ED talks about Pony Excess

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

If I am not mistaken, the SMU case was the only D-1A football case in modern history where major and repeat violations were clearly traced DIRECTLY to the University's Board of Trustees and to other high-ranking officials at the University. Whether or not President Shields was directly involved, the evidence also showed unequivocally that he, as President of the University, had actual knowledge of the violations and was either unable or unwilling to stop them. The scandal resulted in the resignation not only of the football head coach, athletic director and numerous athletic department staff, but also the President of the University.

Whether it was selective enforcement or whether other programs deserved similar punishment is neither here nor there to me. I'll leave that debate to others. But the bottom line is that the SMU case presented some unique facts for the NCAA Committee on Infractions to consider. Maybe the Boards of Trustees of UT, A&M, TCU etc. were also complicit in major violations involving those programs; but the SMU case was the only one where the NCAA actually got its hands on the smoking gun and could prove it. That was largely thanks to the almost unbelievable stupidity of the SMU personnel and boosters involved.

[couch 'em]

I believe it is what's called selective enforcement. A bright red sports car has a better chance of being pulled over than a white minivan...unless the van is full of ________ (insert your favorite minority) that is.

Hawaiians?

lazy pineapples!

[PK]

If I am not mistaken, the SMU case was the only D-1A football case in modern history where major and repeat violations were clearly traced DIRECTLY to the University's Board of Trustees and to other high-ranking officials at the University. Whether or not President Shields was directly involved, the evidence also showed unequivocally that he, as President of the University, had actual knowledge of the violations and was either unable or unwilling to stop them. The scandal resulted in the resignation not only of the football head coach, athletic director and numerous athletic department staff, but also the President of the University.

Whether it was selective enforcement or whether other programs deserved similar punishment is neither here nor there to me. I'll leave that debate to others. But the bottom line is that the SMU case presented some unique facts for the NCAA Committee on Infractions to consider. Maybe the Boards of Trustees of UT, A&M, TCU etc. were also complicit in major violations involving those programs; but the SMU case was the only one where the NCAA actually got its hands on the smoking gun and could prove it. That was largely thanks to the almost unbelievable stupidity of the SMU personnel and boosters involved.

Not to mention the fact that the NCAA was not interested in investigating the other schools. Once again, it is not that we didn't deserve it...we did...it is that there have been other schools whose activities fit the criteria and were given a "Get Out of Jail" card on it. Our offense was extremely flagrant, but that does not mean others had to be as flagrant to be eligible for the DP.

[couch 'em]

Yawn. I other words, "tain't fair"....

Dismissing an opinion as "tain't fair" doesn't invalidate the opinion. This isn't a courtroom. It, in fact, ain't fair. The fact that fairness is not a valid legal defense means nothing outside of court. Legally, OJ didn't kill anyone, and unil DNA a bunch of guys sitting in jail were rapists and murderers.

Lawyers are the most annoying people to talk to because they think all the world is a courtroom.

[couch 'em]

Yawn. I other words, "tain't fair"....

Dismissing an opinion as "tain't fair" doesn't invalidate the opinion. This isn't a courtroom. It, in fact, ain't fair. The fact that fairness is not a valid legal defense means nothing outside of court. Legally, OJ didn't kill anyone, and unil DNA a bunch of guys sitting in jail were rapists and murderers.

Lawyers are the most annoying people to talk to because they think all the world is a courtroom.

Note that making an example of SMU doesn't mean that certain boosters weren't incredibly stupid and made SMU an easy target. Still doesn't change that SMU was under disproportionate examination.

There were no doubt many others behaving just as stupidly. They just weren't under the same spotlight.

[jtstang]

Man, go back and watch Thad's movie again. SMU was way out of whack and nobody else was close.

And it does not take a lawyer to figure out when somebody breaks the rules, as often and flagrantly as SMU did, that they are going to be punished. Selective enforcement my @ss.

[lwjr]

Well, Auburn has shown the way to pay for players and not get caught. You just pay the parent of the kid, therefore the kid is free and clear. The worst that could happen is the kid is suspended for one practice>

[PK]

Man, go back and watch Thad's movie again. SMU was way out of whack and nobody else was close.

And it does not take a lawyer to figure out when somebody breaks the rules, as often and flagrantly as SMU did, that they are going to be punished. Selective enforcement my @ss.

The point is that you don't have to be that flagrant to be elgible for the DP. Others have been elgible, but given a pass.

[Arkpony]

Interesting comments in here that no other school was doing what SMU was doing. How do you know that? What is perplexing is that the NCAA didn't want to find out what other schools were doing. I recall seeing an interview with ED at the time of the DP. He said he tried to tell the NCAA investigators about Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and the guy said "Why would they have to offer anyone anything to go to their school?" and blew it off. So I ask once again, How do we know no other school was doing it as the NCAA never tried, nor did they want to find out!

