Mike Cavan's Recruiting Legacy

[PhirePhilBennett]

No, the "COMMITMENT" was "unveiled" shortly after Bennett was hired.

No, CAVAN was there for the ceremonies. It only helped his last recruiting class, though it was unveiled before his second to last was signed.

[PhirePhilBennett]

A major difference between Cavan and Bennett is that Cavan's sleepers never panned out. Bennett's have. Bennett is, IMHO, a much better talent evaluator.

Yeah, that's why he decided to start Cedric Dorsey in Game 1.

Then, in Game 2, he played the Richuel Massey as his starter (or primary player)

Then, for most of the season, he plays his 4th string RB Demyron Martin.

During this run, he plays his RB converted to DB, now back at RB Fred Taylor as the primary backup.

And in his final two games, starting with being up 7-0 and in good field position after Demyron gets 5 yards, on 2nd and 5 he inserts - JOHNEY FITZGERALD (who loses a few yards, and we punt on that seried...this shows ALSO that Bennett has no 'feel' for game-time personnel decisions).

Finally, he uses JFitz extensively in the final game.

"We should have never moved him from RB" - Bennett

Nice evaluator of talent, I'd say. Looks more like trial and error.

But at least he didn't take over half the season to find ShanD, who was even more dominant than Martin.

I agree that Bennett has a lot to learn and improve at when it comes to in-game decision making. I wasn't commenting about that. But there can be no arguement that Bennett is a better evaluator when it comes to recruiting than Cavan. Period. Bennett, in his first few classes, has had to use a handful of scholarships on sleepers, just like Cavan did. But Bennett evaluates and finds talented players to fill those scholarships. Cavan was not able to do that.

There can be no argument that this roster is much faster and more athletic than it was under Cavan. Period.

I'll count the W's at the end of 2006. If we don't hit 8 then so what faster more athletic player -- therefore he can't coach.

[Stallion]

well that's about 1/2 year sooner than Bennett opened his eyes and realized DeMyron Martin could play. Its amazing that these same old tired criticisms about Cavan fit Bennett better:
1. couldn't develop offense
2. didn't realize he had star freshman RB on bench
3. had most of his best recruits leave school.

[SMU Football Blog]

Cavan couldn't even remember Charles' name before the game. Ask Rich Phillips.

And no, the Commitment was unveiled after Bennett became coach. Please don't make go find a link. Too late. The Commitment was unveiled on January 30, 2002. here is the link: http://www.smu.edu/forum/020201news3.html

Very odd that you think Cavan was there, because Bennett is quoted.

[SMUstang]

No, the "COMMITMENT" was "unveiled" shortly after Bennett was hired.

I think you are wrong about that. I retired in the summer of 2002. I distinctly remember "the commitment" coming out during basketball season at least a year or two prior to that. PB's first year was 2002, therefore it was unlikely that it came out after PB was hired. If you have some sort of proof when it came out I would like to see it.

[Stallion]

who in the hell cares about the damn commitment-it was just a scam to get you to pay more Mustang Club dues. What I am talking about are the major changes in the recruitment procedures which happened in December PRIOR to Cavan's last year. I have the press release on my computer at home which talks about the changes made in recruitment procedures. The Commitment-Geez.

[Roach]

.... No, CAVAN was there for the ceremonies. It only helped his last recruiting class, though it was unveiled before his second to last was signed.

That's funny. I could swear I remember Coach Bennett speaking at the ceremony.

And why are we re-hashing Coach Cavan on the eve of Signing Day? Sounds like there are folks with an axe to grind.

[PerunaPunch]

1. You may have something of a point. But I always blamed Cavan's offense on Larry Kueck's insipid play calling. I think it's premature to comment on Bennett's offense because he's never had a quality QB under center. Compare Bennett's freshman QBs and JUCO 2nd fiddles to Cavan who had a couple of NFL-calibre QBs.

2. Nope. The DeMyron Martin arguement doesn't hold water. Coach Bennett knew what he had in Martin and freely told anyone associated with the program that he thought he had a star in Martin. But in Martin's case, Bennett really wanted to redshirt him and let his O-line grow up and older. Plus Cedric Dorsey started putting up some nice numbers, so there was no reason to put Martin in before he was ready.

