Connect with your Facebook Account

• Contact

Football Articles

19

The History of College Football Recruiting Cheating- Part 4

Posted by TaylorTRoom on June 9th, 2008 under Football, Recruiting

When a program is caught cheating in recruiting, its fans will often claim that they are just trying to match their rivals’ efforts. “They must be cheating, too,” they argue, “How else could they get all of the recruits they sign?” There is a kernel of truth in that statement. The governing rules limit every school to offering the same package- tuition, books, room, and board. However, it’s a mistake to think that all of these packages are of the same value, and that unpleasant fact is at the root of cheating in recruiting.

Let’s start with the scholarship. Obviously, (the value of the education aside) some degrees are worth more than others. That’s why Stanford gets to charge more for tuition than Chico State, right? This value could also be measured by the difference in expected earnings by graduates of different schools. That creates an obvious inequity right there. What if a player has dreams of a pro career? Higher profile programs provide better launching pads.

Then there are the differences in campus life offerings, locations (beaches vs. cornfields), degree offerings, and any other of the myriad differentiators that all prospective students are aware of. The NCAA’s attempt to level the playing field had unintentionally institutionalized inequities. If the rules were perfectly enforced, some schools would always have more talent available than others. Paying recruits is actually a way of increasing the value of a school’s offer, to make it competitive with others.

Coaches are by nature competitive spirits. To a lesser extent, boosters are as well. They will be aggressive about addressing competitive deficits. That’s what the college football world discovered in the 1950’s, after the rules regulating recruiting were established.

As noted before, the initial intent of the Pacific Coast Conference (PAC-10 precursor) was to forgo athletic scholarships (tuition to the state universities was low already and Stanford had generous financial aid for all) and only allow summer jobs for extra income. Almost immediately, a scandal broke. It was discovered that four of the eight schools (Cal, UCLA, Washington, and USC) had slush funds administered by boosters (with the coaches’ knowledge) or the coaches. These funds would pay players upwards of $40 per month, in cash. The scandal ended the slush funds, but influenced the conference to drop its “holier than thou” attitude and mimic the scholarship programs of the rest of the country. Note- the Washington slush fund scandal happened the season before Royal took over in 1956.

The Big 10 adopted the athletic scholarships policy grudgingly, but paired it with higher academic standards for recruits. Their idea was that if they were going to have to give scholarships, they would by golly give them to scholars. This led to a period in the late 1950’s where the Big 10 went from the country’s toughest conference (the SEC of its day) to being no better than any other. Presumably, before the Big 10 adopted the higher standards, the schools had been enrolling the less intellectually gifted athlete. The league decided to adopt academic standards more in line with its peer conferences, and hasn’t looked back since.

It doesn’t take a huge amount of cynicism to surmise that the PCC was not the only conference with easy cash for players, or the Big 10 the only conference dependent upon the less gifted student. However, there are two necessary components to a recruiting scandal. You need a violator, and you need somebody to turn them in. We’re going to look at both components.

Where do you find violators? You find violators at programs that are trying to get the top talent, and lack the means or skill to do so without cheating. This includes programs in talent-poor states (the geographic distribution of D-1A talent is, like so many other aspect of life, unfair), smaller-profile programs in talent-rich states, programs that have unattractive “images” with talented players, or some combination of the above. The scholarship offers from these programs are perceived to be less valuable than their rivals, so they have to add some economic value to compete in recruiting.

Where do you find somebody to turn them in? That’s a more complex question than it first appears. A rival school that turns in a cheater had better be clean itself, or it runs the risk of being punished too.

That’s why the heavily rumored recruiting bidding wars rarely result in NCAA penalties. If school A and B are both bidding for a star player, and school A wins, school B is too dirty themselves (and probably has too much evidence against it near the surface) to report them.

You also don’t find violations reported in areas where the competitive balance between schools involves a standard set of extra benefits for a player- cars, a certain nominal amount of cash. These “gentlemens’ agreements” would typically be between the member schools of a conference, allowing them to defend the local talent from outside marauders.

You will see violators turned in when a newcomer tries to use illegal inducements to open up a new recruiting territory. And that’s exactly what we saw in one of the more noteworthy local scandals- the 1955 Texas A&M football recruiting scandal. You had both elements- a coach trying to upgrade the talent on his team, and rivals willing to turn on him.

Let’s dig a little deeper.