[Charleston Pony]

Man, go back and watch Thad's movie again. SMU was way out of whack and nobody else was close.

And it does not take a lawyer to figure out when somebody breaks the rules, as often and flagrantly as SMU did, that they are going to be punished. Selective enforcement my @ss.

nobody else was close? better at cheating, maybe, but to say nobody was close??? If that was true, why didn't we get Marcus Dupree? Surely we were in the bidding. I know from one of my Aggie buddies who was pretty close to what was happening in College Station in that time frame that they were "better" than we were because they, in fact, had pretty "tight" institutional control of how they compensated kids

none of that is to suggest we didn't get what we deserved, but don't kid yourself. The SWC was extremely competitive in those years because the small private schools decided to go "toe to toe" with the big boys. We just had more guys willing to "pony up" and once we got on a roll and started winning, SMU became a lot more attractive option. If we were SO FAR beyond everyone else, how did we not win a national championship or two?

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Well, I can only speak for myself. But I'm certainly not naive enough to think that SMU is the only school to have done what it did. The difference between SMU and other schools is not what happened; the difference is the evidence that was presented to the NCAA. As I stated before, the SMU case was the only one I am aware of where the EVIDENCE clearly established the involvement of key members of the athletic department, the athletic director, the University President, and the Board of Trustees. Not saying that other schools haven't done something similar. . .but no one has ever gotten caught on the scale of SMU.

With respect to the NCAA and whether it investigated SMU more than other schools, I don't necessarily think that's the case. I personally believe the NCAA enforcement staff is generally lazy. They don't take action unless evidence of violations is essentially handed to them. There were two major factors that led to the NCAA's supposed vendetta against SMU, both of which were documented in Thad's film. The first was the sheer number of complaints about SMU that the NCAA enforcement office received. Thad documented that one year alone, the enforcement office received over 13 complaints about SMU from other schools both inside and outside the SWC. With that number of complaints, it would be difficult for any enforcement office to turn a deaf ear and maintain any credibility whatsoever. The second factor was that in 1986 Dale Hanson and the WFAA staff handed the NCAA enforcement staff a blockbuster case on a platter. When the infamous interview happened live on local television and Hansen presented the envelope to Collins, Hitch, etc., it blew the cover off everything. There was no way the NCAA could ignore what was happening at SMU at that point. Coming just after the passage of the DP legislation, the timing for SMU could not have been worse.

The NCAA didn't dig and dig until they discovered this. . .Dale Hansen did.

I will say this. . .if the NCAA obtains clear evidence twice in a two-year period that Auburn has been engaged in a pay-for-play scheme organized and run directly by the Auburn University Athletic Department and Board of Trustees with the knowledge of the University President, then I bet it will drop the hammer on Auburn. But it won't get that evidence because people learned from the SMU case. No one has been that stupid since. Maintain a certain amount of plausible deniability and you'll be OK. That's the take-away from the SMU case. Rogue boosters, rogue boosters, its always rogue boosters.

[RednBlue11]

THE PONY EXCESS: In the ESPN documentary series, 30 for 30, they did one episode that focused on the Southern Methodist University football team, which got the NCAA death penalty. One player who was featured in the story was former running back Eric Dickerson, who was supportive of the show.

“I thought it was a very good final product. I always wanted someone to tell that story because I really believe we got the short end of the stick. The NCAA took advantage of my university,” Dickerson said. “But I'll say this much here, we're not clean like everybody else is not clean right now. I look at Auburn and they talk about Cam Newton. Any player that's a high profile college player has taken something. That's just the facts. It is what it is.”

http://www.mydesert.com/article/2011012 ... day-Jan-23

"We're not clean like everybody else is not clean right now." Huh? WTH?

wake up

[jtstang]

Man, go back and watch Thad's movie again. SMU was way out of whack and nobody else was close.

And it does not take a lawyer to figure out when somebody breaks the rules, as often and flagrantly as SMU did, that they are going to be punished. Selective enforcement my @ss.

nobody else was close? better at cheating, maybe, but to say nobody was close???

Who? And did you investigate personally, other than talking to your Aggie friend? Because the NCAA either did not investigate or did not find that they were close.

[Arkpony]

Read my educated comments.

[Stallion]

A&M may have been close but remember they showed Jackie Sherrill the door which can be construed as Institutional Control. A&M claimed they cleaned it up and quite frankly Slocum never was involved in any allegations during his tenure that I can remember(unlike Sherrill who Head Coach when multiple violations were uncovered)- Hansen claims WFAA had the goods on A&M under Sherrill but the investigation was botched. Channel 8 broke the Kevin Murray story and other media broke the George Smith Federal Express story and there a summer work scandal directed by an alum named Rod Dockery all under Sherrill