To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
College football is a beloved American tradition, where teams compete for the chance to play in prestigious bowl games and vie for championship titles. To assemble a winning team, college athletic boosters go to great lengths to recruit top talent from across the country. However, what transpires behind the scenes in the world of recruiting can cast a shadow on the game of college football.
The recruitment process in college football can be riddled with ethical dilemmas, and in some cases, outright misconduct.
One of the most severe penalties in college football, known as the "Death Penalty," is reserved for institutions whose athletic boosters engage in bribery to secure the commitment of incoming college freshmen. This penalty imposes a one-season team probation during which the team cannot participate in any game play. One notable case that led to the imposition of the "Death Penalty" was the Southern Methodist University (SMU) scandal of 1986.
In the early 1980s, SMU rose from relative obscurity to become one of the dominant football teams in the Southwest Conference, boasting an impressive record of 45 wins, 4 losses, and 1 tie.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Death penalty
5 (893)
“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”
However, their newfound success was marred by a dark underbelly of corruption, including the provision of complimentary residences and automobiles to recruits, as well as financial rewards for each season's victories.
SMU's journey to the top was not without its controversies, and the ramifications of their actions ultimately led to the implementation of the "Death Penalty" by the NCAA.
In this essay, we will explore the SMU "Death Penalty" case, examining the reasons behind its imposition, its impact on the university and college football, and the enduring debate surrounding its fairness.
Southern Methodist University, a private institution located in Dallas, Texas, was not traditionally associated with football excellence. Situated in a region that boasted football powerhouses such as the University of Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech, SMU faced stiff competition within the Southwest Conference. To transform their football program from an underdog to a contender, SMU needed a game-changer.
The turning point came in the early 1980s when SMU embarked on a recruiting spree that would change the course of their football history. One of their key recruits for the 1979 season was high school senior Eric Dickerson, considered one of the best running backs in Texas. Despite offers from prominent universities like the University of Texas and Texas A&M, Dickerson ultimately committed to SMU, reportedly after being promised a lucrative future by coach Ron Meyer. Rumors also circulated that Dickerson received a Pontiac Trans Am as part of the deal, although Dickerson has not confirmed this claim.
Dickerson's signing was a significant coup for SMU, but they didn't stop there. At the last minute, they also secured the commitment of running back Craig James. These recruits, along with others, formed a talented group of freshmen who quickly transformed SMU into a formidable football team. The Mustangs achieved a historic victory over the second-ranked University of Texas, ending a 13-game losing streak against their rivals and putting SMU back on the football map.
However, their success on the field soon raised eyebrows within the NCAA, leading to investigations and allegations of 29 violations. As a consequence, SMU faced probation for the 1981 season, during which they were also banned from participating in bowl games. The specter of NCAA scrutiny loomed large over the university, and the departure of Coach Ron Meyer to the New England Patriots suggested that he might be leaving ahead of potential NCAA sanctions.
In the following years, SMU's football program continued to engage in questionable recruiting practices. Notably, they began recruiting players from outside the state of Texas, including individuals like Sean Stopperich from Pittsburg. Stopperich's recruitment involved an alleged offer of $5,000, along with an apartment complex for his family in Dallas. However, despite the benefits, Stopperich's homesickness and recurring family issues led him to return to Pittsburg, whereupon he disclosed the financial arrangements to the NCAA.
SMU's pattern of bribery and violations eventually caught up with them, and their misdemeanors became the subject of a significant NCAA investigation. The university's attempts to conceal their misconduct, coupled with the testimony of players like David Stanley, who revealed that he received $25,000 and a $750 monthly salary to play for SMU, further exacerbated the situation. Stanley's admission of misconduct ultimately led to a broader inquiry into SMU's actions.
In an attempt to address the growing scandal, SMU's chairman, Bill Clements, convened a board meeting with athletic boosters in 1985. During this meeting, it was decided that SMU athletes should be compensated for their participation, a move intended to curb the practice of bribing players during the recruitment process. Clements, a former Texas governor and a powerful political figure, also dismissed nine prominent SMU boosters, including Sherwood Blount, in a bid to mitigate the damage. However, the revelation of Sean Stopperich's financial dealings with SMU had already brought the NCAA's scrutiny upon the university.
SMU's efforts to manipulate the situation by firing boosters and offering compensation to athletes were too late to prevent the NCAA from taking action. The violations were widespread and deeply ingrained in the culture of the football program. Sean Stopperich's admission of receiving over $11,000 in payments from SMU added to the mounting evidence against the university. Consequently, the NCAA imposed sanctions on SMU that included the withholding of scholarships for incoming players during the first year of probation and limiting scholarships to 15 during the second year of probation, in addition to banning them from bowl games.
The most severe punishment to emerge from the SMU scandal was the "Death Penalty." This unprecedented penalty meant the termination of an entire football season, including practices and games. It was a punishment of unparalleled severity, and its effects extended far beyond the football field.
While some argued that SMU did not deserve the "Death Penalty" due to the enduring consequences it brought, the penalty served as a stark reminder of the gravity of their actions. The university faced outrage from students and the broader community, as the termination of the football season disrupted the lives of players and coaches alike. The aftermath of the penalty was marked by turmoil, as coaches from other schools descended upon SMU to recruit its talented players.
In the years that followed, SMU faced the challenge of rebuilding its football program from the ground up. When they were finally allowed to recruit again, they did so with a smaller, less experienced team. It took nearly two decades, until 2008, for SMU to achieve a winning season again, illustrating the enduring impact of the "Death Penalty."
While the "Death Penalty" was undoubtedly a heavy burden for SMU, it raised questions about the fairness of the punishment. Some argued that the penalty was overly severe for what were essentially misdemeanor acts aimed at achieving victory. The corruption within SMU's football program was undeniable, but the consequences were far-reaching and affected generations of players who had no involvement in the wrongdoing.
The SMU "Death Penalty" remains a significant chapter in the history of college football, serving as a cautionary tale of the consequences of corruption within the sport. While SMU's actions warranted punishment, the severity of the penalty and its lasting effects continue to be a subject of debate.
The scandal underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of college athletics and adhering to the rules and regulations that govern them. It also serves as a reminder to student-athletes, coaches, and institutions that the pursuit of victory should never come at the expense of ethical conduct and fair play.
The "Death Penalty" ultimately shaped the trajectory of SMU's football program, leading to a period of struggle and transformation. It serves as a stark reminder of the enduring impact of corruption on the world of college sports.
As college football continues to evolve, the lessons learned from the SMU "Death Penalty" remain relevant, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to the principles of fair competition.
The SMU "Death Penalty" and Its Impact on College Football. (2016, Dec 10). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/the-1986-death-penalty-when-smu-was-really-guilty-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