Bryant is widely recognized as college football’s greatest (or most successful) coach. Unfortunately, he was admittedly no stranger to buying players. In his 1966 SI series, he admits that boosters probably paid some boys. Obviously, the boosters have to be told by the coaches which boys to pay. Remember, at this time, boosters were allowed to participate in recruiting, and often funded the scholarships given (coaches were weaning them from the latter practices, because boosters kept trying to promote “their” players, annoying coaches to no end).

He needed to buy players because, with no female students admitted by rule, and compulsory ROTC participation, the Aggies were not an attractive option to schoolboy athletes. Also, the state had only one state-wide recruiter at the time- UT. The rest of the state had been carved up locally, with Rice (and the Owls had some good teams) getting Houston, TCU getting FW, SMU getting Dallas, and the rural small towns shared by Baylor and Texas A&M. Texas, as noted in a prior post, recruited the whole state. Bryant had been promised by the Ag boosters that the Ags were a state-wide presence in recruiting, and they were- the school was considered an undesirable option in every corner of the state.

A few years later, the Ags were the single most talented team in the SWC, led by future NFL stars Jack Pardee, John David Crow, Bobby Joe Conrad, and Charlie Krueger. Although it’s unfair to say these players were paid, it is obvious that Bryant brought a significant upgrade in talent to College Station. The other schools took notice, and turned him in for illegal recruiting and benefits for players. Presumably, the other SWC were upset that the Ags were encroaching on their recruiting areas, and paying players to win their commitments in recruiting.

Now, here’s the odd part. They didn’t turn him into the NCAA, although the NCAA had set up a Compliance Committee to deal with such issues.

They turned him into the Southwest Conference, where the other ADs voted to penalize the Ags and not allow them to play in the Cotton Bowl, should they win the SWC in 1956 (they did). Perhaps the conference forum was chosen because it would have more respect for “gentlemen’s agreements” about recruiting territories than the NCAA would.

Obviously, there were some hard feelings on the Aggies’ part (especially after Bryant quit), and from that point on any recruiting violations were reported to the NCAA to deal with.

So, there you have it. A school found itself at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting, and responded by sweetening the offers to the recruits, and expanding its recruiting territory. The aggrieved rivals responded by complaining through a forum that would not investigate them in return (in later years, schools would learn to use the media as a surrogate for making claims). The final act is the punishment of the offending program.

Article Tags:

More from this Barker


Share This

  • StumbleUpon

19 Responses

  1. Stuck in MN said:

    June 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Well done. I’m really enjoying this series.

    I’d never thought of the freakonomics angle of cheating but it makes perfect sense. I guess if you were in a lab and trying to make a perfect test tube cheating scenario you would have a school with an undesirable degree in an undesirable location that has alums with an inferiority complex, low morals, and lots of oil money. You might also include a big red auto dealership or an affinity for collies, but those are probably optional.

  2. TaylorTRoom said:

    June 10th, 2008 at 3:44 am

    1. I’ve got a rough idea in my head where this is going, and I think I have to devote a full post to OU’s history. There’s just too much there. Ditto for SMU.

    2. The George Smith fiasco at TAMU deserves a full post as well, but that might also be the place to mention the two probations at UT in the early ’80s, since the two programs had such different reactions.

    3. Bear Bryant is interesting. He only shows up in the NCAA infraction database once, in 1964 for recruiting a player from another college team (the TAMU probation was a SWC probation, not NCAA). However, his coaching tree is full of violators (Sherrill, Stallings, Williamson, Dye).

    4. This is probably as good of a place as any to note the single dumbest violation ever- TAMU in 1966 was put on NCAA probation for cutting non-performing players from the squad and canceling their scholarships. This was stupid because it was unnecessary. Coaches cut college players all of the time, but either let them keep their scholarships or make them so miserable that they quit (not advocating that, just pointing it out). What in the world got into Stallings to make him act out that way? Did he really believe all that propaganda about Junction?

  3. TaylorTRoom said:

    June 10th, 2008 at 3:44 am

    Oh, and thanks for the kind comments.

  4. Austin180 said:

    June 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    I too am really enjoying this series. Thanks.

  5. TxTower said:

    June 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Enjoy this also but is this the 4th part of a 50 part series? – cause OU has to take up at least half of it and you haven’t even gotten to the Bud Wilkinson era yet.

  6. srr50 said:

    June 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    “Now, here’s the odd part. They didn’t turn him into the NCAA, although the NCAA had set up a Compliance Committee to deal with such issues.”

    They turned them into the SWC because there was no National Letter of Intent. There were just conference LOI’s.

