ST. LOUIS — The recent disciplinary action taken by the NCAA against Southern Methodist University (SMU) has sent shockwaves through the college football landscape. While many have applauded the decision, the implications of this “death penalty” extend far beyond the SMU campus, raising numerous questions and concerns about the future of college athletics.
What Does the Future Hold for SMU?
The fate of SMU’s football program hangs in the balance. With the NCAA’s ruling, the Mustangs are left without a coach, and recruiting efforts have come to a standstill. As a result, it’s nearly impossible to field a competitive team without players. The situation is dire, as all 52 players on the current roster can transfer to other schools and be immediately eligible to play elsewhere. How will SMU rebuild its program under such severe restrictions?
The Mustangs have nonconference games lined up for 1988 against powerhouses like Oklahoma and Notre Dame. However, with no athletic director or football coach in place, the likelihood of these games occurring seems slim. Notre Dame’s Athletic Director, Gene Corrigan, has expressed a desire to speak with SMU, but finding someone to engage with is proving to be a challenge.
The Ripple Effect on College Football
The ramifications of the NCAA’s decision are not confined to SMU alone. The Southwest Conference (SWC), which includes schools like Texas, Arkansas, and Texas A&M, is now facing uncertainties. With SMU sidelined, the conference teams are left one game short for the 1987 season. This not only affects the teams but also impacts their fans and local economies that thrive on college football.
Moreover, SMU’s nonconference opponents—New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana State—are also feeling the pinch. In a bid to fill their schedules, Texas Christian University has stepped in to replace SMU on the Oklahoma schedule, while Rice will face LSU in Baton Rouge. The scramble to adjust schedules highlights the interconnected nature of college football.
Legal Ramifications and Accountability
One of the most pressing questions that arises from this situation is the issue of accountability. The NCAA has chosen to keep the names of those involved in the scandal confidential, leaving the public with a narrative that features victims but no clear perpetrators. This lack of transparency opens the door for potential lawsuits from various parties, including players who find themselves without a team, faculty concerned about funding, and businesses reliant on SMU’s football program.
Interestingly, before the NCAA’s verdict, SMU officials had indicated they would neither appeal the case nor seek legal action. However, an athletic director from a different conference has suggested that if the “death penalty” is imposed on another institution in the future, that school may indeed take the NCAA to court. Will this set a precedent for future cases?
Voices from the Athletic Community
The decision has drawn mixed reactions from various athletic directors. Frank Broyles, the director of athletics at Arkansas, expressed disappointment, labeling the NCAA’s ruling as “unduly harsh.” He argued that the action sends a troubling message to other member schools: cooperation with the NCAA may not yield positive outcomes. Instead, he suggested that schools might be better off stonewalling investigations.
Similarly, DeLoss Dodds, the athletic director at Texas, voiced concerns for the future of the SWC. With several schools in the league having faced or currently facing NCAA scrutiny, the atmosphere is tense.
Brigham Young Coach LaVell Edwards weighed in, suggesting that while the ruling may be beneficial for college athletics in the long run, it’s crucial to hold athletes accountable as well. “There’s a false impression that it’s all one-sided,” he stated, emphasizing the need for shared responsibility among players.
The Path Forward for College Athletics
Stanford Athletic Director Andy Geiger offered a sobering perspective, predicting that it could take SMU a decade to rebuild a competitive Division I-A football program. He raised a valid concern: what are the players supposed to do in the meantime? “Get beat 100-0?” he asked. This highlights the emotional toll the situation takes on young athletes who have dedicated their lives to the sport.
Despite the turmoil, SMU has committed to honoring its scholarship obligations to any players who choose to remain at the school. However, with football being the primary source of athletic revenue, the university may face cuts in other sports programs. The fallout from the NCAA’s ruling will undoubtedly lead to layoffs within the athletic department, impacting staff members who are innocent victims of the scandal.
The Bigger Picture: Will Change Come?
As the dust settles, the question remains: will the NCAA’s “death penalty” deter future wrongdoing in college athletics? University of Houston Athletic Director Rudy Davalos expressed skepticism, likening it to the death penalty in crime—there will always be those who break the rules. “I don’t look for this to have an earth-shattering effect on college athletics,” he stated.
In the end, the NCAA’s decision has ignited a firestorm of discussion about accountability, transparency, and the future of college football. As the landscape shifts, one thing is clear: the effects of this ruling will be felt far beyond the confines of SMU’s campus, challenging the very foundations of college athletics. Will this be a turning point for the NCAA, or merely a momentary blip in the ongoing saga of college football? Only time will tell.
