The History of College Football Recruiting Cheating- Part 10

by TaylorTRoom on Jul 28, 2025 6:49 PM CDT

I hope this series helped you with the dead season withdrawal pains. I learned a lot in researching it, and wanted to finish it with some conclusions drawn from the case studies.1. There are very, very few coaches who can overcome significant talent deficits with superior scheming. I can think of none who have done so for extended periods of time. If a coach does develop a superior way to line up his players, he will be mimicked within a season or two. His assistants will be hired away. All experienced head coaches know that superior talent is the best edge to have.

2. The cheating programs are usually trying to overcome some inherent recruiting disadvantage. Not all scholarships have equal value. They know that without extra inducements, they cannot recruit evenly with schools that have better locations, more prestige, or a better history. The promised payments are a way to make their scholarship offer equal in worth to that of their rivals.

Understandably, no school's supporters want to admit that their scholarships are not as valued as others. That's why they typically justify cheating by claiming that their rivals are cheating, too.

3. Cheating works. It really, really works. Paying recruits and players leads to better players, which leads to more wins. There are several examples of average coaches achieving phenomenal results when the talent on their team is illegally spiked upwards. There are no examples of egregious cheaters being conference bottom-dwellers.

Cheating Works!

It is economically effective, too. In the '80s, the going rate for bought recruits was about $300 per month. That means that a team could get about 15 top players for the price of an assistant coach's salary. There are reports of superstar recruits getting six figures, but these are rare players.

4. For the NCAA to penalize a cheater, two things are required- a violation, and somebody to turn them in. There are ways to accomplish the former while not risking the latter- stay out of recruits' bidding wars, only recruit in territory you have established as "yours", and don't antagonize any player you have paid, even if he isn't panning out on the field.

5. The best protection for a clean program is to be in a conference that has mostly clean programs. The NCAA will not protect your recruiting from dirty rivals in any significant way. Ironically, the best protection for a dirty program is to be in a conference that has a lot of dirty programs- you're less likely to be reported.

6. The two most effective curbs on cheating have been the Death Penalty, and the regulation of booster involvement. The Death penalty was key to getting the most powerful alums to support the universities' administrations, rather than the football coaches. The alums realized that unrestrained coaches could do far more damage to the program than simply inept coaches. Limiting booster involvement was crucial because the hyper-competitive boosters were behind most of the worst violations.

7. The NCAA represents about 120 D-1A schools. In the past 50 years, the NCAA has instituted rule changes that have made it extremely difficult for 75% of its member institutions to compete nationally. In 1950, there was a laissez faire market for talent, and the single platoon rules in football meant that a school rally only needed 15 really good players to compete nationally. Now, the market for talent is heavily regulated, and two platoon rules means that a team needs 25 - 30 really good players to be competitive nationally. This situation is probably not what the NCAA intended, but it is what it has created.

Well, that's all I have. I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed compiling. Thanks for all of the comments and kind (and even unkind) words.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

“1. There are very, very few coaches who can overcome significant talent deficits with superior scheming. I can think of none who have done so for extended periods of time.”

Rich Rodriguez and West Virginia would disagree with you. Yes, they eventually began to get better talent, but the state of West Virginia doesn’t produce much talent, and they used innovative offensive and defensive schemes to make themselves competitive.

I think if you look at numbers of players drafted, you will see that he did it without an extreme number of incredibly talented players.

I would say RichRod was successful for an extended period of time.

Even though many have copied what he does, no one runs their offense better than West Virginia, which shows you the advantage of having the inventor on your staff.

“That’s why they typically justify cheating by claiming that their rivals are cheating, too.”

Well, if the rival in question gets busted by the NCAA, the claim that the rival is doing it, too, is accurate.

I think some schools that think they have all the inherent advantages and therefore, a more ‘valuable’ scholarship, are too quick to dismiss the success of others by claiming “they cheated”. Alabama and Auburn are a perfect example.

