Football's Dirtiest Programs: #1, Texas Tech

Using its own calculus, FanHouse ranks the 10 Dirtiest Programs of the last 20 years.

It's ironic, in an Alanis Morissette sort of way, that a school that didn't even have an infractions case before SMU had been given the death penalty could rank #1 on a Ten Dirtiest Programs list. When the Red Raiders decided to start cheating, though, they made a big splash. The infractions case from 1987 was just a warm-up for the wide-ranging infractions case of 1998, the single worst infraction that I encountered.

The Committee on Infractions cited Texas Tech for unethical conduct, academic fraud, failure to monitor, and lack of institutional control. Tech was one of only two teams to get cited for all four during entire period, and they managed it in one infraction. While the cases were different, the penalties were quite similar to Kentucky's 2002 case. The big difference here, and the reason Texas Tech takes the top spot while the Wildcats sit down at #5, is simple: it wasn't Tech's only violation.Sorry, No Photos

In 1987 the Raiders were given a slap on the wrist because they were infractions virgins, but the case was no less serious than many we've seen. Numerous instances of coaches handing out cash, buying meals for recruits, making them promises of trips and gifts, driving them around, and so on. One assistant coach actually took a prospect boot shopping, where a pair of ostrich skin boots were picked out. The coach promised them to the recruit once he signed his letter of intent.

The coaches involved engaged in their free-wheeling recruiting for nearly two years before their activities came to light. Despite all that, the Raiders received only one year probation and lost only 8 scholarships. Apparently those penalties weren't harsh enough, because Texas Tech didn't learn its lesson.

A few years after that case was closed the incidents which lead to the 1998 infraction were set in motion. The '98 case implicated 10 different sports at Texas Tech and while its investigation was participated in relatively well by the university, many of the individuals involved stonewalled and lied to enforcement staff.

The 1998 case is convoluted and even the NCAA, in its report, didn't try particularly hard to isolate the infractions of the different teams. In the infraction summary, the NCAA declares the following to have occurred:

participation by ineligible student-athletes; excessive financial aid awards; tuition assistance, extra benefits and academic fraud; proctoring service to a prospective student-athlete; tuition and enrollment assistance; failure to adhere to sound academic standards; money provided to a student-athlete; free bail bonding and legal services; unethical conduct; failure to monitor student-athlete use of athletics department telephones; failure to monitor and lack of institutional control.

Wow. More specifically, the Red Raiders gave out too many scholarships in four sports, in two different seasons. They allowed 76 athletes to compete while ineligible. Ineligible football players played over a span of seven seasons, with more than 20 of them playing in '93-94. In the summer of 1993, an assistant football coach "committed academic fraud by completing significant portions of [a] student-athlete's course work." Over the course of five years, Texas Tech provided free legal services and bail bonding for their athletes.

In addition to the penalties that we're scoring for this list, the Red Raiders forfeited more than a third of their official paid visits for the '97-98 school year, had two football coaches grounded for an off-campus recruiting period, and earned a basketball post-season ban.

They may not have a national reputation for cheating... but they should.

Scoreboard:

Unethical conduct: '87 & '98 (10 points)
Academic fraud: '98 (5 points)
Failure to monitor: '98 (10 points)
Lack of institutional control: '98 (10 points)
Probation: 5 years total (10 points)
Post-season ban: 1 year (3 points)
Initial scholarships: 26 (13 points)
Total: 61.00 points (1987: 11 points; 1998: 50 points)

Sorry, No Photos

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

7-27-2007 @ 3:49PM

John said...

Stay classy Texas...

7-29-2007 @ 5:33PM

john hodgin said...

Why would it be a surprise that a second class program like TT would resort to cheating in an attempt to walk with the big dogs?

7-28-2007 @ 9:15PM

dalkowitz said...

Most of those infractions that Tech was cited for were certification errors-- i.e. players not "making progress toward their degree" that would have easily corrected if they had sound academic counsel. You might want to add that 80 percent of those players who were ineligible ended up graduating.

The problem has long since been taken care of and Tech has been commended numerous times for graduating over 70 percent of its athletes in football-- typically coming in 2nd in the conference and among the leaders in the nation.

7-28-2007 @ 11:46AM

inlandvalleywild said...

Pete,

I have read your entire series on "dirty teams". It goes without saying that what you have written was some of the most boring information I have ever read on line.

A majority of the facts you cite are so old, no body cares anymore. And your lack of detail in "citing facts" leaves a bit to be desired.

