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

  • Nate Heupel commented on the blog post Oklahoma Sooners – Recruiting So Far   2 hours, 33 minutes ago

    BOC: Neither has visited, yet we hold ’ships open for both.

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

  • Nate Heupel wrote a new blog post: Because We’re Dedicated To Doing Stupid Things – Tiny Gallon Reportedly Took Payout   2 hours, 42 minutes ago

    TMZ reports that Tiny Gallon took a $3000 payout from an agent. My God, Capel has no control over this team whatsoever. This is 2007 offseason Texas football levels of embarrassing. You can’t let a half dozen bad apples spoil a bushel of 10 apples…that analogy sucked balls, but you get my

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

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Previewing Jimmer and the Cougars   3 hours, 53 minutes ago

    Great stuff, bear. really looking forward to this game.

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

  • Nickel Rover commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   3 hours, 53 minutes ago

    06_UT: you are probably right. I thought about changing the post description to “least favorite Barnes team” because that’s more accurate but I didn’t feel like it.
    That said, I’m not sure this team would beat those other two. They would lose Abrams and let him go 7-15 on 3s and the Abrams team played better

  • admin commented on the blog post Nike U in Turmoil   3 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Aren’t they building some sort of super duper hoops arena? Most expensive ever bilt or something?

    Who will the get? Mark Few?

  • Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Nike U in Turmoil   3 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Aren’t the building some sort of super duper hoops arena? Most expensive ever bilt or something?

    Who will the get? Mark Few?

  • srr50 wrote a new blog post: Nike U in Turmoil   4 hours, 15 minutes ago

    10 weeks ago, Oregon played in the Rose Bowl as Pac 10 champions. Since their loss to Ohio State, the program has been in some kind of bizzaro parallel universe where every headline concerns a player arrest, a firing, or now a resignation.

    Mike Bellotti, the Duck AD and former head coach earlier this week

  • Luke commented on the blog post First Round: Clemson Tigers   6 hours, 26 minutes ago

    Prescient comment, Doc.

    I think we learned today that no team is really a mirror image of Missouri, even if Clemson is about as close as it gets. Unless you have significantly better/more talented athletes, if you try to run with the Tigers, you will lose. This team is so much fun to watch in games

  • srr50 commented on the blog post March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   6 hours, 40 minutes ago

    Good to see that Tom Penders still believes in the weave offense. Maryland finally figured out that if you pass quickly, the middle is always open.

    37-29 Maryland late in the first half.

  • Luke wrote a new blog post: Previewing Jimmer and the Cougars   6 hours, 41 minutes ago

    Kansas State is going to be under a lot of pressure tomorrow night in primetime at the Ford Center.

    Not only are the Wildcats the favored #2 seed going against #7 seed BYU, but if the Wildcats lose, they may sentence hundreds of boys to nonstop harassment from all the kids who think that “Jimmer” was

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

  • Ibas water bottle wrote a new blog post: Georgia Tech post mortem   6 hours, 53 minutes ago

    We came up short.

    Credit to Georgia Tech they worked the ball inside where they had the advantage and played great D on the perimeter. Matt Pilgrim is the most athletic big man we’ve had in years around here and he was irrelevant. When we tried to drive they collapsed like Chris Farley on a

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

  • Phenomenal Smith commented on the blog post First Round: Clemson Tigers   7 hours, 29 minutes ago

    Doc, the turnovers seemed to do the trick – there were great big chunks of time when Mizzou didn’t even have to get into a half court offense.

    Great to see Ramsey have such a good game and pretty stifle Booker. As Euclid said during the game, even when Mizzou doesn’t play well

  • dick commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   8 hours, 8 minutes ago

    “Also because those other teams gave great effort almost every game. This team’s effort was questionable. Dumb and lazy, not a good combo…..”

    This is what made this season so bizarre for me. This has never been a problem for Barnes’ teams. But I actually questioned this team’s heart and desire to play together

  • srr50 commented on the blog post March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   8 hours, 22 minutes ago

    Travis Ford spent the 2nd half channeling his inner Rick Barnes — lot’s of standing around on offense while one player tries to generate something off a ball screen — then taking a forced shot.