3. Maybe. It still amazes me the Cavan wasn't aware that Josh McCown was leaving the team until after it was done. Bennett has lost a few players too, but there have been reasons for most of them. I'd like to know which players you're referring to specifically. Depending on who you're talking about, you may or may not have a valid point. A good topic for conversation.

[SMU Football Blog]

If you have some sort of proof when it came out I would like to see it.

See above.

[SMU Football Blog]

.... No, CAVAN was there for the ceremonies. It only helped his last recruiting class, though it was unveiled before his second to last was signed.

That's funny. I could swear I remember Coach Bennett speaking at the ceremony.

And why are we re-hashing Coach Cavan on the eve of Signing Day? Sounds like there are folks with an axe to grind.

People are confusing the commitment with the easing of recruiting restrictions, which happened earlier. The commitment was about money, but it wasn't about spending more money, just raising more money.

[SMU Football Blog]

who in the hell cares about the damn commitment-it was just a scam to get you to pay more Mustang Club dues. What I am talking about are the major changes in the recruitment procedures which happened in December PRIOR to Cavan's last year. I have the press release on my computer at home which talks about the changes made in recruitment procedures. The Commitment-Geez.

Wow, Stallion. Can I come over and read it. It will prove how much cooler you are than me.

Naaaaahhhh...

November 14, 2000


SMU MODIFIES ADMISSION PROCEDURES FOR STUDENT ATHLETES


DALLAS (SMU) -- Southern Methodist University today announced that it is modifying procedures for the recruitment and admission of prospective student athletes to streamline the process, based on a study of practices at comparable institutions. While simplifying the process, the changes uphold SMU's commitment to admit only those students who have a reasonable chance of graduating from the University.

"It has been several years since SMU has examined its processes," says SMU President R. Gerald Turner. "For this reason, last April I requested that we begin a study that would include comparing our procedures with those of peer institutions. We have found that we can be more efficient in our processes without diminishing our ability to admit students who can meet our graduation expectations."

Turner emphasized that the changes reflect three basic criteria:

• It is in SMU's best interests for its intercollegiate athletics program to be competitive;

• Prospective student athletes should be admitted to SMU only if there is a reasonable probability that they will graduate within the standard four-or five-year period.

• SMU's recruitment and admissions procedures should be as "user friendly" as possible for everyone involved: prospective student athletes, recruiting coaches, admissions staff, and involved faculty.

The president's conclusions are based on information provided by two University committees: the SMU Athletic Council's Academic Subcommittee, chaired by Geological Sciences Professor Robert Gregory; and the Athletic Standards and Procedures Review Committee, co-chaired by Associate Provost Tom Tunks and Faculty Senate President Patricia Davis. In collecting information, the committees looked at procedures and collected data from nine peer institutions, as well as interviewed SMU coaches, admissions officers, faculty, and members of the Mustang Club.



New procedures are as follows:

Identification of Prospective Student Athletes

• The Director of Athletics and three head coaches (in football and men's and women's basketball) will establish a formal recruiting schedule starting at the end of the student's high school junior year. This procedure would enable early identification of potentially admissible student athletes by July 1 and allow time for focused recruitment of those students.

Campus Visits

• Invitations for official visits to campus may be extended at the coaches' discretion. Under NCAA guidelines, a student is eligible to make campus visits after submitting a standardized test score and an official transcript to the NCAA clearinghouse. However, SMU, unlike several other institutions studied, has not extended invitations for campus visits until the prospective student has been deemed admissible, a procedure that delays the recruitment process. While prospects are being courted by other institutions through early campus visits, SMU has been delayed in introducing some prospects to the advantages of the University.

"When faced with the complications built into our recruiting process, some prospective student athletes have shied away from pursuing SMU, thus narrowing our pool of prospects who are athletically and academically qualified to succeed at SMU," said Tom Tunks, co-chair of the Athletics Standards and Procedures Review Committee.

In allowing earlier campus visits, the new procedures state that, whenever possible, at least five days should elapse between the invitation and the campus visit. If the admission of the prospective student is not yet determined, SMU must inform the prospective student of that status in the official invitation letter.

Admission procedures

Procedures used to admit prospective student athletes should reflect actual admission practices over the past decade and SMU's success in graduating those admitted.

