Lunatics Running the Asylum

[Alaric]

I'm more pissed now because I have hope now. I used to be a hopeless zombie with the thousand yard stare. I never thought the model would be changed. Now that I've seen some progress and a few wins, I'm pissed, and I think others are pissed, because this has the feel of the faculty trying to suck us back into the abyss.

Stallion, I hate to tell you this but changing the model wasn't original with you and you had ZERO effect in getting in changed.

[Junior]

If you're interested, Stallion, I know exactly what Jeremy Hall was told by the committee.

I'd be interested to hear that...feel free to pm me

I'm on board with that, too.

[Stallion]

I want to know GPA and SAT/ACT-not a bunch of hearsay which is being feed by the Coaches. I basically want to know if these are the same kids who have historically been considered partial qualifiers before the NCAA deemphasized the SAT. Basically I want to know if thesde kids have sub 700 SATs and scored more than 500-600 SAT points below the SMU average.

[rlm1951]

I want to know GPA and SAT/ACT-not a bunch of hearsay which is being feed by the Coaches. I basically want to know if these are the same kids who have historically been considered partial qualifiers before the NCAA deemphasized the SAT. Basically I want to know if thesde kids have sub 700 SATs and scored more than 500-600 SAT points below the SMU average.

I'm new to the board, so I don't know if you're high and mighty posture is normal or because you think your SMU diploma is of higher quality than mine.

But....

If NCAA qualified = SMU qualified and that's what Jones was told, what difference do individual scores make?

[Stallion]

because none of these other posters spouting whatever the Holy Father tells them have shown they have any idea of just how low these SAT standards are on the sliding scale are. You claim to have inside knowledge and apparently could clear it up but have chosen not to several times leading me to believe that Hall at least historically would have been a partial qualifier. Before I burn down Dallas Hall I for one would like to know why I''m lighting the torch.

[ponydawg]

rlm1951, it's very normal. You don't even pick up on it after about the 20th post.

Stallion, if (big if) Jackson does get enrolled at either UCLA or even Tech, would it seem he should qualify here and have had a chance to prove himself?

[jtstang]

Look man, you can't like the timing regardless. That's as much the issue as the grades, and that was totally under SMU's control whereas the grades are not.

[ponydawg]

Look man, you can't like the timing regardless. That's as much the issue as the grades, and that was totally under SMU's control whereas the grades are not.

That was my bigger issue (and still is), but the fact the Ben had to be appealed twice and got into Penn is comical. I most not know how smart I be.

[rlm1951]

I don't have his actual SAT score, I was told the verbal score made him NCAA ineligible. So, at the coach's instruction, he took the ACT and scored high enough to become NCAA eligible.

Again, according to the coaches, that was good enough for SMU. Whether or not he would have been a partial qualifier in the past is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Everyone involved was told he was coming to SMU.

I don't want to burn down Dallas Hall, but I don't want fine young men like Jeremy jerked around by my alma mater, either.

The admissions criteria needs to be objective, not the whim of a committee.

[RGV Pony]

because none of these other posters spouting whatever the Holy Father tells them have shown they have any idea of just how low these SAT standards are on the sliding scale are. You claim to have inside knowledge and apparently could clear it up but have chosen not to several times leading me to believe that Hall at least historically would have been a partial qualifier. Before I burn down Dallas Hall I for one would like to know why I''m lighting the torch.

Gottschalk was reported to have had to go through the review process. Is it your position that if this is the case, then he too must have been at or near the level of a "partial qualifier?" And is it also your position that Penn must allow student athletes who at one time would have been called a partial qualifier?

According to rlm's post above, the committee discounted Hall's ACT score. Does SMU's FAQ's section under admissions say that SMU accepts SAT and/or ACT? If so, more b.s.

[mr. pony]

I want to know GPA and SAT/ACT-not a bunch of hearsay which is being feed by the Coaches. I basically want to know if these are the same kids who have historically been considered partial qualifiers before the NCAA deemphasized the SAT. Basically I want to know if thesde kids have sub 700 SATs and scored more than 500-600 SAT points below the SMU average.

I'm new to the board, so I don't know if you're high and mighty posture is normal or because you think your SMU diploma is of higher quality than mine.

But....

It's normal. (Nice of you to notice,though.)

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

A few random thoughts:

The first I read about Gottschalk was the statement in the Observor. I don't recall that statement being attributed in the article and I've never heard that before. Not saying it's untrue, but has that been independently verified?

Also, I noticed that the Observor quoted an "anonomous source in the athletic department." That concerns me a little. People in the athletic department, admissions, or whatever inside SMU should not be leaking information to the press to be used in negative articles about SMU. The athletic director needs to get that under control.

The Observor article also cited a meeting this week to "clear the air" between Jones, Orsini, and Turner. Interesting. If that's true, I hope it goes well.

Finally, here's one possibility that no one on this Board seems willing to consider. Perhaps the admissions standards WERE clearly articulated to June when he arrived and there has been no misunderstanding. Maybe, just maybe, June understands the rules but just doesn't like them and is using the Hall and Jackson cases to stir things up and put pressure on the administration to loosen things further. I'm not stating that as fact, because I do not know. But I'm a little surprised at the people on this Board who seem to think June Jones is all goodness and light and the personification of all that is right about SMU, while the entire rest of the university is a bunch of evil conspirators who are just looking to screw Jones and make sure that SMU never wins another football game. My guess is that things are maybe a little more gray than that.

[EastStang]

There are two standards of NCAA qualifier. That old standards which were looser than we used to permit and the new laxer standards. What Stallion wants to know is under which standard were these guys a qualifier. If they were a qualifier under the "new" standards, then basically any Forrest Gump is eligible under those standards which is not what SMU would want to admit. If they would have qualified under the old standards they should have been admitted. Now why it took a month to get a final hearing after the final semester grades were in, I don't know. That goes to the appeals process. But my view and its wholly a guess is that this reaction from admissions goes hand in hand with academic casualties suffered over the last two years. Would these two kids have been admitted two years ago? These are the questions that should be asked.

[couch 'em]

All the anger isn't about these two guys being rejected. It isn't even completely about the timing.

You have known athletic department shills/mouthpieces coming on here and trashing Turner and the board. They aren't anonymous. If this is happening that means the AD and Turner might as well be at war with each other. No matter what your standards are, when you have the AD waging a PR war against the administration there are major problems, unclear expectations, feelings of betrayal, etc. that have lead up to this. This would not be happening over just two marginal recruits.

Plus, those of us that have known about the unsigned contract and the conflict between Jones/Orsini and Turner for a while know that there is more going on than just fighting over minimum qualifiers. There are active anti-football elements still in positions harmful to athletics which Turner has done nothing to counteract. Maybe the Tonks thing is Turner finally moving, I don't know.

When more specifics leak out in the future (which I hope they don't) there will be more to complain about and we can forget these two rejections. Until then, it is a place to rally anger.

[ponyboy]

Holy [deleted]. I am agreeing with everything Stallion is saying these days.