Instances from the 80's are ancient history my boy.

To write an article about "Dirty Teams" I would expect you to at least be current. Give us the details of which teams are currently allowed less scholarships and why. Let us know which schools are using grad students to take an athletes SAT for them.
Who is paying for things now and ho did all those USC players get Escalades?

7-28-2007 @ 12:09PM

Pete Holiday said...

"I have read your entire series on 'dirty teams'. It goes without saying that what you have written was some of the most boring information I have ever read on line."

I admire either, a) your dedication towards the cause or b) your inability to stop reading something that you find to be so incredibly boring after the first few posts.

7-28-2007 @ 1:18PM

eyeonbama said...

I think the CBS folks did it first and factual, and provided some level of detail. I won't argue with your arbitrary twenty-year cutoff, but will suggest a recasting using your formula for five-year, ten-year, and thirty-year periods. You do not seem to account for schools that are repeatedly under the NCAA spotlight over and over again...being investigated on a recurring basis appears to be a key factor not considered in your piece.

I did my own research, starting with your number one team, Texas Tech, and found that while the data you list is factual it is also misleading in it's presentation. I discovered at the NCAA's own website that Texas Tech football has one of the highest graduation rates in the country now. This does not seem to be the "dirtiest" program when one can look up and down the Big 12 and find schools like Oklahoma that are under seemingly constant NCAA investigation.

7-28-2007 @ 2:18PM

rwright1966 said...

Why has no one brought up the University of Florida? They set and still hold the NCAA record for the most infractions, 108, costing Charlie Pell and Galen Hall jobs, and mostly banishment. Surely Florida has to be included in this hall of shame.

7-28-2007 @ 3:58PM

NFL Sports Bettor said...

The dirtiest team and still not very good.

7-28-2007 @ 4:42PM

Christian said...

Why did this come up in a Google News search? This is far from news. Events from 20 years and 9 years ago? How about checking the recent facts on Tech (e.g. the aforementioned high graduation rates) and trying again?

7-28-2007 @ 4:46PM

I love the logic here... "It doesn't matter if we cheat, as long as lots of kids graduate"

7-29-2007 @ 8:58PM

Confused said...

Pete,

Not surprising...many are wondering how USC got left out of the top 10. I realize that USC right now is a suspect in many cases right now but has not actually received any penalties by the NCAA.

Can you comment on where USC might have ranked based on their current situation depending on what the NCAA finds....if anything? Of course it's speculation....but many readers would probably want to know what your thought are.

7-28-2007 @ 8:40PM

Confused,
The three teams I've heard "Where is ____" most often about are USC, Notre Dame, and Ohio State.

OSU and USC are similar situations. One violation each of moderate severity. Both involved unethical conduct, academic fraud, and failure to monitor. So they had around half the points of the teams who made the top 10.

In order to get them onto this list, they'd have needed another violation of roughly equal severity. Comparing it to OU's 2007 violation, for OSU a violation of equal points would get them ALMOST there, USC would need something a little worse.

The problem with speculating about USC's current situation is that much of the NCAA penalties center around who knew what, when they found out about it, and what actions they took in response. Because there's no way for us to know that, it's tough to guess where any particular scandal might put a team.

Notre Dame is a non-issue. They had one violation that was good for a couple of points.

I might add that the whole point of this series was that the opinions we have about who cheats the most tends to line up more with what teams we like and don't like than anything else... so the fact that there are a lot of folks whining about Team X not making the list is more or less expected.

I might also add that I really couldn't do anything about ALLEGATIONS of cheating... if the NCAA didn't look at it and call it cheating, well, I'm not about to try to be judge and jury for them.

7-28-2007 @ 9:16PM

Pete-- and your logic-- we got caught, paid the fine and are now branded as the "dirtiest program" in college football, in spite of having a clean bill for a decade now?

Rules are rules. We violated them; however, most of these kids had good/passing grades. What's unfortunate about this whole mess was that we audited our program and found these violations. What would have we uncovered if every university conducted a similar audit-- now and then? Perhaps every university should be required to conduct an audit as we did every ten years or so.

Because of these violations, our program is actually better. At the time our certification team was two people-- vastly understaffed. I'm not sure what it is now, but I do know that these matters are taken very seriously at Texas Tech University.