    The NCAA compliance Committee was seen as having little power, and the conferences policed themselves.

    THe SWC helped bring about a National LOI in the mid 60’s.

  7. TaylorTRoom said:

    June 11th, 2008 at 3:40 am

    That’s another reason, srr, and one I hadn’t considered. I do know that the NCAA Compliance committee started taking actions in the mid and late ’50s, particularly with the PCC scandal.

    I think the NCAA discovered in 1952 that making punishments decisions in the convention at large would not work (the “Sinful Seven” going totally unpunished), and needed an independent committee to do the work.

  8. NateHeupel said:

    June 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    I’d never thought of the freakonomics angle of cheating but it makes perfect sense. I guess if you were in a lab and trying to make a perfect test tube cheating scenario…
    For my beloved OU circa 1950:
    you would have a school with an undesirable degree: check
    in an undesirable location: check
    that has alums with an inferiority complex: CHECK
    low morals: NEGATIVE…especially in light of the Klan-esque attitude prevalent in Austin until the 70’s.
    lots of oil money: compared to UT, are you kidding?
    big red auto dealership: check

  9. TaylorTRoom said:

    June 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Nate, in my next post I’m going to quote Time magazine on why OU stopped integrating after Gauntt for a few years.

  10. NateHeupel said:

    June 13th, 2008 at 7:27 am

    Good reading: LINK

  11. TaylorTRoom said:

    June 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am

    Nate, I’ve read his book, “Breaking the Ice”, and it is a very fair account of a tragic time. Don’t make the mistake a lot of Sooners do of assuming Oklahoma football were necessarily angels in this deal.

    Give Wilkinson credit for integrating in the ’50s. Note also that the Big 6 conference had been integrated for awhile already. Also note that he stopped integrating, and why.

    Also, in your article, did you note the comments about the Arkansas 1965 football staff, and how cruel it could be? You do know who were assistants on that staff, don’t you?

  12. SeeingRed said:

    June 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Barry Switzer cheated on a sperm test.

  13. Lowery said:

    June 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    Very interesting and enjoyable read. I particularly like the regional aspect that you mentioned.

    Funny thing about that if you want to get in the way-back machine with me for a minute.

    Picture my room at the fraternity house at Alabama 95ish. I know that it was some time after lunch because I was in a fog that only week old hunch punch, and Mrs Ps burgers can induce.

    On the tv, Dan Patrick is talking about “Tractor Trailer”’s suburban up at Michigan, and what an affront it is. As I gaze to my right, out the window, I can see Dwayne Rudd finishing up a nice detailing job on both his new jeep, and his new mustang. He was a really good linebacker and stuff.

  14. AggieGunnerFan said:

    June 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am

    Very interesting series on the subject. Hopefully, you are planning on more because the SMU scandal would be great.

  15. Sarge said:

    July 20th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

    Please keep going, this is very interesting stuff. Some I have heard before, most in new.
    More please!

  16. ed said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Interesting subject and some great information. Some questions/comments:

    1. I wonder — why choose Bear Bryant and Texas A&M as your only detailed example? The SMU and TCU play-for-pay issues in the 1980s are much more relevant in time and detail.

    2. I think it’s unfair to say A&M was not attractive to prospective recruits in 1955 because it was an all male school with required ROTC. Those might be negatives today; they were a lot less significant 50-plus years ago.

    3. It is inaccurate to say the state was “carved up” regionally. In fact, TCU prospered by recruiting mega talent from East and West Texas — far from the Fort Worth area. Jess Neely and his Rice staff covered major portions of the state with their recruiting. Of course SMU, TCU and Rice got a larger percentage of players from their hometowns; Texas does the same thing today with the Austin area. This is not “carving up” the state, thus leaving the small towns to A&M and Baylor. Texas A&M got a lot of small-town athletes (and students as a whole); it was THE place to study agriculture, and many of those students were from rural towns. That’s where farms and ranches are.

    4. As pointed out in one of the comments, it was the norm at the time for the conference to clean up its problems and mete out punishment. It wasn’t until ADs and faculty reps decided to distance themselved from the lawyering and judging of their members that conferences kicked those things to higher authority (the NCAA).

    5. I won’t even get into the “worth of degrees.” I’ve known geniuses from Texas A&I and Texas-El Paso (not picking on anybody here), and dunces from UT and Harvard (or here).

