PonyFans.com

Other than making it easier for JUCO transfers to get credit for their hours, what ADDITIONAL changes to the recruiting model still need to be made to "level the playing field"?

It is my understanding that we have added more athletic-friendly majors, reduced the academic standards for admission of athletes and have reduced the number of hours required in a given academic year for athletes. I also understand that ALL schools now have the 14-core course initial eligibility requirement.

Is it just "further reductions" of such standards that is necessary or are there other issues? If it is just further reductions, what is the level of the standards now?

I'd like to get a firm grasp on what's at issue here so that perhaps Mustang Athletic supporters can continue to help force whatever changes need to be made. But we all need the information.

STALLION????

How about modeling our entrance standards on the Big 12? Probably not the NCAA minimum. I obviously don't know exactly where our standards are vis a vis other schools but I vote that we need to change/lower our admission standards before a new coach is hired. I used to think it was cool to be able to say our athletes had high admission standards but why should we be one of a small handful of schools in D1 who cares?

Alaric wrote:How about modeling our entrance standards on the Big 12? Probably not the NCAA minimum. I obviously don't know exactly where our standards are vis a vis other schools but I vote that we need to change/lower our admission standards before a new coach is hired. I used to think it was cool to be able to say our athletes had high admission standards but why should we be one of a small handful of schools in D1 who cares?

The lower admission standards of athletes hardly affects the university's cred. I don't see why people (in the university) refuse to believe this.

I still wait for the day people explain to me why a graduation rate for football players of 90% and a graduation rate the student body as a whole of 67% makes sense.

SMU Football Blog wrote:I still wait for the day people explain to me why a graduation rate for football players of 90% and a graduation rate the student body as a whole of 67% makes sense.

The university doesn't pay 100% of the tuition, room, board, and books for the student body as a whole. It does for football players.

Notice I didn't say that was a good explanation, nor whether I agreed with it. But that is an explanation.

stallion?

Anyone???

2112 wrote:stallion?

Maybe Rivals knows?

SMU Football Blog wrote:I still wait for the day people explain to me why a graduation rate for football players of 90% and a graduation rate the student body as a whole of 67% makes sense.

It is much harder for athletes to drink/drug/lazy themselves out of the university when they have coaches riding their [deleted] to go to class and get their stuff done.

bump...not going away.

Stallion, you, or someone like you, who raises the model as the real reason for failure need to address this. I cannot remember ever seeing a full list of specific examples of how we differ from other schools listed.

I agree with you that we have lower grade recruits, but perhaps that falls back on the coach as well.

I'm too busy right now Sorry. I did this within the last 3 months or so-maybe someone could find it.

Stallion wrote:I'm too busy right now Sorry. I did this within the last 3 months or so-maybe someone could find it.

Alert the MEDIA!

Stallion wrote:I'm too busy right now Sorry. I did this within the last 3 months or so-maybe someone could find it.

Gotcha. Maybe later?

I tried to search the database for Stallion's previous posts regarding problems with the model, etc. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the way they sort the results or what it pulls up. Regardless, I couldn't find any previous posts from Stallion specifically listing how SMU differs from other schools in recruiting restrictions. Not to say it doesn't exist, but I couldn't find it...

bump