The dust seems to have finally settled from the football scholarship saga.

The players who are appealing the decision are waiting for their cases to be heard by the university, and the rest of the players are gearing up for spring practice on March 30.

While the saga disappear in time, there are still questions that remain to be answered.

The first is for athletic director Steve Orsini.

June Jones has been given free reign over the football team, and Orsini has said that he fully backs his $2-million man. But at what point do you draw the line?

When the coach uses “life isn’t fair” as a justification for some of the players being released, someone needs to step in and investigate further. None of the released players were significant contributors on the team; Jones admitted some of them did not violate his three-strikes policy, and a couple had great grades.

One player had a 3.25 grade point average and was told that he did not accumulate a single strike. He showed up to everything and followed Jones’ policy, just as he was told to.

So you have to ask the $45,000 question: Why was he released?

“Life isn’t fair” isn’t sufficient justification to take away a player’s athletic scholarship. If it wasn’t the athletic director, somebody had to step in and demand a better explanation.

My second question is for Jones.

The football team clearly needed a better disciplinarian running the show, but what criteria does a player have to meet to justify a release?

A lot of publicity was given to Jones’ three-strikes policy, which resulted in numerous suspensions in his first season. It also is the reason why many of the offseason releases were made.

But what about the players that Jones admitted hadn’t violated the three-strikes policy? What about the one(s) that he admitted didn’t have a single strike? For those players, he cited an attitude that wasn’t “conducive” to team morale.

But what exactly is a bad attitude? It was said that these players didn’t have any strikes. One of the released players said that he drove from his home in Denton every day during the summer to attend team meetings. Another was described by one of his former teammates as one of the most likeable guys on the team.

It doesn’t sound like either had an attitude problem. The only thing they seemed to have in common is that they were both reserves.

My last question is for Jones’ new recruits. What kind of message does this send to you?

On one hand, you have to admire that your new coach is serious about winning and is bound to improve the program with his cut-throat disciplinary policies. But on the other hand, he’s sent the message that you can make good grades and show up to all the team functions, but that doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be able to keep your scholarship.

After Jones’ first year, the message has already been sent that “athlete” carries the most weight in the term student-athlete.

So as the released players ponder their future, current and incoming Mustangs must consider what this decision means for them and the security of their scholarships. And administrators and other athletics officials must look at their disciplinary policies and what kind of message they’re sending.

For the SMU football team, the policy has sent a very clear message: It really is all about winning.

-Chris Dell

Sports Editor