  17. TaylorTRoom said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Thanks for reading, Ed. I wrote about TAMU and Bryant because my research indicates that TAMU may have been paying players in the ’50s, but not really that much worse than many competitors (such as SMU). Why did the conference turn on them? I suspect it was due to a sense that they “didn’t know their place” when they were recruiting other areas. 50 years later, TAMU is understood to be a state-wide recruiter and would not attract the same scorn from their peers.

    As for TAMU’s appeal in the ’50s, you have to remember that we are not talking about the appeal to dedicated future academics, or agriculturists, but to star HS football player, which is a different thing altogether.

  18. Plano Jeff said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Excellent reading. If you do take on OU, the OSU people had a great chart a few years back chronicling the OU scandals. It is hillarious and I can’t find it on the web to save my life, but I’d bet an Okie State fan would send you one.

  19. ponderos said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    I bet an Okie State fan did it in crayon, too.

Leave a Reply

Follow Us

Related Articles

Hot Forum Topics

Activity

  • srr50 wrote a new blog post: Now THAT’S Taking One For The Team   1 hour, 58 minutes ago

    Aggie Corp with “Squeeze Army?”

    POSERS

    Texas Tech forward Darko Cohadarevic doesn’t just talk the talk — he walks the walk.

    Tuesday night Tech faced Seton Hall in a first round NIT contest. With the game tied at 10, Seton Hall forward Herb Pope delivered two below-the-belt blows to Cohadarevic.

    After Pope was ejected, Tech went on

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   3 hours, 42 minutes ago

    Louisville has a great chance if Jerry Smith is healthy.

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Final Four Prediction   3 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Good team that took number 1 seeded Louisville to the wire in last year’s tournament. Start 3 seniors and two juniors, very athletic. Solid pass first point guard. Their leading scorer was player of the year in the conference.

    Good club that plays multiple defenses.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • ghostofagroundgame commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   4 hours, 8 minutes ago

    I just took Baylor going to the Elite 8. It’s a crazy mixed up world we live in.

    Is it just me, or does it pain anyone else to not be able to determine who is going to beat Duke early? It’s bound to happen, but who will it be?

  • Art Vandelay commented on the blog post Final Four Prediction   4 hours, 10 minutes ago

    By “we” I meant the Horns. Kevin, why should I take Siena over A&M?

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   4 hours, 24 minutes ago

    colorado ag, Utah State is as athletic as Nebraska. You’ll be fine as long as they don’t go 16 for 31 from three.

    Siena, on the other hand, is going to beat you like you stole something. Maybe not, but the Saints should win.

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   4 hours, 28 minutes ago

    Great article Scipio. Also, thanks for the dime.

    Looking at the Tournament futures market, Vegas is telling us what they think about Onuaku’s health. The Orangemen have the easiest region and road to the fianl four, yet they’re +700 to win it all, while UK and Kansas, teams with much tougher roads, are +250

  • Art Vandelay commented on the blog post Final Four Prediction   4 hours, 33 minutes ago

    My brackets are pretty much locked down except the South. Can’t get myself to take Baylor, and Duke doesn’t feel right. Nobody seems to be high on Nova. It’s all about the Big East and Big 12 this year.

    It’s a crying shame we suck so bad. We are in a good

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • James commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   4 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Scip, like a peaceful Indian in the 1800’s, I never trust a Mormon that can shoot. Utah State has me worried.

    If we escape the first weekend, things get very interesting with a potential Sweet 16 match-up with Duke. Ugly up the game and guard like hell on the perimeter in front of a

  • Scipio Tex commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   5 hours, 13 minutes ago

    CJD -

    Possibly. However, I’m telling you – the beauty of these intergame lines is that when you see that all-too-familiar big early game lead that you know will evaporate down the stretch as soon as the team starts regressing to their 3 point shooting mean, there’s some money to be made.

  • Scipio Tex commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   5 hours, 15 minutes ago

    uthookem-

    I’d say you have your priorities straight.

    colorado -

    Anytime. How far do you think the Aggies go? A lot of people think Utah State is the most dangerous pure shooting team in the tournament.

  • uthookem commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   5 hours, 26 minutes ago

    Last year in Vegas, Friday morning, stumble to the line at 8:30 to make my bets, put $20 on a four-team parlay on the four 9:00 am games, nailed it! Three of the four games’ spread was determined in the final 0:30. Walked away with $220.

    Yeah, so what if that is the only

  • James commented on the blog post Sending Aggies to the NFL   5 hours, 27 minutes ago

    Jordan, all just wild, premature conjecture. I’d hedge that only a third of that 2013 list ever makes an NFL roster. It is picking which third that is the tough part.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • James commented on the blog post Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   5 hours, 29 minutes ago

    Very interesting piece. These games can’t start soon enough. Thanks, Scip.

