actions

srr, the NCAA has all but eliminated television penalties, under the logic that the teams that didn’t cheat are penalized as much as the ones that aren’t.

I can’t say I agree with that logic, given that being on TV is the lifeblood of a BCS program in both football and basketball. But it’s almost like the death penalty, I guess… they can’t give it because of the ramifications.

Heads will always be turned to some extent. I had a friend who had worked in the NCAA office a long time ago. He told me that the NCAA worked its hardest (whatever you consider that to be) to prevent advantages in recruiting. If that playing field was level, what happened afterward was more or less not their business.

Some schools, like Kentucky, flaunted it, and they got put away. But cheating post-signing, like the UH stuff above, just isn’t punished much anymore.

by Bob in Houston on Jul 24, 2025 9:03 PM CDT reply actions

I don’t understand the controversy Smith recanted his allegations. I’m sure for another $20,000 he’ll do it again for you if it will make you happier.

Seriously that first press conference where he denied all this shit was so bad that even as a diehard Ag I cringed at the thought of what would happen next. To our credit after this fiasco we cleaned house and have run a pretty squeeky clean operation. Making the coaches accountable in their contracts shut this kind of nonsense down for good.

by Aggie Lurking on Jul 24, 2025 9:29 PM CDT reply actions

In case anyone is curious, Jackie is on TexAgs now: Link

by ryancobb on Jul 24, 2025 9:42 PM CDT reply actions

It’s fun to imagine an alternate universe, where the Ag BOR tells Mobley they are sticking with Sherrill. Mobley quits, and Sherrill weathers the storm of the George Smith imbroglio, and continues on as coach and AD. meanwhile, the NCAA stews in bitterness for being played as fools.

Then, the jobs program scandal breaks. The NCAA gets its revenge, assigning the Death Penalty punishment. Sherrill has to be let go, and the talented players scatter. This accellerates the SWC downfall by a couple of years, and with their program on hiatus, the Ags are not a very attractive program to the Big 8/12.

The Ags try to negotiate a landing with the SEC, but are told that they could be candidates for membership in a few years, when their program is rolling again. TAMU ends up in C-USA.

Yep, letting Sherrill go was the right thing to do, even if he is still the most popular Ag coach ever.

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 25, 2025 8:04 AM CDT reply actions

I’d still like for someone to explain to me how the A&M jobs scandal was anything different from the Big Red Autos from last year…

by aaron the aggie on Jul 25, 2025 7:55 PM CDT reply actions

TRoom,

I doubt the SEC would have turned A&M down, even coming off a death penalty probation. Access to Texas for recruiting and the Texas television audience would have been too lucrative for the SEC to turn down.
And, the SEC likes guaranteed wins. Just ask any patsy they play in non-conference and Vanderbilt.

by Beergut on Jul 26, 2025 12:01 AM CDT reply actions

Aaron- my opinion only- the Ags got slammed by the NCAA as payback for the George Smith deal. I think the NCAA felt they were being made to play the fool on the Smith deal, and the jobs scandal gave them an opening.

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 26, 2025 12:17 AM CDT reply actions

TRoom,

Actually, the jobs scandal happened while we were still on probation for the Jackie years.

Technically, I believe we were eligible for the death penalty. The thing was, the NCAA said our compliance department was a model program, we were just the victim of a booster with shoddy bookkeeping practices.

So, their reaction was something along the lines of, “Yeah, y’all are doing everything you can here, but since we can’t give you the death penalty, we’re gonna slam you with no television and no bowl game.”

I thnk A&M was the last program to be banned from television as a penalty.

I’ve always felt that probation was bullshit. It wasn’t like we were using these jobs as an inducement in recruiting, so there was no competitive advantage gained from it.

Arkansas had a similar deal happen some years later.

by Beergut on Jul 26, 2025 1:35 AM CDT reply actions

You think that current players don’t tell recruits about the fake job program and that they will be taken care of? That’s certainly an inducement in recruiting. Hell, you guys had a recruit just 2 years ago bragging to the paper about something similar.

by Stuck in MN on Jul 26, 2025 8:30 AM CDT reply actions

1) It wasn’t a fake job program. Don’t confuse not being on the clock, so being able to lie about 4 hours you didn’t work on an 8 hr shift, with the OU Big Red Dealership deal.

2) Terrence McCoy is an idiot, and his comment was taken out of context.

3) If you don’t believe that some degree of “taking care of the players” (not paying for their dinner in certain restaurants, bar tab being “on the house”, etc.) doesn’t go on at EVERY school, I think you’re naive.

by Beergut on Jul 26, 2025 5:03 PM CDT reply actions

ahh, so we go from the it was not an inducement in recruiting defense to the everyone does it defense. Nice work. Some degree of taking care of players goes on at every program, but I have a feeling it happens a lot more at certain programs. To the extent the recruits know this (and believe me they do), it is certainly an inducement to attend the school where it happens more often.

And I certainly see how the following quote, in the proper context, is perfectly innocent-

“They take care of you down there,” McCoy said. “I know from my brother they keep your pockets full, give you plenty of money, keep feeding you meals.”

by Stuck in MN on Jul 26, 2025 6:50 PM CDT reply actions

Stuck in MN,

Every D-1 school has a summer job program. Every single one.

