SMU was the poster child of cheating in the 1980s because it was as much a part of the school's culture as well-funded students and an elite price tag for education. Those well-funded students became well-funded alumni who had no problem using those assets to feed the football machine in Texas. That machine chewed up some good people (my old friend Bobby Collins being one) and eventually chewed up the program. Now everything SMU had done wrong is right. And look what has happened! Irony abounds. I just shake my head at memories of Steve Alford being suspended for a game at IU because he appeared in a fund-raiser calendar for a sorority. Remember the $25 stipend to fund incidentals? Remember probation for alumni buying a recruit a meal or the school giving him a sweatsuit? Remember when coaches couldn't comment on potential recruits, much less take photos with them in school uniforms? It's pretty clear now that the old morals no longer matter. Sort of like politics. Good piece.
I disagree strongly with your comment that students athletes were the same as slaves. Nobody forced them to go to college and play sports. As it was, tuition was paid for, room and board was paid for, food was paid for, free tutoring, schedule your classes before everyone else, etc. It was quite a lot, compared to other students at the same school.
In theory, I agree. In practice, players in revenue sports in major conferences had a very hard time getting the "free" education when they were being asked to work 40 extra hours a week in their sport. They also were steered into easy courses. They basically majored in "eligibility." There were exceptions, of course, but the courts recognized this system as servitude when they kept ruling in favor of players. In the process, universities made untold amounts of money off the efforts, and off the backs, of those players without giving them a cut,
SMU was the poster child of cheating in the 1980s because it was as much a part of the school's culture as well-funded students and an elite price tag for education. Those well-funded students became well-funded alumni who had no problem using those assets to feed the football machine in Texas. That machine chewed up some good people (my old friend Bobby Collins being one) and eventually chewed up the program. Now everything SMU had done wrong is right. And look what has happened! Irony abounds. I just shake my head at memories of Steve Alford being suspended for a game at IU because he appeared in a fund-raiser calendar for a sorority. Remember the $25 stipend to fund incidentals? Remember probation for alumni buying a recruit a meal or the school giving him a sweatsuit? Remember when coaches couldn't comment on potential recruits, much less take photos with them in school uniforms? It's pretty clear now that the old morals no longer matter. Sort of like politics. Good piece.
I disagree strongly with your comment that students athletes were the same as slaves. Nobody forced them to go to college and play sports. As it was, tuition was paid for, room and board was paid for, food was paid for, free tutoring, schedule your classes before everyone else, etc. It was quite a lot, compared to other students at the same school.
In theory, I agree. In practice, players in revenue sports in major conferences had a very hard time getting the "free" education when they were being asked to work 40 extra hours a week in their sport. They also were steered into easy courses. They basically majored in "eligibility." There were exceptions, of course, but the courts recognized this system as servitude when they kept ruling in favor of players. In the process, universities made untold amounts of money off the efforts, and off the backs, of those players without giving them a cut,