  • Scipio Tex commented on the blog post Final Four Prediction   5 hours, 39 minutes ago

    I have:

    Syracuse
    Kansas
    West Virginia
    Baylor

    These will all likely change 3-4 times before tomorrow morning.

    I don’t have as high an opinion of Ohio State as you do. Evan Turner is fantastic, but I don’t like their odds of taking down Georgetown and KU back-to-back.

    Baylor scares me. They have no idea what

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger wrote a new blog post: Final Four Prediction   5 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Arinze Onuaku’s injury has forced me to turn this year’s bracket prediction into a “Multiple Endings” story. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not hyper-geeks playing Dungeons and Dragons here. We may be wasting billions of dollars in worker productivity, but we’re not killing Orcs with plus 10 vorpal swords of magic.

    So, in

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger wrote a new blog post: The Definitive Bracket: 63 Guaranteed Winners!   5 hours, 49 minutes ago

    But only if you call now! I’ve gone 85 percent against the numba for the last two decades!! So picking straight up winners is, bada-boom bada-bing, easy! Only Sammy “the nose” Pistachio and Billy “buttercups” Birmingham can approach this many winnaz! It’s ridiculoso, hermoso!!

    Call now and we’ll throw in an opening round N-I-T super-dupa live dog

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Scipio Tex commented on the blog post Making it Official: Tighter Officiating’s Effect on the Tournament   5 hours, 49 minutes ago

    Awesome write up.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Scipio Tex wrote a new blog post: Bracket Breakdown & Gambling Tips   5 hours, 56 minutes ago

    So I’m listening to Bill Simmons’ podcast and he has on Chad Millman, Vegas Insider. Basically, Chad’s job is to interact with the guys who set the line, professional gamblers, sharps, and wise guys. He had some interesting comments about the tournament:

    By the end of the year, markets are fairly efficient as

  • Bob Jones commented on the blog post Math… Everyone’s favorite subject   6 hours, 47 minutes ago

    As a Baylor fan I loathe math: it’s either inexorably against us or when favorable, completely inapplicable.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Making it Official: Tighter Officiating’s Effect on the Tournament   7 hours, 30 minutes ago

    Should have that up soon, ts.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Nate Heupel wrote a new blog post: Oklahoma Sooners – Recruiting So Far   7 hours, 30 minutes ago

    I was reading a thread on OUInsider whining about how a beat writer for a UT website seemed to favoring UT recruits. Get the hell out of here with that nonsense. Next, you’re going to tell me that Oklahoma sports media coverage is slanted towards OU.

    While Ketchum’s rankings seemed to be

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • J Rog commented on the blog post March Mad(nba)ess!   7 hours, 36 minutes ago

    EVERYTHING would be different. Great post!

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • James commented on the blog post Two Loops & A Hooey – Herm Edwards Edition   7 hours, 37 minutes ago

    ha, nice Tim burn.

    I was wondering where you went Ded. I got sick of looking at the same article everyday for 2 weeks. I’ve been up to Taos a few times this season, but it’s not that far from ABQ. I am absolutely convinced that everyone in Texas has been to Angel

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Brownbear commented on the blog post Math… Everyone’s favorite subject   8 hours, 3 minutes ago

    Atleast I was wearing flannel when I wrote it.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • admin commented on the blog post Math… Everyone’s favorite subject   8 hours, 14 minutes ago

    Same source or just similar facts: http://fantake.com/forums/topic.php?id=876#post-5197

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • admin commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Beasts of the East   8 hours, 16 minutes ago

    I think I’m riding the Huggy bear to the Final Four.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • ursa major commented on the blog post Math… Everyone’s favorite subject   8 hours, 28 minutes ago

    “in the history of baylor basketball this has never been in discussion”

    except for that pesky final four appearance we made…

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

  • Sancho commented on the blog post All Signs Point to March Madness Expanding to 96 Teams   8 hours, 32 minutes ago

    I just had diarrhea in my pants thinking about how many horrible teams would allowed to play

  • Sancho commented on the blog post 2010 Football Schedule Released   8 hours, 35 minutes ago

    8-4 would be pretty good, 9-3 would be stellar, in fact quite amazing. I still say we are two years away from having an impact year in college football, though.

    On another note, the game against tech is gonna be on ESPN. Time for SMU to step it up on the national stage again.