A trend may be starting in college athletics, and it's one that some may find disturbing and others long overdue.
"Newsweek" reported in its March 21 issue "the University of Oklahoma announced that all prospective athletes must undergo a criminal background check before committing to a school."
Kenny Mossman, associate athletic director for media relations at Oklahoma, said the background checks are just "a piece of the puzzle" in recruiting a student athlete.
"We're not looking for a specific incident or a number of offenses," he said.
The background check is pooled with other information about a player and then the coaches and administration make a decision.
In an action that may have stemmed from the shooting death of basketball player Patrick Dennehy, Baylor University has also implemented a similar system. The system is currently under a yearlong trial, according to Baylor's Web site.
Baylor's review process would include a criminal background check and a Student Athlete Character Reference Form, to be filled out by one coach, a counselor (or principal) and two teachers from the student's high school. Transfer students would be treated similarly.
The report written by a Baylor task force said, "the main focus of the CRF is social and personal character issues rather than the potential for academic or athletic success. A number of character traits are assessed, including dependability, consideration for others, moral qualities, respect for authority as well as others."
But would any process like this ever see the light of day at The University of Memphis?
"I don't like it," said Athletic Director R.C. Johnson.
However, Johnson said college athletics are moving in that direction more and more.
Assistant men's basketball coach Ed Schilling believes there are pros and cons to the review process. But the pro side offers slim pickings.
"The one thing it would do is to take away from administrators and coaches (the ability) to say 'Oh, well we didn't know'," Schilling said.
Senior forward Duane Erwin said it's not going to matter what the player did, if a school wants him, they'll get him.
"Nine out of 10 times, even if they do (a background check), if the student athlete is well and capable of playing on their team and putting up the numbers, they're going to take him regardless," he said. If the new strategies take hold, small schools may have the most to lose or gain.
A trickle down effect of star prep athletes may make its way down to smaller schools, although the chances are slim if few major universities reject players because of character background.
Another possibility is the chance that a small school would reject a promising young player, who may elevate the program, from playing.
"If the University is doing well already and really doesn't need him, they'll be like 'Well we're not going to take this person, cause we're trying to keep our image'," Erwin said.
Highly recruited athletes may have no choice but to go to another school or a smaller one. But would a school let a top player play elsewhere just because of a past transgression?
Schilling believes schools must be equal in determining how much of a problem a player had in the past to not allow him to play.
"Then the question becomes if the kid makes a mistake does that mean he's barred from Division-1 athletics?" said Schilling.
If a player is not admitted to play for a school because of his background, the question becomes whether he still has a chance for an education at the same institution.
"To hold a kid out but he is not eligible to play basketball but he's eligible to come to school. Where is the line?" Schilling said.
Senior forward Arthur Barclay is in agreement with Erwin that criminal background and character checks aren't a great barometer on how well student athletes are capable of behaving in college.
"People don't realize you can make mistakes in your life," he said.Johnson said for a process like this to make its way onto the Memphis campus, something would have to be done on a national level first.
