Class?....You mean I gotta go to class?

[mr. pony]

Plus,
I thought the plan for SMU was to go to a bowl WITH a high graduation rate.
Right? Become a model for how to do it right?

[PlanoStang]

I think this thread speaks to the issue of means to an end and where the line should be drawn when recruiting athletes. Do we recruit athletes who will help us win regardless of academic ability? Or do we want players who will go to SMU, get a degree and be successful in life? Or somewhere in between? UT obviously has taken the first approach. We have taken the second approach. Somewhere there is a happy medium point where we admit enough players to win, but still have plenty graduate and move on to greater things. My view is that out of 80 scholarship athletes, 56 should graduate in 5 years. That's roughly 6 players in each class who would be termed "academic risks". The problem is that for A&M, there are 40 academic risks and for UT 56 academic risks. They can go two deep with virtually anyone they want. We can't. That is a difference that makes it very hard to beat them.

I DON'T call it the BIG SMELVE for nothing.

[mrydel]

Plus,
I thought the plan for SMU was to go to a bowl WITH a high graduation rate.
Right? Become a model for how to do it right?

Sounds good on paper but so did the Flying Wishbone. Talent, speed and muscle will beat "think" most every time. If you can not get the same quality players as the opposition you are going to have to lower yourself to a lesser opponent. You will never see the debate team in the Rose Bowl other than perhaps in the stands discussing this topic.

[mr. pony]

Oh, really.
Ever heard of Notre Dame?
It CAN be done.

[mrydel]

Yeah. It's a shame ND can't get any good athletes to come to their school. Only brainiacs. Check the score of the last time we played ND using your theory for recruiting.