A large NCAA stain is slowly spreading across the country.
From Eugene, Ore., to Los Angeles to Miamito Chapel Hill, N.C., and college campuses scattered in between, college sport's governing body is investigating or penalizing rule-breakers in a dizzying pace.
The charges run the gamut: paying a high school scouting service to steer players toward a specified university, providing free housing for a player's parents, paying for an abortion, using nannies to write papers for players; and misappropriated cash.
These incidents are a concern to some of the game's elder statesmen. In separate interviews, Lou Holtz, Bill Curry and Vince Dooley discussed the state of college football, the state of the NCAA and what they would do to improve the image of everyone involved. (Some questions and answers have been edited for clarity.)
Q: Is the depth and complexity of the rule-breaking today as bad as you've ever seen?
Holtz: This is as bad as we've known about. We don't know. I'll say this; this is the worst we've known of.
Curry: No. I think there were times when schools were flat-out buying kids. You can go back to the 1950s and see who was on probation. You can go back to the mid-'80s and see who was on probation, who had the academic transgressions. Those were probably every bit as bad as this. SMU was the highlight. They weren't the only ones doing those things, but they got the ultimate punishment. There were other times when it was out of hand.
Q: What do you or other coaches have to worry about today that wasn't an issue 10-20 years ago?
Dooley: There's more media, more people interested, more fans. And then you put that on top of high technology, where everything you can say at any given time can be recorded. Or what you might do could be on video or whatever they have out there. You're probably more cautious than ever before. You are held to your responsibility and more accountable than ever before. However, you are getting paid more than ever before.
Curry: We've brainwashed the public, and I say "we" because we are all to blame -- coaches, institutions, media, ESPN, Bill Curry -- because we rave about football like it's the state religion. We talk about the huddle and you get into the huddle and there's no racism and no discrimination. It's the most wonderful thing. A lot of it is wonderful but we've sold it so much that everyone wants a piece of it.
Otherwise rational people can't see that their son is a nice college player who isn't going to be invited to an NFL training camp and they sometimes blame the coaching. They say, "Why didn't you get them ready for the NFL?" That's not my job. My job is to be sure he gets a degree, learns to behave like a human being. The way he's paying for it is football. A lot of us like to blame it on the parents. It's the whole culture. We treat the football like it's a state religion.
Q: Are the NCAA rules effective?
Holtz: I think they are if we would adhere to them. There are so many rules. It's sort of like the IRS. Let's simplify it so everyone understands it. Let's just have one law: do the right thing.
Dooley: Yes and I think the NCAA and the investigators are doing a better job than they have ever done. They are holding coaches more accountable than ever before; for example, the action against Tennessee's basketball coach.
Curry: They are very effective if coaches abide by them. Let's face it: there are stop signs in my neighborhood I don't like, but I'm scared not to stop at them. I don't want a ticket. Forget the moral and virtuous part; just don't break them. There are enough rules and enough people getting caught, it should frighten people.
Q: Is the NCAA effective at enforcing its rules?
LH: I've been impressed with the president of South Florida [Judy Genshaft] and the new NCAA chair [Dennis Thomas] and their attitude toward getting things straight. I think they are going in the right direction.
VD: I do. Most of all the people that I've ever dealt with the NCAA -- and we've had some bouts ourselves -- I think for the most part they want to do a good job. And you have investigators who come at you pretty hard. You have to make sure you are represented properly.
BC: The NCAA is effective when the presidents, the boards of trustees, the administrators and the coaches are cooperative and have the will to want to follow the rules. Then they work. Then when you screw up, you self-report. You don't make a mistake when you give the guy $10,000 and a Cadillac. That's not an honest error. An honest error is when you make one too many phone calls. There's a difference in jaywalking and murder one.
Q: How would you make the rules more effective?
Holtz: There has to be strong financial punishments as well, whether it be $10,000,000 fine. Now you are hitting the university hard and everyone has to be held accountable for it. Certain schools that I felt, and other coaches felt, did things but it never came to anyone's attention because they had people on the committees.
Dooley: Need to be stronger with penalties and to hold coaches more accountable than they have in the past. That's the next step that needs to be taken. Some have been taken and we'll see what comes of institutions.
Q: Do you believe a program should receive the death penalty?
Holtz: I think that should be a good deterrent. I know what it did to SMU's program. If that's what it takes to get this straight, then so be it. The NCAA didn't do it; the school did it by making its choices. As long as it's equal and everyone understands the penalties. The NCAA doesn't hand out penalties. All it does is enforce the decisions you make.
Dooley: I don't think that should ever be taken off the table. The one example we've had (SMU), it took them so long to recover. I don't think that would be the case with institutions that have had a long history of success. Florida had a serious case of probation and scholarships taken away and came right back.
Curry: I agree with what I've read. When someone as high as the board of trustees is engaged in deceit, then and only then is the death penalty called for. Short of that, I don't think it works. It's too harsh.
Q: If you could make one change to the NCAA's rules, what would it be?
Holtz: If you are found to violate any NCAA rule while on scholarship, then it would be treated like a student loan. You would have an obligation to pay it back and we could even go to your future employer.
Curry: One thing I think would help -- this may sound like shooting a peashooter at a battleship -- is making the freshmen ineligible so that they have time to adjust to all of this. I don't have the illusion that that will pass, but if it doesn't, have the five-year eligibility rule so that they have time to adjust.
Q: Have you ever reported a program that you had evidence was cheating?
Holtz: I would go to our athletic director and give it to him. What happened after that, I do not know.
Dooley: We had an agreement within our conference that if there were a suspected violation, we'd pick up the phone and call the coach. That was the first step. If it was addressed properly, we thought that was the best way to handle it. If there was some trend and you were pretty confident something was going on, I wouldn't hesitate to call the conference office or the NCAA and let them try to address it.
Curry: Yes. I called the head coach and turned it in. It's only happened a couple of times and it was a long time ago. I had some guys who I thought were my buddies who rarely spoke to me again.
Q: What is the most egregious example of rule-breaking that you've ever heard about?
Holtz: An individual driving another school's car to another school. He said he was going to go to one school and changed his mind and drove it to another school. The school couldn't say anything.
Curry: Flying the kids to Las Vegas, buying cocaine and women. It's all hearsay. But my guys, guys who were high draft picks, told me. Of course my question was, did you participate? Of course, they said no.
Q: Given the state of colleges needing the big checks in this arms race, what would you tell a young man who says the school has its hand out. Why should I be any different? What is the difference?
Holtz: Because you're an amateur and playing for a university. We aren't going to take money away from every other sport that has a good program. If you can't afford to go to school on this full scholarship, then you need to drop out of school and get a job. Every conference has an emergency fund for deaths in the family. Guys are going around with I-phones, $150 pair of sneakers. Learn to live within your means.
Dooley: The difference is they aren't professionals. There's this image built up that these fellows aren't getting enough money. There's been a poor job by institutions not letting people know how much those in need do get. Probably two-thirds or more of football players are eligible for Pell grant in addition to opportunity funds provided by the NCAA. In most cases, they are getting close to $7,000 a year, which is a lot of money, in addition to their scholarship. Worst public relations job done by the institutions.
Curry: I would say that since we live in America, you should probably be allowed to do that. But we work in a system that has rules. You have to decide if you want to be a part of that system or go ahead and earn a living. You can either follow or be penalized horrifically.
About the Author
