 |
| For some reason, I love that Craig James was part of the dirtiest program ever. |
They went 41-5-1 over four seasons from '81-'84. That's roughly 10-1 per season for four years. What would you accept for that? Anything? Would you be okay with the rules of recruiting being bent? Would you be willing to look the other way as an alum/student/fan?
Or are you okay with the current state of things, wherein Purdue has a good, relevant, nationally significant presence every 25-35 years?
I want to see Purdue football win again. They were so close, as we've documented here before, in 2004. Top 5 in the country, GameDay in town, leading the game that night, likely to move to about #3, etc. But then it all fell apart and the program has truly never been the same. And that 2004 team was Joe Tiller's best chance and he knew it. It was a seven year buildup of recruiting, coaching, scheduling, etc.... it was all falling into place -- once. And then it didn't. Because the window for a program like Purdue is just that small, especially when you're not cheating or bending the rules.
But what if Purdue could have a run of success like SMU did? Let's also recognize the fact that no matter how bad it gets, the NCAA would never implement the death penalty again on a program. As the movie detailed, that sanction detonated the Southwest Conference and affected other teams/programs important to the NCAA. And let's also keep in mind that there's always the defense of "Hey, everybody else is doing it."
I think in the end, I would not be okay with it, because then we as Boilermakers would be no better than the cheaters as USC or other schools that haven't been publicly outed yet. As one of the guys interviewed in Pony Excess said, "Show me a school that wins a lot and I'll show you a program that cheats."
I like to think it's not that simple but, sadly, it probably is.
6 comments:
Interesting thought, J. And ultimately I agree - I wouldn't be okay with it. But it raises a couple of thought-provoking (if nothing else) points...
SMU was the best team in college football in the early 80s. They had 4 or 5 years of punishments, and then almost 20 years of complete irrelevancy, but now they're back in bowl games again. If Purdue's already nationally relevant only every 25-35 years, then how could that hurt us? Well, the real answer is our reputation and integrity would get smashed, but as far as the winning goes... probably in no way would it hurt us.
The other thought I had is that in today's world where that is so common, could Purdue even pay players enough to get the ones good enough to beat the other players getting paid? Or would we still be a middle-of-the-pack program among even the cheaters? I'm not sure. But, if I had to "hypothetically" pick a couple programs that cheat and pay players, like say, USC or Auburn/Cam Newton's Dad, would we beat them if we did the same thing? Probably not, in my opinion.
The NCAA would and has implemented the death penalty on athletic programs in recent years, most notably, 2004,2005,2006 and 2007. So the death penalty is still relevant. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_%28NCAA%29
No cheating...ever...I'm dying like the rest of us to have some sort of success in the football program...but think of how bitter it would taste to learn we cheated to get there...in turn, think how sweet it would taste to do it the right way and still win...If it takes 20 years the right way, I'd much prefer it to having success that shady way now. Purdue is a place of higher intelligence and integrity and I think much of the nation shares that opinion (except perhaps those in Bloomington). I wish to keep it that way
I would not be OK with it. One of the things that separates Purdue and its fellow members from most other conferences is that Big Ten schools don't play that way ... programs on probation are few and far between, and not just because the NCAA ignores major violations and focuses on minor ones. I would rather have integrity with occasional success than be just another one of "those" schools.
Even if reputation weren't an issue, there's no guarantee that paying players would significantly increase the quality of talent at Purdue or bring dramatically greater success. There's another complication, too. If Purdue suddenly had a top-5 recruiting class, which would you believe, that a) suddenly Coach X and company figured out how to out-recruit ND and UM and OSU and PSU and everyone else who recruits up here, or b) Coach X found some boosters with cash?
SMU did what it did partly because (rumor had it that) everyone else in the SWC was doing it. (Schools Who Cheat, right?) I don't think you could suddenly start doing that without attracting a lot of attention, and I'd rather not find out.
Besides, we already had this conversation, right? Which would we rather have, a football title or a basketball title?
I'm fine for doing it the "right way", but I guess that means accepting the fact that we don't have much of a chance at ever getting 11 or more wins. Cam Newton's dad was asking for 200K!! That is ridiculous and I can only believe he asked for that number because many big programs pay that much!!
Are you significantly less happyy about the yankees winning the world series with A-Rod and Andy Pettite who are known cheaters??
No Way! We're Purdue and we're better than that.
I live in ohio and have to live with all the jack wagon aOSU fans. Everytime I call them cheaters, their only defense is that everyone else is doing it. What's the cost of your soul?
Post a Comment