    So the Big 12 goes 5-2 in Round One.

  • skymonkeyhorn commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   8 hours, 26 minutes ago

    This is the worst coached team ever in Barnes era. Period.
    Worst defense over the whole season,
    Offense sucked big time and the bench coaching was horrible, ransom’s attitude was better then the coach’s overall this season.
    Trips write up pre and post better then the game plan and O schemes.
    Hell we could have

  • srr50 commented on the blog post March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   8 hours, 30 minutes ago

    advertisers think they will probably get some deals for the additional 32 games that would be added. The feeling is that an ESPN would disount rates somewhat, since they already have a dual revenue stream — advertising dollars and subscription fees.

    It’s all about content for ESPN — even mediocre content.

  • dick commented on the blog post FLV March Madness First Round Bets   8 hours, 32 minutes ago

    a great first round of the tournament from an excitement standpoint, very mediocre from a gambling standpoint.

  • srr50 commented on the blog post March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   8 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Ga. Tech — last in the ACC in free throw shooting at 64% — 13 for 13 tonight.

  • srr50 commented on the blog post March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   8 hours, 57 minutes ago

    A poll of media buyers from the major agencies overhwhelmingly showed that advertisers believe that the NCAA will expand, and the tournament will join the BCS on ESPN.

  • whiskey wrote a new blog post: The week in news- Pariahs, Malcontents and Power Hour   9 hours ago

    In the midst of March Madness, St. Patrick’s Day, house guests, nice weather outside and a host of other distractions I still managed to come across quite a few interesting college football stories this week. Here we go.

    Mike Leach and Craig James were apparently in the same room this week and nobody wrestled.  Bummer.  Leach

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

  • srr50 commented on the blog post March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   9 hours, 12 minutes ago

    Anderson finds out what going to the paint is like when there is a big who knows how to defend the low block.

  • srr50 wrote a new blog post: March Madness Open Thread Part Deaux   9 hours, 21 minutes ago

    So far on Day Two, no buzzer beaters, but there was the obligatory #12 over #5 with Cornell thumping Temple 78-65, but the Ivy League school was everyone’s “inside” pick for an upset. Still the day hasn’t come close to generating the action that Thursday had.

    Today
    #5 Texas A&M 69 #12

  • Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   9 hours, 46 minutes ago

    I wasn’t trying to say they quit. They just didn’t play hard a lot of the time. Lazy = lack of effort. Example, our transition defense was about 75% effort and 25% stupidity. We loafed down court a lot. The kids didn’t like to lose so they would fight back,

  • Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   11 hours, 19 minutes ago

    This the most disappointing team because our talent level is higher than those others.

    The DGib/Buckman team was the least talented, barely, after the injury to LaMarcus and Tucker’s suspension.

    Last year’s team was the hardest to watch. Just watching AJ Abrams, who I don’t hate as much as most, run around like a

  • uthookem commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   11 hours, 25 minutes ago

    Agreed on Damo being my favorite Longhorn basketball player, I wish him all the best.

    This was definitely the worst, by far.

  • Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest: Post Mortem   12 hours, 39 minutes ago

    Don’t have time to address each and every comment now, but I wanted to say thanks to everyone for contributing to the site this season. It’s made it a lot of fun to follow a team that’s tough to watch at times.

    Also, I wanted to thank you for the kind words as

  • Hiphopopotamus commented on the blog post Big Dance: Day Two   12 hours, 40 minutes ago

    And that’s all she wrote…relatively boring day so far. A&M out to a nice early lead.

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

  • Art Vandelay commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest: Post Mortem   12 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Trips,

    Great work all year long. Love the passion. The fact that you kept writing these (even around the birth of a child), is fantastic, shows your commitment, and is a little freaky. :-)

    I think you showed great restraint in this post. It would have been easier to “go off” on Barnes.

  • ghostofagroundgame commented on the blog post Barnes worst team   12 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Second awesomest thing — Magnus gets his woman to go to Hooters with him.

  • Hiphopopotamus commented on the blog post Big Dance: Day Two   12 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Missouri going to hang on…

    Sconsin clinging to a 2 point cushion

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