Competitive Disadvantage Part 2

[Stallion]

Cheesesteak-I'll give you credit for at least being one of the first people that can actually make an articulate argument for SMU's standards. However, my problem is that the same people that advocate such standards don't seem willing to accept the horrendous results this program has achieved as a result of those standards. You simply run away from them blaming them on Gregg, Rossley, Cavan, Shumate, Dement and now Bennett who already heard the growing storm clouds gather after the WORST SEASON in the History of SMU football. Instead, every 3-4 years we get FIRE THE COACH! FIRE THE ATHLETIC DIRECTOR! If we could just get a Coach who could motivate the kids! For example, based on championships, bowl games and winning seasons SMU is the LEAST SUCCESSFUL Division 1A football program in the entire State of Texas and arguably the WAC. We are in the lower 5-8% of all programs in AMERICA using that measurement. However, you are factually wrong in suggesting that I have ever suggested a Lowest Common Denominator strategy. I have never advocated non-qualifiers or partial qualfiers used by other schools and I have advocated only limited use of JC transfers as long as we have a realistic pool from which to choose from. I have also advocated changes in curriculm that are almost universal in college football. Signing guys like Romo, Eckert and Chase who didn't have a single quality Division 1A offers ain't going to cut it. In fact, despite what the Pollyana's on this board might think I'm advocating the EXACT same standards and the EXACT same curriculm changes that I guarantee that Phil Bennett, Mike Cavan et al have all privately acknowldged are in fact neccessary for SMU to have a realistic chance of competing. Oh sure you won't hear them say so publically but it is in fact what they have indicated privately. Many of you Insiders know this for a fact but are simply signing the company tune. Assuming my Model were implemented we would still have among the toughest standards in Texas and definitely the WAC. At least 80-85% of all Division 1A program have the same or less restrictive policies. I'm not the wild-eyed radical you seem to suggest-instead it is SMU which is out-of step with the vast majority of schools in this country. The fact is that Division 1A Football is an expensive and changing environment. At some point this school has to decide whether it wants to compete in Division 1A or it can live with a real fan base that is shrinking to about 10,000-12,000, declining revenues and unsatisfactory results-Each of you need to take a stand. I am unapoligetic in strongly arguing that SMU must make the same concesssions and curriculm changes that all major universities in Texas have made including UT, A&M, Tech, Baylor, TCU, UH, UTEP, NTSU. The only exception is Rice and quite frankly no university in this country has achieved less in revenue sports of FB and BB than Rice. No bowl games in 44 years, no NCAA Tourney appearances in 34 years. Coincidentally, Rice's athletic finances are also in shambles. I'll live with the consequences either way-just make sure each of you have a real understanding of what is necessary to compete and are willing to live with the consequences of a futher deterioration of our program because you've been on the clock for 15 years now and we are just about circling the drain. And for god sakes be honest enough to realize those standards have placed our university at a substantial disadvantage.

[PK]

You are correct, you have never advocated the LCD approach to recruiting...nice post Stallion. I'm not sure what level of influence the faculty still holds over the admissions policies, but it appears to me they still have a fair amount...and that bothers me.

We often talk about comparing ourselves to TCU athletics and what they have done. The one thing I do know about TCU is that their governing board has a butt load of folks who are avid football supporters and although they are concerned about the academic standing of their university just like we are, they love their football. I'm not so sure our board, aside from Ford and the Hunts, gives much thought to football at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wish they would do something to prove it.

[Phil Fan]

Such as what?
Got any specific suggestions as to how the board could be more pro-football? I'm in favor of the idea, but I'm a little removed from the situation (I didn't go to SMU) -- just curious what specifics you see that might help.

[PK]

For instance, make transferring credits from JC's easier by accepting more hours for courses completed at JC's. Developing some degree programs more conducive to athletes that want to go into coaching after graduation. Not insisting that all atheletes be Harvard quality students (I'm exagerating here of course for emphasis). Dedicating the funding needed to compete...given that, for the time being anyway, the programs cannot be selfsufficient based upon gate receipts only.

[EastStang]

I've been out for a week seeing Boston and that real Ivy League school there and thought it might be worth chiming in about academics. SMU has a great reputation academically here in the east. People really believe that an SMU degree is worth something. I don't think any of us want to cheapen that view. If the choice is losing football games or losing jobs (I'll lose some football games). I don't believe that is the choice facing us right now. I think the question is one of tickering with some transfer hours and looking at the curriculum offered to accomodate not only the jock, but the co-ed looking for her mrs. degree (and their are some out there as well). I don't want us to start accepting 20 transfer hours for football (essentially getting credit for playing football at a JUCO) or Table Setting 101. But we ought to give credit for any academic course even if it is not offered at SMU. Suppose for example the student had taken a ton of hours in a foreign language not offered at SMU. Shouldn't those hours transfer as general elective credits (hopefully they do)?