The record has shown that, under existing procedures, the Faculty Athletic Admissions Subcommittee typically has admitted prospective student athletes with SAT scores of 950 or above combined with G.P.A.s of 2.5 or higher because over time, their graduation rates have been similar to those of students with SAT scores of 1010 and G.P.A.s of 2.5 or above. Thus, the SAT score that determines which candidates will be reviewed by faculty can be adjusted downward. In addition, "the process can be simplified by shifting faculty involvement in decision-making from the prospects with the greatest potential for academic success to where it is needed most -- those prospects presenting more marginal academic credentials," says Associate Provost Tunks.

Accordingly, the review process will be streamlined. Senior-level admissions personnel will review categories of prospective student athletes that historically have resulted in routine admission decisions, using the same criteria and process as they do for all prospective students. A faculty committee will review the files of highest-risk prospective student athletes. In addition, all athletics admission decisions will be monitored twice each semester by the Faculty Athletic Admissions Subcommittee based upon summary data provided by the Office of Admissions. All athletic admissions and retention data are to be monitored yearly by the University Admissions Council, composed of faculty in addition to staff in student enrollment areas.

"Greater involvement of admissions personnel is consistent with the procedures of eight of the nine peer institutions interviewed," Turner said. "However, at SMU, we intend to continue faculty involvement in decision-making, focusing it on the cases in which their expertise and attention are most needed, in addition to continuing their important role as monitors."

Categories of Prospects and Procedures for Review

After initial screening of files for admissibility by the Athletics Department, the files of prospective student athletes will be forwarded to the Office of Admissions and processed in one of three ways, depending upon SAT and G.P.A. indicators of academic success.

• Category A prospects -- those with SAT scores of 950 or higher, and with G.P.A.s of 2.5 or above. These prospective students will receive a general admissions review. Senior admissions personnel, considering the same potential to graduate as applied to the student body, will process these applications. If admissions personnel are concerned about a prospect's academic preparation, the file may be submitted for further evaluation to the University Admissions Committee.

• Category B prospects -- those with SAT scores below 900, G.P.A. 3.0 or above; SAT scores 900-950, G.P.A. 2.5 or above; SAT scores above 1010, G.P.A below 2.5. Applicants with these credentials will be reviewed by the University Admissions Committee, composed of the Director of Admissions and senior admissions counselors who oversee the admissions process for the entire University. The criterion again will be the probable ability to graduate. The file may be forwarded to the Faculty Athletic Admissions Subcommittee if there are concerns about sufficient academic preparation.

• Category C -- prospects with SAT scores below 900 and G.P.A.s below 3.0, or SATs below 1010 and G.P.A.s below 2.5. Files of these prospective student athletes will be reviewed by the Faculty Athletic Admissions Subcommittee using the test scores and grade point averages and other information in the file. For these prospective students, the same judgment of potential to graduate will be applied. "These applications require the greatest amount of deliberation and closest scrutiny," says Faculty Senate President Pat Davis. "For this reason, they require the expertise of faculty to make informed decisions."

In addition, appeals of decisions made in categories B or C can be made.

"I wish to thank the committees who undertook this study and the many individuals who provided input and perspectives," Turner said. "The result will be a more efficient process. At the same time, the changes should not affect the most important standard at SMU: admitting only those students who have a reasonable expectation of graduating within a four- or five-year period. We want our student athletes to succeed both academically and athletically."

[Stallion]

well you don't have to come over now because that's the exact document I'm talking about. Compare the standards Mike Cavan had to recruit under with Phil Bennett and its laughable to suggest they are even remotely similar. Remember the above was seen as a HUGE improvement. Only one player hit the field for Cavan that was recruited under these "improved" standards. The entire rest of the team was recruited under more restrictive guidelines that even Phil Bennett has said would have been unacceptable. We also know that these 2000 standards have been substantially relaxed even more.

[SMUstang]

Very good SMU Football Blog. That will teach me not to doubt you. This does show that the entrance requirements were relaxed during Cavan's watch even though it had nothing to do with "the commitment".

[SMU Football Blog]

What happened to the posts that were in this thread last night? I know it was up to at least 45, now it is at 42. What gives?

[jtstang]

Dubya's cronies must've been domestic spying on the thread and deemed some of them to be threatening and removed them.