Political Reporter Draws Outrage After Offering Tone-Deaf and Historically Insensitive Comparison Between Notre Dame and SMU Football Programs

In an era where sports and politics often intertwine, one political reporter has ignited a firestorm of backlash after drawing an unfortunate and, many argue, deeply insensitive comparison between two storied college football programs: Notre Dame and SMU. The remarks, which surfaced during a recent political analysis segment, have left fans, alumni, and commentators stunned, reigniting conversations about journalistic responsibility, historical awareness, and the complicated intersections of sports and society.

The controversy stems from comments made by Mark Ellsworth, a national political correspondent for Capitol Insider, during a panel discussion focused on institutional accountability in both politics and higher education. Ellsworth, known for his sharp commentary on political ethics, veered off-topic when he invoked the legacies of Notre Dame and Southern Methodist University (SMU) football as metaphors for public trust and scandal.

In his analogy, Ellsworth suggested, “When you think about political corruption or institutional failure, it’s much like comparing Notre Dame’s self-righteous image to what happened at SMU when they got the death penalty. Both are symbols, one of hypocrisy, the other of outright scandal — yet both reflect how institutions crumble under scrutiny.”

The comparison, seemingly offhand, immediately drew fierce criticism for its insensitivity, poor historical framing, and flawed logic. Many were quick to point out that Notre Dame and SMU football, while both influential in college sports history, occupy vastly different places in the national consciousness and have been shaped by entirely distinct legacies — particularly when it comes to scandal, integrity, and resilience.

For context, SMU’s football program became synonymous with one of the darkest chapters in NCAA history. In the mid-1980s, after repeated rules violations involving improper payments to players, the NCAA handed SMU the so-called “death penalty,” canceling the Mustangs’ entire 1987 football season and severely crippling the program for years to come. It remains the harshest punishment ever levied in college football and served as a cautionary tale about systemic cheating and corruption within collegiate athletics.

In contrast, Notre Dame’s football program, often dubbed the “gold standard” of tradition and academic-athletic balance, has cultivated an image rooted in history, excellence, and self-discipline. Though not without its controversies or challenges, the Fighting Irish have largely maintained an identity distinct from the type of infractions that plagued SMU in the 1980s.

Ellsworth’s remarks, critics argue, recklessly lump these two programs together without appreciating the nuance of their histories. Social media erupted with responses from Notre Dame supporters, journalists, and even neutral observers, many of whom condemned the statement as both misleading and disrespectful.

One prominent Notre Dame alumnus, former linebacker and ESPN analyst Mike Golic Sr., took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice his frustration: “Lazy comparisons like this diminish real conversations. Notre Dame and SMU aren’t even in the same stratosphere when it comes to legacy or scandal. Disappointed, but sadly not surprised.”

Meanwhile, SMU supporters also expressed frustration, though for different reasons. Some felt Ellsworth’s comments reignited painful memories of an era the program has spent decades trying to overcome. Others pointed out that SMU football, especially in recent years, has made significant strides in rebuilding its reputation and competitiveness, making it an odd reference point for modern political analogies.

“I understand using sports to illustrate political points, but this just feels outdated and unfair,” said Erica Langston, an SMU alum and longtime Mustangs fan. “Our program has worked hard to rebuild, to do things the right way. We’re more than what happened 40 years ago.”

The backlash speaks to a broader tension in public discourse where sports narratives are often co-opted by political commentators to dramatize institutional failings, sometimes with little regard for accuracy or historical sensitivity. Notre Dame’s football program, with its rich history dating back to Knute Rockne, the Four Horsemen, and iconic rivalries, represents not just athletic excellence but a deeper cultural tradition intertwined with faith, education, and national identity.

To compare that legacy to SMU’s painful brush with NCAA sanctions risks oversimplifying complex institutional stories for the sake of soundbites.

Moreover, critics argue that Ellsworth’s analogy perpetuates false equivalencies — conflating Notre Dame’s reputation for academic rigor and athletic tradition with a narrative of hypocrisy, absent substantial evidence of systemic wrongdoing on par with SMU’s historical infractions. While Notre Dame has faced isolated controversies, including debates around player compensation, academic standards for athletes, or coaching changes, none rise to the level of NCAA violations that warranted the “death penalty.”

Complicating matters further is the timing of Ellsworth’s remarks. Notre Dame football is riding a wave of optimism heading into the upcoming season, with high-profile recruits, revamped coaching staff, and renewed hopes of returning to national championship contention. Meanwhile, SMU has recently earned a place in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), a remarkable comeback for a program that was once left for dead by NCAA sanctions.

Given these trajectories, many fans found Ellsworth’s analogy not only tone-deaf but factually obsolete.

In response to the controversy, Ellsworth issued a brief statement, saying, “My comments were intended to illustrate how public perception of institutions can vary widely, often masking deeper issues beneath the surface. I regret if my analogy caused offense — that was not my intention.”

However, critics argue the apology falls short, lacking acknowledgment of the historical complexities involved or the need for more thoughtful discourse when invoking iconic sports programs in political commentary.

Sports journalists were quick to dissect the fallout. Veteran college football writer Pat Forde called the incident “a classic case of someone dabbling in sports narratives without doing their homework,” adding, “Notre Dame and SMU aren’t interchangeable metaphors — they’re distinct case studies in the complicated relationship between sports, culture, and institutional accountability.”

Others see the moment as symptomatic of a broader media trend where sports analogies are used as rhetorical devices, often stripped of their nuance, to punch up political discourse. While the strategy can engage audiences, it also risks trivializing complex histories and alienating passionate fanbases.

At its core, the uproar reflects the enduring power of college football programs like Notre Dame and SMU to symbolize more than just wins and losses. They represent identity, pride, and — at times — hard-earned redemption.

Notre Dame, with its global Catholic roots and legacy of excellence on the field and in the classroom, continues to command respect as a model of tradition and consistency in college sports. SMU, having endured the harshest punishment in NCAA history, embodies resilience and the long road to institutional reform and respectability.

To collapse these stories into a simplistic political metaphor risks erasing their differences — and doing a disservice to the fans, players, and institutions that carry their legacies forward.

As the college football season approaches, both programs remain focused on the future. Notre Dame eyes a potential return to the College Football Playoff, bolstered by strong recruiting classes and high expectations. SMU prepares for its new chapter in the ACC, determined to prove that past mistakes no longer define them.

For commentators and analysts alike, the episode serves as a cautionary tale: sports history isn’t just a convenient metaphor — it’s a complex tapestry that demands respect, accuracy, and, above all, understanding.