One small thought. The Dunbar case you characterize as an "out of control groopie" who "sabotaged the program on her own." She could not have sabotaged the program without the earnest assistance of ND football players who are explained the rules. In other words, she did have willing and complicit assistance from team members.

Small point, but don't want any of us to think that Dunbar was some sort of accident. The University took the medicine because it f-up by not eliminating that silly quarteback club long ago and not actively watching it's athletes. Sorry that we have to do so today, but that's just the reality today. Holtz, as much as we admire him for restoring the winning tradition, has a pattern of not watching the shop. No question about that.
Waldo | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 8:25 am | #

Waldo,

Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, the "on her own" was meant to imply that Dunbar did it without any help or knowledge from Lou, which certainly looked like the case. The players probably should have questioned why a 28-year-old book keeper was lavishing trips and gifts on them, although I don't begrudge them not knowing her booster status. Heck, even ND argued that she wasn't a booster.

The problem with ND's stance in the whole mess was its inconsistency. We publicly disagreed with the NCAA and stated that we hadn't done anything wrong, yet rolled over on the penalties without an appeal.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 10:16 am | #

Thanks for clarifying that for those who glibly claim that Holtz "cheated" in a poor attempt to justify their teams being regularly beaten by him.
Steedle | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 10:41 am | #

"Not all NCAA scandals are created equally, and without some context, you'd think Holtz was as bad an actor as Barry Switzer, the University of Colorado, or the Michigan basketball program in the early 90's."

I take issue with this sentence... obviously only the last part. Michigan basketball's violations consistent of four players taking money as 'loans' from Ed Martin, who wasn't classified a UM booster (having never given any money to the school) until Fisher left some final four tickets for him at (I think) Jalen Rose's request. There weren't any recruiting inducements, so the violations fell under "extra benefits"... just like the Dunbar case. They're almost identical. The difference with the Michigan case is that the amounts were quite lurid.

As for Holtz... I don't entirely buy it. But obviously I haven't put much time into it, and I probably won't since I've got other things to get done at the moment, and then the season will be here and etc.

Steedle: you should introduce yourself to a sense of humor. It would be a good time.
Brian | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 4:02 pm | #

Brian,

They're almost identical. The difference with the Michigan case is that the amounts were quite lurid.

So were the penalties.

As you know, Michigan had to forfeit 113 victories, give up their NC, remove banners from Crisler Arena, lose a scholarship for four seasons (crippling in college hoops), go on four years probation, and sit out the 2004 NCAA Tournament.

Maybe there's some rough analog between the roles of Dunbar and Ed Martin in their respective scandals. But I think it's pretty obvious the Michigan hoops situation was of a magnitude far greater in both malfeasance and resulting penalty than the Dunbar scandal.
Jay | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 4:17 pm | #

Brian,
The context certainly did not make it appear to be a joke:
"The only success over the past 24 years has been under Lou Holtz, who cheated at Minnesota, cheated at Arkansas, cheated at South Carolina, and cheated at... yes, Notre Dame, unless you are really, really naive."
(not to mention the link to the article about Holtz's infractions if you clicked on his name)

If it was a joke, then I guess it just wasn't funny - not that it is a reflection on the rest of your site. Good day.
Mike Steedle | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 7:50 pm | #

I wish everyone could be a great Holtz apologist. Holtz admitted that he should have been more vigilant.

Did you ever think that, as bad a decision as it was, the University would rather have taken the relatively meaningless penalties, thus sparing the program from further scrutiny? I think that Holtz has definitely shown a track record at Minnesota, ND, and South Carolina of not paying close enough attention to his programs. He recruited people he knew could be problems and did nothing to prevent it. It wasn't a case of a few people getting in trouble. Jarvis Edison got involved with Dunabr, but Randy Kinder, and Robert Farmer got into trouble. He recruited Randy Moss and is really responsible for a lot of the "bad apples" that made it into the program.
Bob | Email | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 8:44 pm | #

Holtz is no Switzer, but "he wasn't vigilant enough" is (imo) letting him off the hook too easily. It's one thing to be a naive 40 year old who doesn't realize what the world of big time football is all about, but to be someone who has spent decades in the business, has seen more than one of his teams go on probation and who then takes over in the SEC and *still* does not hold the line on discipline is more than negligence, it is a willful lack of oversight. He KNOWS firsthand that s**t happes when the coach turns away and he turns away all the same.

This is akin to Tom Osborne, in my mind. Osborne never raped anyone or dragged anyone down the stairs, but by repeatedly refusing to enforce even basic standards of discipline over the course of many years and many incidents, he forfeited the right to use the negligence defense. That works once and for a short time.

And the conduct admitted to by Derek Watson is on a scale that seems impossible to hide from the head coach.

So basically, I'm saying there's a middle ground between negligent lack of oversight and willful cheating, and Lou Holtz has spent his career in that middle ground.
ny1995 | Email | Homepage | 07.26.05 - 12:48 pm | #