ED talks about Pony Excess

[ThadFilms]

Aggie and Okie State never went clean.

Basically, in my opinion it was a "lack of institutional control" that got SMU in trouble, it was a "complete institutional control" that sunk the program.

Reggie Dupard (from a cut scene): "What was happening at SMU wasn't anything different from what was happening anywhere. From my time in the pros I know that.... the thing was that at SMU everyone knew about it. My teammates in the pros from the SEC, man, you wouldn't believe what they got... but at the same time they didn't have the coaches, board, president all knowing about it. Maybe some knew, but not all of them and all the way up the chain. That's what got us the death penalty."

Plausible deniability was out the window.

[jtstang]

For future reference, all of you who would say "everybody was doing it" just spare us the generalities and give us the details sufficient to judge for ourselves. For each school who was part of "everybody" please tell us:

1. What they were doing.
2. Everyone who was doing it.
3. How long they'd been doing it.
4. What sanctions they had given previously by the NCAA for doing it while they were still doing it.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Well, its somewhat difficult to answer that question with certainty, since the evidence uncovered by WFAA, the NCAA, etc. against SMU was far more complete and comprehensive than in any other case I'm aware of. But if you boil the SMU violations down to a core concept. . .pay for play. . .then there have been several schools that have been caught doing the same thing. Off the top of my head the following schools have had enforcement actions taken against them for one form of pay-for-play or another since the 1980s:

1. TCU
2. TAMU
3. Alabama (2002)
4. USC (2009)
5. Baylor
6. Oklahoma
7. Auburn
8. Miami

Going just on hearsay from former recruits/players such as Eric Dickerson, you could add:

1. Texas
2. Rice
3. Arkansas

I can't give all the details of these scandals that are requested, but I believe the NCAA enforcement reports are available on-line. So that information should be readily available if there was in fact an enforcement action.

I'm sure that I am forgetting some, but the point is that pay-for-play scandals are clearly not limited to SMU. Can I state with certainty that in all or some of these other cases, the pay-for-play scandal was known to, or controlled directly by, the football coaching staff, athletic department, university president, and/or board of trustees. . .no I cannot. The evidence has never established that in any case other than SMU. Do I think that in at least some of these cases, some or all of the people mentioned had at least some knowledge of what was going on. . .sure I do. You'd have to be an idiot not to have any inkling. For example, how did Auburn go from roughly the 25th ranked recruiting class in 2008 to the #1 class in 2010 (during a two-year period where their coach was fired and the college football landscape was dominated by their in-state rival)? In my opinion it's simple, they cheated big time. Can I prove it. . .no. But common sense tells me that something bad is going on there. And it probably involves a lot of people involved with the university who will NEVER speak truthfully to the NCAA.

[kent dorfman]

Open and Shut case. Could not find an easier case in the history of College Football of Lack of Institutional Control. I deal with legal standards every day and the required evidence necessary to prove the legal elements of a statute. You can argue "taint fair" all you want but there is no rational argument that SMU didn't deserve the Death Penalty under the NCAA Rules as written. I see a bunch of posters claiming "taint fair"-I don't see anyone denying that there was overwhelming evidence that SMU lacked Institutional Control. The "tain't fair argument" is for those that lost on the facts and issues in controversy.

I've thought about this a lot since I've seen the movie and yes, of course, by the letter of the rule, SMU was caught with both hands in the cookie jar on several occasions. One thing that gets lost in this a bit is the admissions requirements that Ken Pye put on the program. In a way, the University by having these higher admission standards for student athletes, exacerabated the issues we already were going to have in terms of fielding a competitive team.

[jtstang]

Well, its somewhat difficult to answer that question with certainty, since the evidence uncovered by WFAA, the NCAA, etc. against SMU was far more complete and comprehensive than in any other case I'm aware of.

Thank you. Indeed we do have a far more complete and comprehensive understanding of what SMU was doing which got us the death penalty, as opposed to what "everybody else" was doing.

Mere "pay for play" as you call it is clearly not the threshold that gets the death penalty.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

I agree with that. Of course a mere pay-for-play scandal occurring one time would not have gotten SMU the DP either, even with the evidence of "institutional" control or knowledge. The condition precedent for the DP is that the institution be a "repeat offender" while already on probation for major violations. One factor that separates SMU from the pack is that we got caught twice, big-time, in a period of less than two years. I don't believe there has ever been another school that got hammered as bad as SMU did in 1985 which then got caught up in an even worse scandal while still on probation.

[jtstang]

You nailed it. Now couple that with the fact that this went all the way to the governor's office (and that SMU was used as a pawn in his reelection efforts) and that even seperates us from the pack further.

[EastStang]

As with Richard Nixon, it wasn't the original break-in by rogue campaign officials, it was the cover-up and the stonewall. That's what got us the death penalty. The cover-up and the continued pay to play so that Clements could run for re-election.

And yes, other schools have been death penalty eligible. Any violation of NCAA rules while on probation (in any sport) can get you the death penalty even if the violation that gets you the death penalty is in a different sport. Thus for example Baylor could get the death penalty in football if football violations occurred while it was on probation for women's soccer. That's what the rule literally says. But, the NCAA generally lets schools plead down to lesser penalties and self-flaggellation gets you more leniency. So, schools now wait a few years, self report their violations and the NCAA slaps their wrists saying, "bad boys".