“There are no examples of egregious cheaters being conference bottom-dwellers.”

Baylor’s football program under Chuck Reedy/Kevin Steele would disagree with this statement.

by Beergut on Jul 29, 2025 12:13 AM CDT reply actions

I would argue that RichRod didn’t really find elite success until he had Pat White and Steve Slaton in his backfield. And as far as his defensive innovation, well frankly that’s just false. West Virginia’s defense under Rodriguez was on more than one occassion their kink in their armor.

Also I’d be more inclined to believe that “other” programs’ (by which I assume you mean a&m and ou) success was not a result of cheating when accussed by “some schools” (by which I assume you mean UT) if the NCAA did not repeatedly find major violations upon investigation. In that case I don’t think it would be so much “dismissing their success” as it would be “telling it like it is.”

by flamingmonkeyass on Jul 29, 2025 1:59 AM CDT reply actions

Did Baylor cheat under Ready and Steele? I know they cheated like crazy when Teaff was there (i.e. back when they were good) but I had not heard about it more recently. If they were buying players they did a very poor job.

If you can honestly look at the frequency and severity of the respective violations at Texas and A&M and come to the conclusion that they were both doing the same thing, then I just don’t know what to tell you. All I know is that for a fan base whose mantra is they do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those that do, aggy still holds up Jackie as an icon.

TaylorT- outstanding job. I really enjoyed this.

by Stuck in MN on Jul 29, 2025 8:33 AM CDT reply actions

One of the reasons Reedy was fired was b/c he was using booster slush money to buy recruits who then wouldn’t qualify to get into school, so the boosters were not seeing a return on their investment.

flamingmonkeyass and Stuck in MN,

texas was busted by the NCAA for major violations twice in the 1980s. A&M and Oklahoma were also busted for cheating in the 1980s. I don’t see how you can claim the only reason those programs succeeded was that they were cheating, when texas was cheating, too.

by Beergut on Jul 29, 2025 9:13 AM CDT reply actions

“And as far as his defensive innovation, well frankly that’s just false. West Virginia’s defense under Rodriguez was on more than one occassion their kink (sic) in their armor”

First of all, I’m talking about making them competitive with inferior talent, not elite. Their 33 Stack scheme has allowed them to be more than competitive.

Second issue: Elite is a matter of interpretation. I’d say their defense dominating OU in the Fiesta Bowl is pretty damn elite.

by Beergut on Jul 29, 2025 9:22 AM CDT reply actions

Once again, go read part 8 of the series and compare and contrast with latter sections of part 9 dealing with aggy. Also read the actual NCAA summaries. Do you see a difference?

I am not claiming Texas did not cheat in the early to mid 80’s, I am claiming that the severity and frequency of such cheating pales in comparison to aggy under sherrill during that time and well into the late 80’s.

by Stuck in MN on Jul 29, 2025 11:50 AM CDT reply actions

Waste of time. You will never get an aggy to admit the difference. Thankfully I no longer care about their sad rationalizations.

by Black Scholes on Jul 29, 2025 7:39 PM CDT reply actions

Two points:

First, those pointing the finger at Baylor are breaking TaylorTRoom’s cardinal rule: Don’t accuse people of cheating unless you can prove it.

I also have a question, for Taylor in particular, but also for anyone else who wants to chime in: You mention that you will not accuse people of cheating unless they were caught by the NCAA, but is it fair to assume that there might be more going on than is actually caught and punished? For example, is it safe to assume that more players were involved in OU’s Big Red auto sales scandal than actually received punishment?

by R. Cobb on Aug 17, 2025 9:14 PM CDT reply actions

Well, that’s just my rule. I think you need consistent standards when making comparisons. Of course, I diverged when I was posting on the George Smith/TAMU deal. There was no NCAA violation finalized, but there was plenty of reporting.

by TaylorTRoom on Aug 17, 2025 9:25 PM CDT reply actions