Everyone loves a good scandal.
It is ingrained in the human DNA to enjoy watching an institution be taken down. That is why the recent allegations presented in Sports Illustrated’s piece on Oklahoma State University have received so much attention. The same goes for Alabama’s recently alleged transgressions or Bo Pelini reminding everyone that he is the righteous man shepherding the Nebraska football program through the inequities of the Omaha World- Herald and the tyranny of evil fans. People love other people’s problems.
The truth is, the idea of a scandal in college athletics is kind of a misnomer. Every institution has to deal with something that would be deemed unethical by the public. It’s not because college sports are inherently wrong, but because humans, as a whole, are shiesty individuals.
From the most well-known athletic powerhouses to that D-III school which your friend goes to that has one guy who is wicked dirty at field hockey (I mean seriously bro, he could go pro!), all colleges have something to cover up. Even at a place like Creighton.
I should probably clarify that I am not alleging that Creighton is currently participating in any shady activities. Even if we are, heck, get it how you live. What I am saying is that if you look hard enough at any athletic program, you’re likely to find someone doing dirt.
The real test of merit for these schools is how they react to the scandal breaking. Southern Methodist University was kept off the field by the NCAA for its 1987 season and cancelled its 1988 season on its own. That was for something as mundane as a slush fund used to pay players. That’s it, a slush fund. Craig James has officially denied that he killed five hookers while at SMU.
Some institutions, like the University of Miami, have been able to poke holes in the NCAA’s actions and come out of allegations relatively unscathed. Texas A&M was in a similar situation this summer involving Johnny Manziel. The public distrusts the NCAA enough at this point to allow familiar issues like paying athletes to slide, as evidenced by the general acceptance of Manziel’s slap on the wrist.
Other institutions can have their reputations hurt immeasurably. The way Penn State (the students and the institution itself ) handled the entire Sandusky situation reminded the nation that Pennsylvania is full of crazy people who root for the Flyers.
If we’re talking a home grown scandal, I feel like Creighton would be especially hard on itself to uphold the reputation it has built up. If player X was caught taking anabolic steroids, I do believe that player X would be removed from the team. There are a few caveats, however.
Without a doubt there would be an initial, internal, cover-up. Nothing against the powers that be, but there always is. Institutions would much rather deal with a problem quickly and quietly before letting the public get wind of it.
When put to the sword of public scrutiny, though, Creighton would act harshly. If the athlete participated in a non-revenue sport they would be removed from the program. A revenue athlete would probably receive a suspension for fear of losing said revenue upon their departure. Still, compared to what other colleges would do, Creighton would be seen as doing the “right” thing.
That’s what these scandals are all about. No one cares if a few kids get slipped some money from boosters. People do care if the university makes a fool of itself.