Here's why we still lose (Daily Campus, 12/6)

by **Water Pony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:37 am

Football doesn't hurt SC, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Stanford and Northwestern's reputation or Duke and Georgeotwn prominence by being successful in basketball.

by **huskerpony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:39 am

Did any of you actually read the article? That isn't what Marshall Terry said. Here's the quote:

He said that SMU should continue concentrating on remaining a university with one of the top graduation rates and not loosen the requirements for athletes. Terry feels that if requirements are loosened then the program is back where it started. Lowering standards is why SMU was given the death penalty in the first place, Terry said.

That doesn't say lowering "academic" standards is what got us the DP. I'd say our "standards" were pretty low at that point! (Not that others' weren't equally low.

Just saying, lay off Marsh Terry. I know him well, and he is a great guy, and a big supporter of the football team. You don't hear quotes like this from most of the faculty:

"I had no idea we would win that game, but we beat the hell out of Kansas," Marshall Terry, former E.A. Lilly Professor of English, said. "It was a very exciting comeback."

And he speaks the truth about the majority of our fan base:

Terry said that he doesn't believe the students really care much about football.

"The excitement is about the Boulevard now," Terry said. "We've made it into an adverb."

by **StangEsq** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:43 am

Ridiculous. If 10 fewer guys a year graduate, that lowers the rate what, by .05%? That's not going to make much of a difference for anyone in any context.

Also, the reason people don't care about football is that we suck. Put a 10-3 team on the field and Ford will sellout.

by **The Purple Hippo** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:44 am

StangEsq wrote:Ridiculous. If 10 fewer guys a year graduate, that lowers the rate what, by .05%? That's not going to make much of a difference for anyone in any context.

Also, the reason people don't care about football is that we suck. Put a 10-3 team on the field and Ford will sellout.

thank you. look at schools like Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. Nobody cared about football at either school until they started winning. Now, its tough to get tickets to either school's games

by **SMU89** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:03 am

"He (Terry) said that SMU should continue concentrating on remaining a university with one of the top graduation rates and not loosen the requirements for athletes."

Why don't we hire teachers who want to teach?

If the standards are loosened for athletes, a majority of students (90%+?) will still fall under the old requirements.

As a "teacher" is Terry not willing to work with a small group of students who otherwise would not be able to have access to such an education?

Let's get teachers who enjoy teaching because they can impact someones life.

by **EastStang** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:11 am

First, we never had an academic scandel surrounding the death penalty. It was a pay for play scandel. We had a very high graduation rate even then among SWC schools (like 75%, I seem to recall). I remember many players who came to SMU as freshmen with me graduated with me. Some took 5 years, but most graduated. I don't advocate going with no standards, and it is my impression that those standards have already been loosened as much as is needed. The question now is for admitting transfers and JUCO's and transferable hours. It also concerns athlete friendly majors. Those areas need to be addressed by the Administration. The reporter for the DC didn't know enough of the issues to know what questions to ask Dr. Terry (who is a good guy by the way).

by **Billy Joe** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:24 am

Terry is wrong and so are you Husker pony....end of discussion.

by **Mexmustang** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:32 am

Like we used to say(pre DP)...one day SMU's faculty will live up to the standards of our football teams. Today there should be a an equally agressive movement to upgrade our faculty along with restoring our football program.

by **huskerpony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:35 am

Billy Joe wrote:Terry is wrong and so are you Husker pony....end of discussion.

Just think it was taken out of context, since it wasn't even a direct quote. Can't believe he would have said that. Terry is one of the few faculty that support athletics at this school.

by **OC Mustang** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:00 pm

huskerpony wrote:
Billy Joe wrote:Terry is wrong and so are you Husker pony....end of discussion.

Just think it was taken out of context, since it wasn't even a direct quote. Can't believe he would have said that. Terry is one of the few faculty that support athletics at this school.

May have taken a little out of context, but not so much as to miss my meaning. I know Prof. Terry as well...went to school with his daughter...but I still think he is wrong on the standards part. I think our standards are so much higher than NCAA, that we could relax them more and still hit record-setting graduation %s compared to anybody else. And again, we do not have the academic gravitas to have those policies without competitive consequences. Period.

by **huskerpony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:02 pm

OC Mustang wrote:
huskerpony wrote:
Billy Joe wrote:Terry is wrong and so are you Husker pony....end of discussion.

Just think it was taken out of context, since it wasn't even a direct quote. Can't believe he would have said that. Terry is one of the few faculty that support athletics at this school.

May have taken a little out of context, but not so much as to miss my meaning. I know Prof. Terry as well...went to school with his daughter...but I still think he is wrong on the standards part. I think our standards are so much higher than NCAA, that we could relax them more and still hit record-setting graduation %s compared to anybody else. And again, we do not have the academic gravitas to have those policies without competitive consequences. Period.

I agree completely.

by **mr. pony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:05 pm

[quote="huskerpony"]Did any of you actually read the article? That isn't what Marshall Terry said. Here's the quote:

He said that SMU should continue concentrating on remaining a university with one of the top graduation rates and not loosen the requirements for athletes. Terry feels that if requirements are loosened then the program is back where it started. Lowering standards is why SMU was given the death penalty in the first place, Terry said. [quote]

Hell, yes, I read the article and that's exactly what they said he said.

*Lowering standards is why SMU was given the death penalty in the first place, Terry said.*

And he said it while discussing academic requirements, unless the reporter completely misrepresented his words.

The DP should have had NO EFFECT on academic requirements. NONE.

by **Cash McMogulson** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:24 pm

Faculty complaints about preferential treatment of athletes/athletics aren't anything new to any college. What really gets me is the timing of this article. Orsini has a tough enough sell to bring in a prominent coach here. Now our esteemed newspaper has run this story in the middle of the search, which only serves to undermine the process. You would think someone would have the common sense over at the DC to sacrifice such "hard-hitting" journalism every now and then for the sake of the entire school's greater interest. Give me Kate's silence or plagiarizing PF any day of the week over this. Unbelievable.

by **mr. pony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:41 pm

Good point.

by **OR-See-Nee** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:02 pm

mr. pony wrote:Good point.

I agree, but I hope no coaching candidate reads the DC. :shock:

Here's why we still lose (Daily Campus, 12/6)

Who is online