The implication by putting us at #1 is that we are still blaze about certifcation matters and that's simply not the case. If you are going to post things like this, perhaps you should talk to some people at the university and ask them how things are different now, as opposed to 1996, when this transpired. What a novel concept-- talk to the sources.

7-28-2007 @ 9:21PM

Diego said...

Here you go you 'Bama (SEC) douche bag.
Auburn. The SEC is to cheating what Superman is to comic book heroes. The best. Just about every school in the conference has a major infraction. The SEC boosters are so wealthy that spending $20,000 on a recruit is the equivalent of a martini lunch. Auburn earns a solid silver in the cheating Olympics.

1. Alabama. This is all you need to know about the skill and greatness of Alabama. An NCAA committee found that booster forked over $150,000 to a high school coach as a guarantee that a defensive lineman would attend Alabama. Yes -- $150,000. Now that is how you break the rules, people.

(So what does a great running back go for in the SEC? A small diamond mine?)

7-28-2007 @ 9:18PM

dalkowitz: I made no such implication. In fact, I was quite clear that these are the dirtiest programs of the PAST 20 years.

What schools claim they're doing now to remain complaint is hardly relevant. Do you really think that if you had called someone at Tech in the early 90s and said "Hey, are you guys slacking off on your complaince?" They'd have said "Yeah... we're dirty cheaters. Hope we don't get caught?"

Don't kid yourself.

7-28-2007 @ 10:45PM

They will at least tell you what we've done since-- Add more compliance personnel, dismissed those involved, add a $4mm academic study facility, show graduation rates, implemented a no pass/no play policy (something most schools didn't do until years after we did-- and some still don't), added financial incentives for coaches who graduate their players.

Fact is there's two sides to every story and you decided to become judge, jury and executioner without looking at Texas Tech University's side.

This article is mistitled at best-- malicious mendacity toward our university at worst. If you want to say that Tech got nailed for the most serious NCAA violations in the last 20 years-- fine. But to call us the dirtiest program in the NCAAs is absurd, given that we have paid the price, corrected the problems and then some, and run a clean program for the last ten years.

7-28-2007 @ 10:42PM

Adam Smith said...

Tech, ou, A&M, and Okie State are all in the Top Ten for cheating, and they still can't keep up with the Jones' on a regular basis! Hook 'em....HAHAHAHA

7-29-2007 @ 7:51AM

expat28 said...

It's clear that most of the comments come from victims of failed academic programs. Are you unable to read or comprehend the clearly stated premise of the article - the college football programs that have the most serious proven infractions over the last 20 years? NOT over the last five years (inlandvalleywild). NOT based on perceptions and accusations. NOT balanced by higher than average graduation rates (eyeonbama/Christian). And NOT from back in the Galen Hall/Charlie Pell years (rwright1966).

And Pete Holiday, if you check, I believe you'll see there was no finding of academic fraud in the Ohio State violation.

7-29-2007 @ 11:00AM

expat: I checked before I wrote that comment, and I just re-checked. This passage is from the NCAA case summary:

"Violations of NCAA legislation . . . involving recruiting, extra benefits, academic fraud, unethical conduct and failure to monitor."

And from the Public Report:

"Prospect B received impermissible academic assistance from representative 1 during the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years through representative 1's preparation of numerous papers for credit for the young man. Specifically, representative 1 was involved in the actual writing of numerous academic papers for credit for prospect B and arranging for the typing thereof by representative 1's family members and friends."

7-29-2007 @ 12:18PM

The premise of the article clearly implies that wrong doing is still going on.

Even as you say, "They may not have a national reputation for cheating... but they should."

For what happened over ten years ago and has been rectified with no other violations?

"It's clear that most of the comments come from victims of failed academic programs."

So, you fail, then you have to wear the albatross of failure for 20 years?

"What schools claim they're doing now to remain complaint is hardly relevant. Do you really think that if you had called someone at Tech in the early 90s and said "Hey, are you guys slacking off on your complaince?" They'd have said "Yeah... we're dirty cheaters. Hope we don't get caught?""

So, when are you going to stop beating your wife? How do you prove that you aren't doing something? Even in your responses there's more than an implication that wrongdoing is still going on, in spite of everything we've done to correct the problem-- even in some cases going above and beyond what other schools do.

We've had Bob Knight coaching our basketball team for six seasons now-- a coach who is arguably under more scrutinity than any, pro or college and has never been cited for any violoations-- and is known for promoting the concept of STUDENT athletes, not athletes who happen to be students. Yet, we deserve to have a reputation for cheating?