PonyFans.com

USA Today has named us as the #9 top sports scandal in the last 25 years. We are just two ahead of Baylor Basketball. Personally, I think a murder and a coverup are bit more scandalous that what we went through. Interesting list though.

The link for anyone who cares: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/top25-scandals.htm

As a Chicagoan, I am surprised the Black Sox scandal wasn't listed in the Top Five, e.g. throwng a World Series. Also, I would have thought the list would have older candidates, e.g. Soviet BB victory in 1972 Olympics, Rosie Ruiz in the 1980 Boston Marathon, etc.

The list is just for the past 25 years.

Water Pony wrote:As a Chicagoan, I am surprised the Black Sox scandal wasn't listed in the Top Five, e.g. throwng a World Series. Also, I would have thought the list would have older candidates, e.g. Soviet BB victory in 1972 Olympics, Rosie Ruiz in the 1980 Boston Marathon, etc.

Its the top 25 scandals of the past 25 years. I agree though, the Black Sox would have to be top 5 all-time in sports.

I guess I"m old fashioned but a point shaving scandel such as the Northwestern stuff (and Tulane years earlier) is worse because it hits the integrity of the actual event. What SMU did which was very wrong, doesn't have that kind of venality. Point shaving leads to throwing games.

Terry Webster wrote:The list is just for the past 25 years.

That's because none of the writers for USA Today are not much older than 30 years of age and don't realize that sports has a history going back a lot further than 25 years ago.

EastStang wrote:I guess I"m old fashioned but a point shaving scandel such as the Northwestern stuff (and Tulane years earlier) is worse because it hits the integrity of the actual event. What SMU did which was very wrong, doesn't have that kind of venality. Point shaving leads to throwing games.

Huh? So putting people on payroll doesn't affect the game? I think that tilts the scales just as much if not more than point shaving. Seems like that's just as bad or worse because it leaves out small schools with no money.

(and before you jump on me, I am well aware that Texas was just as guilty - if not more so - as SMU and others)

MrMustang1965 wrote:

Terry Webster wrote:The list is just for the past 25 years.

That's because none of the writers for USA Today are much older than 30 years of age and don't realize that sports has a history going back a lot further than 25 years ago.

Or it could be the fact that USA Today is celebrating 25 years and are doing a host of Top 25 retrospectives covering several topics, not just sports. But then again your theory could be right.

Beyond the last 25 years, you would have to say the East Germans and Soviets paid their athletes, when the Olympics were just for amateurs, plus the eastern block doping, e.g. East German women swimmers would kick my b*tt.

Seems like that's just as bad or worse because it leaves out small schools with no money.

Last I heard we were a small school - we just had enough money to be competitive.

Throwing games for money is different from trying to win games with money.

Treadway21 wrote:

Seems like that's just as bad or worse because it leaves out small schools with no money.

Last I heard we were a small school - we just had enough money to be competitive.

Throwing games for money is different from trying to win games with money.

Ooooooohh.

LonghornFan68 wrote:

EastStang wrote:I guess I"m old fashioned but a point shaving scandel such as the Northwestern stuff (and Tulane years earlier) is worse because it hits the integrity of the actual event. What SMU did which was very wrong, doesn't have that kind of venality. Point shaving leads to throwing games.

Huh? So putting people on payroll doesn't affect the game? I think that tilts the scales just as much if not more than point shaving. Seems like that's just as bad or worse because it leaves out small schools with no money.

(and before you jump on me, I am well aware that Texas was just as guilty - if not more so - as SMU and others)

I always wondered how paying players was really any different than building them top notch facilities: practice facilities, dorm rooms, and locker rooms with all the latest bells and whistles, etc. Aren't schools now trying to buy players with what they think players might want while they are at school rather than directly giving them the money and allowing them to purchase it for themselves? In a sense isn't that putting players on the payroll? If you were really concerned about unfair competition wouldn't you mandate that every school could spend exactly the same amount on their athletic department (and athletics in general) regardless of the size of the school? That way no one could build a fancy practice facility, or offer to pay players such exorbitant salaries that would be out of the price range of a smaller less endowed school?

abezontar wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

EastStang wrote:I guess I"m old fashioned but a point shaving scandel such as the Northwestern stuff (and Tulane years earlier) is worse because it hits the integrity of the actual event. What SMU did which was very wrong, doesn't have that kind of venality. Point shaving leads to throwing games.

Huh? So putting people on payroll doesn't affect the game? I think that tilts the scales just as much if not more than point shaving. Seems like that's just as bad or worse because it leaves out small schools with no money.

(and before you jump on me, I am well aware that Texas was just as guilty - if not more so - as SMU and others)

I always wondered how paying players was really any different than building them top notch facilities: practice facilities, dorm rooms, and locker rooms with all the latest bells and whistles, etc. Aren't schools now trying to buy players with what they think players might want while they are at school rather than directly giving them the money and allowing them to purchase it for themselves? In a sense isn't that putting players on the payroll? If you were really concerned about unfair competition wouldn't you mandate that every school could spend exactly the same amount on their athletic department (and athletics in general) regardless of the size of the school? That way no one could build a fancy practice facility, or offer to pay players such exorbitant salaries that would be out of the price range of a smaller less endowed school?

You have a very good point, there.

abezontar wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

EastStang wrote:I guess I"m old fashioned but a point shaving scandel such as the Northwestern stuff (and Tulane years earlier) is worse because it hits the integrity of the actual event. What SMU did which was very wrong, doesn't have that kind of venality. Point shaving leads to throwing games.

Huh? So putting people on payroll doesn't affect the game? I think that tilts the scales just as much if not more than point shaving. Seems like that's just as bad or worse because it leaves out small schools with no money.

(and before you jump on me, I am well aware that Texas was just as guilty - if not more so - as SMU and others)

I always wondered how paying players was really any different than building them top notch facilities: practice facilities, dorm rooms, and locker rooms with all the latest bells and whistles, etc. Aren't schools now trying to buy players with what they think players might want while they are at school rather than directly giving them the money and allowing them to purchase it for themselves? In a sense isn't that putting players on the payroll? If you were really concerned about unfair competition wouldn't you mandate that every school could spend exactly the same amount on their athletic department (and athletics in general) regardless of the size of the school? That way no one could build a fancy practice facility, or offer to pay players such exorbitant salaries that would be out of the price range of a smaller less endowed school?

The difference is that when paying was the norm, both could hold true. The school could build top-notch facilities and pay the players (not legally, of course). Now they just have the facilities and perks as a recruiting tool. It's all relative. The schools that had an upper hand in the payroll capabilities still have the upper hand in the facilities realm (with the obvious exception of one school). Until a policy is put in place as you suggest it will continue to make schools such as Texas more appealing to many players. Sucks, but what can you do?