You are supposed to show up and be on the clock, but it is never the most demanding of work. None of the boosters providing employment want to adversely impact the summer conditioning program.

Texas is no different in this than A&M.

by Ag_in_TX on Jul 27, 2025 1:21 PM CDT reply actions

“ahh, so we go from the it was not an inducement in recruiting defense to the everyone does it defense.”

I believe we had 5 players suspended for various numbers of games due to this program, and something like 14 total were involved. Sorry, if this was an inducement to recruits, why were so few people involved? Don’t you think that if this was an inducement to recruits, EVERYONE would be in on this sweet deal?

I’m not sure how much of an inducement sleeping in a shed when you’re supposed to be working (what one player did) is to blue-chip recruits, anyway. Going to Big Red and just picking up a paycheck seems a lot simpler to me.

"They take care of you down there," McCoy said. "I know from my brother they keep your pockets full, give you plenty of money, keep feeding you meals."

Right, b/c McCoy can’t possibly be talking about the fact that you can rig your financial aid, scholarship, grants, and per diem money to make sure you always have money, could he?

Christ, they do this at Division II programs.

But, nooooooo, I’m sure McCoy is just saying the boosters are paying players. God knows, every time A&M beats texas, it must be b/c we’re cheating. [/sarcasm]

by Beergut on Jul 27, 2025 8:48 PM CDT reply actions

Just to recap, for those who can’t understand why TAMU was hit hard for the jobs program infraction:

1. In 1988, a two year NCAA investigation concludes. The NCAA is unhappy because they feel the coach/AD (one and the same) was not forthcoming. Ag recruits that signed elsewhere told stories of Ag assistant coaches offering cars and cash, but TAMU’s internal investigation revealed nothing new and assured the NCAA that the proper internal controls were in place. The TAMU president gives personal assurances to the NCAA that he would reform the department.

2. Later in 1988, the George Smith fiasco occured. The coach/AD is forced to resign, and is replaced by the second-in-commands (Slocum/Crow). The NCAA cannot penalize them because the story kept shifting, and nobody admitted to anything.

3. In 1991, the TAMU basketball team is found to have been committing major violations.

4. In 1992, the Ag job program scandal is discovered. The alum who funded it was president of the 12th Man Foundation.

If you can’t understand why the NCAA was suspicious of TAMU’s institutional control, you are either blinded by bias or haven’t been paying attention. I’m sure by 1992 the NCAA was wondering if it would be cheaper to buy a condo in College Station, rather than keep renting hotel rooms.

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 28, 2025 6:58 AM CDT reply actions

Beergut: 3) If you don’t believe that some degree of "taking care of the players" (not paying for their dinner in certain restaurants, bar tab being "on the house", etc.) doesn’t go on at EVERY school, I think you’re naive.

ON this, you’re right. If you think Vince Young even saw a tab his last year at Texas, well, I’ve got some prime oceanfront in Arizona.

by BatesHorn on Jul 28, 2025 10:20 AM CDT reply actions

TRoom,

I think you’re stretching by trying to connect 1988 with the probation in 1994.

I think they hit us hard b/c they could have given us the death penalty for the jobs scandal, but b/c they didn’t want to do that, they had to punish us in a severe manner.

Claiming that our punishment in ‘94 was related to what happened in ’88 is just supposition. If the NCAA was pissed at Sherrill, he wouldn’t have had a clean record, and he wouldn’t have been able to take the Mississippi State job.

by Beergut on Jul 28, 2025 10:25 AM CDT reply actions

The SI story linked above debunks the myth of Sherrill’s “NCAA clean record”.

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 28, 2025 11:12 AM CDT reply actions

Its all about chasing shadows.
By that I mean latching on to this or that latest, most innovative idea that some self styled money making guru has put out in the hope it’ll go viral and make them a lot of money off the backs of all the headless chickens who will follow them blindly down a blind alley. Its a shame but a truism nonetheless that people will follow where someone they see as an expert leads. Even if they lead them to certain disaster, which is what most of the gurus tend to do to their flocks.
The trick is to recognize a shadow when you see it!
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

by david baer on Dec 13, 2025 10:55 PM CST reply actions

Many companies all over the world need your opinions on their products. They will send you a simple online survey forms, where you need to fill it out and they pay you money.

The most remarkable thing about this paid survey program is that anyone can make money with it.
It doesn’t require any special skills, training, education or previous business experience. You only need access to the Internet and basic typing skills.
It is the perfect home business for stay at home moms, students, home makers, retirees or anyone that is in need of some extra cash.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

by kiramatali shah on Dec 13, 2025 11:25 PM CST reply actions

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

by david baer on Dec 13, 2025 11:47 PM CST reply actions

hey there and thanks for your information ? I have certainly picked up something new from right here. I did on the other hand expertise some technical points the usage of this web site, as I skilled to reload the site many times prior to I may get it to load properly. I were pondering in case your web hosting is OK? No longer that I’m complaining, however sluggish loading instances occasions will often have an effect on your placement in google and can injury your high quality ranking if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my email and could look out for a lot extra of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you replace this once more soon..

by Lesbencams on Dec 31, 2025 3:17 AM CST reply actions

Pretty component of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get actually loved account your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you get admission to persistently fast.

by How to cheat on poker, casino, loterry on Jan 14, 2026 5:51 PM CST reply actions