Should Coaches Turn In Other Coaches For Cheating?
On the way to one of my most hellacious days as an attorney yesterday, I heard an interesting and thought-provoking discussion on sports talk radio (of all places for interesting and thought-provoking discussion!). The topic was how the SEC should police itself for cheating, and whether or not schools and coaches should turn in other schools and coaches when they discover cheating.
It's an interesting topic, not least because there are many varied viewpoints on the subject. It is said (without proof, really), that in the olden days of Bear, Cholly Mac, Vince Dooley, Johnny Majors, et al., that when one coach discovered that another coach was cheating, the discoverer would call the discoveree on the phone and tell him to knock it off, and that was that.
I question the veracity of this story, and I wonder if the discoveree upon detection just started covering his tracks a little better. Nevertheless, the SEC had a reputation then (and some would say it has a reputation now) of being a conference where the cheating was (is) out of control.
Which brings us to today. The more genteel of us say that the old way was best. It represented civility, culture, fraternity, yada, yada, and yada. Let's assume for a second that the mythological past is not as mythological as cynical old me imagines it to be. What about today's SEC? Can Urban Meyer call up Nick Saban and say, "Hey Nick. We keep hearing rumors of some strange doings up in Gadsden. Please have a talk with your Red Elephant Club about it." Can Les Miles call Steve Spurrier and ask him to cut out whatever impropriety he's into? Can Lane Kiffin call anyone? Will they even give Kiffin their numbers? Could Bobby Petrino have called Tommy Tuberville?
Look, I'm all for giving civility a shot. Heck, as a lawyer, I know it's usually worth your time to at least TRY to work something out before you go and file something. However, I also know that sometimes it is not worth your time and effort to even give it a shot, which brings us to the question of what to do if the nice-guy approach doesn't work.
It seems to me that once the civil approach fails, a coach who knows of shenanigans has three choices: a) turn him in to the "authorities" for lack of a better word, b) respond in kind, or c) accept it and continue abiding by the rules to the extent that he is.
The problem with c) is of course that it could lead to ruination and unemployment. I suppose if it's Mississippi State that's cheating, you at least have a couple of years head start before it really starts to affect you, but MSU had a pretty darn good football team when Jackie Sherrill was out there cheating his butt off to get him one. I can't think of one football team in the conference that is so that it would not be a very dangerous team with the addition of just a little more talent. Nor can I think of a football team that is so good that it wouldn't benefit from being just a little bit better. Thank you, most competitive conference in America!
The problem with b) is that it leads to a cheating arms race. All you need is one unapologetic cheater, a code of silence, and a group of coaches not interested in coaching in the WAC to soon have everybody paying everybody under the table. Not only that, but in schools that recruit not only against SEC opponents, but also against non-conference opponents (LSU recruits against Texas and Oklahoma, Florida recruits against Florida State and Miami, Tennessee and South Carolina recruit against a lot of ACC teams, etc.), you would have a lot of cross-conference influences.
You would also have a lot of coaches from other conferences knowing what's going in the SEC and we would soon get a reputation not just for playing the best football, but also for being the dirtiest about it. The SEC would again develop a reputation for being out of control and completely contemptuous of the rules. The Texases and Florida States of the world then would get the NCAA involved and the whole conference would take a big hit.
No, I think that if the civil approach doesn't work or is unavailable, the only real option is to report the transgressor. Every other option leads to chaos or ruination. It's not a popular option, and it's certainly dangerous. If you go around turning in other teams, you better be sure your own team is clean or there will be hell to pay. Also, you might better be careful of being subpoena'd by boosters of opposing teams.
The passion that drives college football and makes it the best sports league going also leads to a lot of ugliness when that passion is turned around. You see it when recruits spurn the in-state school to go to a rival. You see it when Phil Fulmer allegedly turned in Debose-era Bama for cheating. You see it in lots of places, but I see no viable alternative to turning informer when an opposing team is breaking the rules and won't stop.
0 recs |
3 comments
|
Comments
Uninformed Thoughts
Sorry about the worst day as an attorney thing. If it makes you feel better, about a week ago, I had one of my best days.
I think you’re generally right, but it also leads to a snitching arms race. One of the things which brought the SWC down was not just rampant cheating, but the willingness of everyone to turn everyone else in to screw them over. The SEC probably has the reputation outside of the conference that it is merely one step away from the 1980s SWC. We have arrived as the Dirtiest Conference in America.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire, and there is tons of smoke coming out of the SEC. I do believe Miles is one of the more above-the-board coaches, but I think he engages in what I euphemistically refer to as "acceptable cheating". I think a certain level of sleaze is simply inseparable from recruiting, and I don’t think any major college program is innocent.
That said, there’s an undefined line in which "acceptable cheating" moves into unacceptable cheating. The selling of Albert Means springs to mind. Grade scandals are always unacceptable. I honestly don’t know, but I think Saban, Meyer, and Kiffin are the coaches in the conference who come the closest to stepping over this hazy line. And a lot of it is the old Winston Churchill gut check, if it feels wrong then it probably is. Then again, I don’t think anyone has truly stepped over into SMU level cheating.
But I do believe there is a hybrid option. You can refuse to engage in certain recruiting wars. LSU does not recruit Memphis at all, which is probably a good thing, as that place seems like a cesspool of corruption. LSU made a tactical decision to not expend many resources reaching for kids who a) probably won’t come and b) whose recruitment will probably get us in trouble with the NCAA. LSU’s nearly undisputed Louisiana recruiting base gives our coach the advantage to not really need to engage in more questionable tactics. There’s not another football power in our recruiting base. We can afford to be more "virtuous". So really, our relative virtue is not as tested as, say, Auburn, who has to fight for every recruit given its smallish recruiting base.
Then again, I don’t really follow recruiting, so I wouldn’t know. The whole thing makes me want to take a shower. It’s a dirty business.
by Poseur on May 19, 2009 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Most fans do believe that their coach "more above board"
Nothing wrong with that, just the nature of fandom.
One thing though, LSU most definitely recruits Memphis.
It looks to be a Bama-LSU battle for this kid.
by Crimson Daddy on May 20, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent analysis
This is excellent analysis. I’m graduating from LSU Law this summer, and currently in a bar review course so I guess you can say that currently everyday is my worst day as an attorney (to-be).
I am fairly knowledgable regarding the tactics, methods and general dispositions of recruiters. While I did not play football, I was recruited and later was an assistant coach for a division I program in tennis. Revenue and non-revenue sports are two different worlds, but you see what goes on.
The idea that everyone is dirty is a bit misplaced. Yes, cheating occurs, but it is not a rampant as it was in the 80’s during SMU’s ponytail-gate. If you have time there are a number of book chronicling SMU’s saga with the NCAA, it is fascinating. Ultimately, SMU had a separate business entity which recruited players and signed them to contracts. SMU’s athletic department decided as NCAA violation sanctions came filtering in, that it would be cheaper to pay their student athletes and face NCAA sanctions rather than face civil liability for breach of contract.
With that said, today’s game is watched with a more watchful eye than in the 80’s, not by other coaches but rather by the media and fans on websites such as this one. The last few NCAA violation I am familiar with were directly discovered and revealed through the media, with nearly no evidence of a leak from an opposing coach.
Currently, UCONN men’s basketball is facing a major investigation which was revealed solely by Yahoo Sports reporters.
Personally, I am in favor of paying our revenue sports student athletes, this would solve many of the issues faced by the NCAA in regulating and administering its rules.
by rabend1 on May 19, 2009 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















