POLL: Level Playing Field........Or, Not?

[cutter]

Thank you. I am also trying to point out that UT apologists should realize that their players are failing at more than a 50% rate even though they have majors that are substantially less demanding than majors available to SMU players. This tells me a great deal about these recruits and their academic background.

Agreed, although there will continue to be the endless back-and-forth arguments as to the marginality of the athletes and standards present at UT and SMU. But, it always comes down to the obvious -- UT is an established program, SMU is not. How does SMU get there, if in fact, it really does intend to?

[Nacho]

don't level the playing field. that way we can lose with honor.

[cutter]

don't level the playing field. that way we can lose with honor.

lol

[Stallion]

No Topper is incorrect

The Big 12 Non-full qualifier rule is something to the effect that a school can only admit 2 such players for the ENTIRE ATHLETIC PROGRAM. Only 1 in a two year period can be in the same sport. One has to be for a Woman's Sport. Something close to that. I am aware Texas did admit one football player under that rule who had a learning disability because it was discussed in a story-I believe that was more than 5 years ago. Nebraska used their on that DE whose had hearing problems and used sign language. It is absolutely incorrect that UT has utilized the rule to get a substantial or more than a small few eligible over the history of the Big 12. This is kind of crap people regurgitate without wanting to know the truth.

[Stallion]

Here is a statement from an article on the rule. I didn't add the entire article because it had old SAT/GPA/Core information that would confuse the discussion even more

"Under the new Big 12 rules, only two male and two female partial qualifiers are allowed to enroll each year, with no more than one athlete in each sport. And nonqualifiers aren't accepted at all. They must go to junior college."

Here is the original article but do not assume any of those standards are still NCAA admission criteria. Core has gone up-SAT has been deemphasized way way down-that's what we are really talking about. Do all football programs go with the deemphasized SAT. I don't think so.

http://www.allsands.com/sports/bigsport_wie_gn.htm

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

I am also trying to point out that UT apologists should realize that their players are failing at more than a 50% rate even though they have majors that are substantially less demanding than majors available to SMU players. This tells me a great deal about these recruits and their academcic background.

Topper this is just once again more of the typical Stallion "boo SMU and everyone else is wonderful".

Read between Stallion's lines and it is clear is he is saying Texas has wonderful student athletes
and June Jones is recruiting morons. Again "Yea Texas / Boo SMU".

Of course anyone with a brain knows the list shown below are anything but Einsteins in the classroom...but I am sure Stallion will try and argue they are all fine young men that study real hard!


(this "gifted student" list is outdated with more arrests and "incidents" since)

[Topper]

Insane: I live a stone's throw from the UT campus, have a degree from there and even taught there a few years ago. The lengths UT fans go to coddle some of these guys, including illegal gifts freely and openly bestowed is amazing. Some of the players are fine guys and good students. A minority of them graduate even though they are enrolled in majors that are little more than remedial arts and crafts. Remember right before the Rose Bowl during their BCS National Championship (bogus-make believe event)? A slew of them were arrested for robbing and beating up homeless people. Why rob homeless people? To steal their drugs of course. If this happened at SMU it would have sent the entire Dallas community into a panic. In Austin? Business as usual.

[ALEX LIFESON]

So topper has a degree from ut, taught there, and still lives there? You would think that would end the conversation with Mack Brown's lap dog.

[Topper]

So topper has a degree from ut, taught there, and still lives there? You would think that would end the conversation with Mack Brown's lap dog.

Not proud of my UT connections. My SMU diploma is the only one hanging on the wall.

[cutter]

hmmmm...... with the 2 new impressive (pending?) commitments, maybe something less than a 'level playing field' is workable -- unless, of course, any of them have trouble qualifying, eh?

[gostangs]

I think we are confusing the argument - SMU currently has a requirement that even if they are qualifiers they have to pass the mysterious committee who decides if they have better then a 50% chance of graduating based on subjective information. UT has no such requirement. We are not talking about NCAA qualifiers vs non qualifiers. If June had his pick of any NCAA qualfier plus 2 non qualifiers a year I think he would be happy - and that is UT's level.

Add to that fairly low UT bar (which I wish we had by the way) the fact that UT starts coaching their recruits very early how to get NCAA qualified, and then has numerous basketweaving places to stash them while they are being taken advantage of/educated and you get the results of that list that was posted earlier in this thread of those convicts. And yes, you eventually also get in the national championship game.

[cutter]

SMU currently has a requirement that even if they are qualifiers they have to pass the mysterious committee who decides if they have better then a 50% chance of graduating based on subjective information.

not quite.
"Any prospective student-athlete who has an SAT score below 900 or a grade point average under 2.5 as determined by SMU is sent to a five-person faculty subcommittee for a closer look.
"Subcommittee members must determine if the student has at least a 50 percent chance of graduating from SMU. If so, they should admit that student. " - DMN
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 2bc65.html

So, it seems:
ncaa clearinghouse qualified + (GPA 2.5+) + (SAT 900+) = admitted to SMU

As we've all discussed, the rub comes in the player that falls below the GPA and SAT parameters of SMU. Hence, this poll.

[cutter]

unless, of course, any of them have trouble qualifying, eh?

I think we are confusing the argument. We are not talking about NCAA qualifiers vs non qualifiers.

oops. you're right.
I meant to imply that if the new guys have trouble meeting the SMU 'qualifying' criteria.
sorry.

[Pony41]

why are we comparing SMU to Big 12 Schools - how does our admissions policies compare to C-USA West schools? Even if we had the same admission policies of Texas and ATM, etc. we would still be at a disadvantage to them.

I thought June said this past recruiting class was the best he has ever had - must have included his classes that got him 12-0 at Hawaii? How is that a huge disadvantage to SMU? We have some of the highest recruits post DP last year and in the verbal commit class for 2011.

SMU hasn't been competitive for 25 years, it will take some time to become a traditional power-house. I don't like how the university handled rejecting the two kids at such a late date - that was not right. But if coaches and admissions get on the same page it shouldn't happen again.

Yes I would love for SMU to be in some form of the Big12 or old SWC but even admitting all qualifiers won't do that for us. It hurts to loose Wilkerson and LeRibus because of grades more than the two recruits. Hopefully that gets fixed quickly.

[Topper]

I think we compare SMU to Big 12 schools because:

1. We used to be in the same conference as 4 of them
2. We compete for recruits with all of them.
4. We would like to some day play on par with them.
5. We want to compete for a national championship.
6. We would like to beat them if any of them agree to play us.
7. We used to get many of the recuits that currently sign with them.