EastStang wrote:Let's take a hypothetical football recruit. He scored 450 combined on his SAT's. He did slightly better on the ACTs but has a 2.48 GPA through 3/4's of his senior year in core courses. .
Stallion wrote:that recruit would be a non-qualifier. The standard is not 2.5 or 900. You could be a qualifier or non-qualifier with either 2.5 or 900 SAT. You've got to check the sliding scale.
Here is the sliding scale
http://www.ubathletics.buffalo.edu/comp ... gscale.pdf
It was posted on the following thread (I am assuming it is valid and current):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46405
Perhaps, that will aid in more accurate hypothetical cases.
It actually isn't as bleak as I thought. If you bomb the SAT/ACT (to whatever degree), you had to have demonstrated that you could perform reasonably well in the classroom. And, vice versa -- if you slept throughout many of your high school classes, but had some semblance of innate ability (if the standardized test guys are to be believed), then you have to score reasonably well on the SAT/ACT.
It kinda makes sense.
If the reports of SMU utilizing a GPA/SAT cutoff of 2.5/900 are accurate, it doesn't appear that far off the NCAA sliding scale (for GPA 2.5, SAT 820 required).
Perhaps, the reports of the cutoff that SMU is using is not actually what they are using?
(otherwise, why all the tension between coaching/AD and admin?)
Or, is an element of this that for each of the 23 or 25 or so candidate athletes submitted that falls below the SMU cutoff (but meeting the NCAA minimum requirements), there is significantly added student stress/uncertainty, coaches stress/uncertainty, more lobbying, more meetings, more arguments, more 'jumping through hoops' to please the involved admissions committee participants? If that is so, I can see how that can get pretty old quite fast.
Pure conjecture on my part, but it's making me wonder.
