Boosters Causing Downfalls : Texas Schools Tarnished by Their Actions

Texas football has been tarnished with tales of under-the-table cash payments to college players, but the state’s alumni say they are not the only ones wearing black hats on the recruiting trail.

A third of the Southwest Conference’s football teams are on NCAA probation due to unchecked boosters, but officials concede the problem is more widespread, casting a shadow on all well-endowed alumni who support their college teams.

“Virtually every serious infractions case we’ve handled involved boosters,” says David Berst, the NCAA’s enforcement chief.

“I don’t think we know how to control them,” Frank J. Remington, chairman of the NCAA’s Infractions Committee, says of boosters who break the rules.

Last month, Southern Methodist received the stiffest NCAA penalty ever against a football program--cancellation of an entire season. The NCAA said a booster slush fund channeled payments totaling $61,000 to 13 players after the school was placed on its sixth probation in August 1985.

Last week, Houston alumnus Frank Terry publicly disclosed he had contributed thousands of dollars to a similar fund and said there was talk that a group of Cougar fans had purchased an oil well--with the proceeds to go to athletics.

Texas Christian was placed on three years’ probation last year for payments to seven players--including All-American running back Kenneth Davis, now with the Green Bay Packers--who immediately were kicked off the team by Coach Jim Wacker.

And even Texas Gov. Bill Clements, who resigned as chairman of SMU’s Board of Governors before taking office in January, revealed earlier this month that he and several other board members learned of the illicit payments at SMU in 1984 and decided to continue them.

The NCAA has acknowledged the recruiting climate in football-mad Texas, citing what it called the ‘excessively competitive environment” when it gave Texas Tech a light one-year probation earlier this month.

But Texas booster believe the problem is everywhere.

“You look at our 100 top football prospects this year--36 of those went out of state,” said H.R. (Bum) Bright, majority owner of the Dallas Cowboys and a top booster of Texas A&M.;

“Everybody talks about Texas being so rabid a football place. The No. 1 team in terms of attendance is Michigan. No. 2 is Tennessee,” said Bright. “South Carolina’s attendance averages more than any school in the state of Texas.”

Dick Lowe, the booster cited as the major culprit for the TCU sanctions, said: “If they want to get it stopped there’s one way to do it and one way only, and that’s to make it illegal. No one’s going to do it if it’s a felony.”

A bill has been introduced in the Texas Legislature that would allow universities to sue boosters who break the rules, but Lowe said it would have to be passed on a federal level to stop the cheating in Texas.

If just Texas had such a law, “That means Oklahoma’s going to get everybody,” he said.

Remington, a University of Wisconsin law professor, said there are three types of boosters who engage in recruiting violations, the most harmless being the “foster-parent” type, who may not realize he is breaking the rules.

“Another group has the message and they think they know better than the athletic director, better than the administration. They don’t care if it’s against the rules or not,” Remington said.

The third group takes direction from coaches, athletic directors or others out to circumvent recruiting rules, he said.

Regardless of the severity of the violations, boosters--especially those in Texas--inevitably point the finger at other schools.

One group of SMU alumni became so frustrated at the repeated penalties leveled against the Mustangs that they hired private detectives to try to dig up dirt on Texas and Texas A&M.;

“The boosters said they could not understand why state schools seem to ‘slide through’ with the NCAA and discussed ‘selective enforcement,’ ” one source told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

“The booster clubs are groups of people who want to help in athletics. And everybody wants to win,” said Bob Devaney, athletic director at the University of Nebraska.

However, Devaney added: “If these groups are not governed very carefully, then things can get out of hand.”

In April 1985, SMU banned nine boosters from associating with the university’s athletic department, four of them permanently. They range from developers to the owner of a cemetery business to bankers and sports agents.

“I love SMU and it was fun for me,” said SMU alumnus Reid Ryan of Corpus Christi, whose two-year ban will expire next month.

“I get as much fun out of recruiting as I do watching the actual games,” he said. “It’s a challenge to find a kid that can play.”

Only a handful of boosters break the rules, but they tar the whole bunch, said Doug Smith, executive director of the Mustang Club, an SMU booster organization that has raised $10 million for the school’s development office since 1979.

“The guilt by association that boosters are now getting is completely unfair,” Smith said.

Bright said he has recruited many athletes directed to him by coaches, pointing out the advantages of attending Texas A&M; and belonging to the “Aggie support network” after graduation.

But when they ask him for a car, he said he advises them to buy “an old junker,” something they can afford.

“There’s a certain number of kids in every recruiting group that have their hands out,” Lowe said. “The coaches know that.”

Many boosters believe the NCAA has gone too far in prohibiting financial assistance to a student-athlete beyond an athletic scholarship. Others say their constitutional rights to association are violated when, because of NCAA sanctions, they are not allowed to befriend coaches or players.

But supporters of the system note that the NCAA is made up of its member institutions, who vote on the rules that apply to all.

Smith, the Mustang Club director, said coaches hold the key to a booster’s recruiting conduct.

“If a coach doesn’t want a booster involved in a program, that booster would have a difficult time to get involved,” he said.

“They need to start penalizing the kids, too,” said Ryan, who maintains he has done nothing worse than buying a recruit a soft drink. “I don’t think any of these schools go in and offer something illegal right off the bat.”

Leroy Howe, president of SMU’s Faculty Senate, agreed, saying “these so-called kids are just as guilty of honors violations as they would be if they had cheated on exams.”

Sadly, Remington said, many young athletes have come to expect some type of pay-for-play offer, especially if they are talented.

“I think we have to change the ethics of that,” Remington said. “If the system is perceived as corrupt, the young people are going to be corrupted by it.”