will turner reverse the admissions committee

[EastStang]

Sorry, you're right it is about admissions. That said, there must be something in core courses that gives him pause. We don't know all the facts and he does. If he's bent the rules before and won't do so now, there is probably a reason.

[couch 'em]

Don't blame Turner, blame Pye.

Pye was 20 years ago. There has been ample time to fix any and all damage done by him. Nothing can be blamed on him, blame rests with those who are currently here.

[RE Tycoon]

i am told this matter has been addressed ....we will see later today

heard the same thing.

Satisfactory conclusion?

[jtstang]

Sorry, you're right it is about admissions. That said, there must be something in core courses that gives him pause. We don't know all the facts and he does. If he's bent the rules before and won't do so now, there is probably a reason.

Here's the problem--we never know all the facts. We only know two things, what the result is (usually bad) and what SMU decides to tell us (usually not much, or worse, fabrications). Basically we are left by SMU to speculate as to the underlying facts for ourselves. Those of you who subscribe to the theory that "recruits read this website and make decisions based on what is posted here" are free to discuss whether SMU leaving us to speculate amongst ourselves is a good thing or not.

[EastStang]

Unfortunately unless the kid posts his grades on the internet or in an interview, we are guessing about the facts and even then it gets murky. I don't know for example what proof the Admissions Committee asks for when reviewing an athlete's application that is below normal admission standards. Do they concentrate on the recruit's essay? If so, what if its in fractured English? Do they require the recruit to submit papers that have been graded at his high school and review those? I don't know, does anyone? Even then, if its a marginal recruit someone has to make an honest assessment whether the recruit can cut it academically at SMU. If the Committee determines that he can't why waste a scholarship and lower our APR on a recruit who will likely flunk out after one year?

[ponydawg]

by rlm1951 » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:03 am

Jeremy took the SAT in the fall and received a low score on the English portion. The SMU coaching staff suggested he take the ACT, since SMU accepted those scores, too. He did, and received a score high enough to make him NCAA eligible.

This committee reviewed the SAT score and "believed" Jeremy wouldn't be able to pass English at SMU, so they rejected his admission - two days before he was to move in the dorm.

The only character issues you folks should be questioning are those of the admissions committee, not Jeremy's. He's a fine young man and would be more than just an athletic asset to SMU.

[EastStang]

Timing stinks, but how long ago did his ACT scores come in? We don't know. He is probably a fine young man, but as I recall the ACT is way easier than the SAT. If he needs remedial work in English, he needs to go somewhere that will help him with that.

[Longtime]

Starting to read some sense in this thread, instead of the knee-jerk slash-and-burn in other threads.

We DON'T know all the facts. Until we do, let's hold off on chopping heads off and declaring the football program dead.

What little we do know, I suspect we are getting from the coaches. Anyone who has spent much time around football coaches knows that they only see things from one point of view - You're either 100 percent for their team or you're not. So complicated issues tend to get boiled down into their favor. Pertinent facts get left out and other things get embellished. Not saying this has happened here, but it would not surprise me, either, that there are facts to these cases that might give us some pause.

We also know that our current head coach tried to recruit someone who served FIVE YEARS IN PRISON for shooting someone. A convicted felon. Is our football program in such disarray that we need to be offering scholarships to someone convicted of a violent offense?

And if said felon had signed with SMU, would the backlash have been as vocal and heated as it is with the current admissions controversy? Of course not. Because many of us would buy the coach's spin on the story, regardless of the facts.

But another fact also know is that the timing of these admissions denials is wholly unfair to the individuals. If these kids truly only found out a few days ago that they were denied admission, at the very least SMU/Turner should offer one-year academic scholarships to those individuals. I can't imagine the admissions office would be this tardy in denying admission to a "regular" i.e. non-athlete, student. It would be too late for a regular student to find an equivalent university to admit them on such short notice, much less so for a scholarship athlete. If the delay is SMU's fault, then SMU should do the honorable thing and admit the student for this academic year, at least on a probationary basis.

And we should fix whatever created this mess so it doesn't happen again. No matter what the admissions standards are or will be, you can't jerk people around.

But whatever the outcome, I don't think this is going to kill SMU's recruiting. Kids have short memories about such things, and the SMU coaches have an easy scapegoat in the administration. Scholarships get yanked, gets are told to grayshirt, etc. Recruiting is often an ugly business, but as long as SMU has something good to sell, there will be kids buying in.

[rlm1951]

Timing stinks, but how long ago did his ACT scores come in? We don't know. He is probably a fine young man, but as I recall the ACT is way easier than the SAT. If he needs remedial work in English, he needs to go somewhere that will help him with that.

The ACT was taken in March. Everything was 'approved' in mid-April. The difficulty level of the ACT vs. the SAT isn't the point - SMU accepts both.

Last week's decision was a total surprise.

[Billy Joe]

It is garbage. Let him in. If you were not going to admit him then tell him long ago so he can make other plans. Shame on Turner and the decision makers.

[Mexmustang]

There is no question that these threads look "reactionary, etc.". But, we have had 20 years of athletic mismanagment, including 10 under Turner. We don't trust the administration. We will not accept going backwards, nor setting standards unique amongst quality schools with major sports programs. Our elitist attitude is not becoming. Someone's head should roll just on how late we dealt with the situation with these young men. We continually look like an instituition that is so full of self-importance that we are rejected by the community at large, we can't even "talk the talk" much less "walk the walk".

[Samurai Stang]

There is no question that these threads look "reactionary, etc.". But, we have had 20 years of athletic mismanagment, including 10 under Turner. We don't trust the administration. We will not accept going backwards, nor setting standards unique amongst quality schools with major sports programs. Our elitist attitude is not becoming. Someone's head should roll just on how late we dealt with the situation with these young men. We continually look like an instituition that is so full of self-importance that we are rejected by the community at large, we can't even "talk the talk" much less "walk the walk".

Rare, but I agree with you entirely. Interesting how those that often disagree are unified in this matter. It speaks to how blatantly wrong the admissions department was in its actions.

Although Turner has actually been at SMU since 1995, which should increase the amount of blame directed at him.

[NavyCrimson]

Longtime: "We also know that our current head coach tried to recruit someone who served FIVE YEARS IN PRISON for shooting someone. A convicted felon. Is our football program in such disarray that we need to be offering scholarships to someone convicted of a violent offense?"

You are joking - aren't you?

[Samurai Stang]

Longtime: "We also know that our current head coach tried to recruit someone who served FIVE YEARS IN PRISON for shooting someone. A convicted felon. Is our football program in such disarray that we need to be offering scholarships to someone convicted of a violent offense?"

You are joking - aren't you?

He was not offered, although he was looked at.

[couch 'em]

You are joking - aren't you?

If you read the actual situation it isn't what it sounds like, although he did have a weapon and returned fire. He was a model inmate receiving several trade licenses (such as an electricians license) and participate in several educational oppertunities.