The San Diego State Affair Takes on Bewildering Air of a Mystery Novel

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

When rumors leak, as through a sieve.”

--Ode To San Diego State

Who are all these characters? How have a university president, an athletic director, a business manager, a fund-raiser, a secretary, two vice presidents, a basketball coach, seven kids fresh from their high school graduations and two junior college transfers managed to get themselves wrapped in the same convoluted tale of intrigue?

I am not sure I can handle this. In my orderly world, three strikes is an out, three outs is an inning, nine innings is a game, and the games last until the players go on strike. Easy.

And now I come to contemplate the rather muddled scenario up the hill at San Diego State. This is a plot for William Shakespeare or Robert Ludlum or maybe John Irving.

I’ll tell you what it has and you tell me if it is missing anything:

--Heroes, though no one yet knows who they might be.

--Villains, though no one yet knows who they might be.

--Mysterious figures lurking in the shadows, who might fit in either of the above categories.

--And innocent victims, though no one yet knows who victimized them.

However, it is not really as simple as this. As I understand it, there are at least two main plots and maybe a sub-plot or two as well. And they are as intertwined as a plate of spaghetti.

Our tale begins with the athletic director firing the business manager, fund-raiser and secretary, all of whom are quickly reinstated by a figure in the shadows.

The secretary takes her leave anyway and disappears on a holiday.

At this very same time, the basketball coach learns that the vice president for student affairs is being stubborn about enrolling the athletes he has recruited for the upcoming season.

As might be expected, the athletic director and the basketball coach get antsy about exactly how much control they have over their own destinies. The athletic director, in fact, was reported to have expressed fear that her telephone was bugged.

All of this spills into a newspaper story which quotes more than its share of--you guessed it--shadowy sources.

However, it gets the attention of the public--and the university president.

By now, the telephones are ringing in offices all over campus. They are ringing in athletics, personnel, business, public relations, administration, admissions and, presumably, two frat houses and the campus pub.

This university has crawled into a shell. All calls are referred to the office of the president, and his secretary protects him like no line has ever protected a quarterback. No one gets to the prez.

Meanwhile, the president has “suggested” the athletic director take a two-week vacation. Thus, the athletic department finds itself reporting to the vice president for business affairs. And the basketball coach is discussing admissions requirements with the vice president for student affairs.

When one of the fired-and-reinstated individuals, the fund-raiser, reveals that the athletic director had accused him of misappropriating funds, the president orders an audit of the athletic department.

What have we now? Where, exactly, are we?

Plot A--The athletic director is on vacation, angry and disappointed that her authority has been undermined within her department.

Can she survive her dilemma?

If she was wrong, and the university determines the allegations and the firings were unjustified, her head will roll. If she was right, she will survive--and other heads will roll.

But why, in such critical times, is the athletic director isolated from the university? Are there persons whose interests are served by keeping her neutralized?

Yes, this plot has a damsel in distress.

Plot B--The basketball coach (or program) would seem to be under siege from the academic powers-that-be, who have likely noticed that the coach’s regime has yet to produce a student-athlete who has entered as a freshman and ultimately earned a degree.

Given that basketball’s academic record is less than glittering, what of football and the other sports? I would suggest that an academic audit might be in order as well. Let’s look at education as opposed to eligibility.

And why are admission requirements subjective rather than cut-and-dried? They are not subjective, except in the case of “special admissions.” These are student-athletes who meet NCAA criteria but not SDSU criteria. The university will bend its rules in these cases, but not according to any pre-defined formula.

The unwitting victims, of course, are the seven freshmen recruited for the 1985-86 academic year. Already under intense scrutiny from the academic side, they have now had their names spread through the media as borderline cases requiring special admissions procedures. Two junior college transfers have been caught in the same web.

Did the coach deceive his recruits? Is the university betraying the coach? Is the coach caught in flak intended for the athletic director? Is the athletic director caught in flak intended for the coach?

Is there a white knight on the way?

The university prez would like the whole brouhaha to go away, but he knows it won’t. He stayed silent for a week, but apparently tired of having to slip out a trap door to avoid the reporters on his front porch.

He finally made a statement, even if it only explained why he had previously had nothing to explain. These are obviously sensitive matters, which demand conclusions rather than conjecture. He said it would take time, and that is understandable.

When this web is untangled, the university president must firmly present the future course of the athletic department. None of this would have happened if all parties involved knew exactly: (a) who was in charge and (b) what the criteria are for admissions. Any good mystery has to begin with uncertainty.