PonyFans.com

From CNNSI's Truth and Rumors and originally from the New York Daily News.

Alabama coach Nick Saban fired a shot at South Florida's admissions policy. "There are a significant amount of players who don't qualify and they end up being pretty good players at some other schools," Saban said in an interview with the Birmingham News. "I think there are six guys starting on the South Florida defense who probably would have gone to Florida or Florida State, but Florida and FSU couldn't take them." Cheap shot? It certainly came off that way to USF coach Jim Leavitt, a rising star who did not care for someone dumping mud on his team's historic accomplishment.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... out-1.html

Big East allows non-qualifiers(new term for partial or non-qualifiers) don't they. The SEC I don't believe allows non-qualifiers. The SEC had something like 44 players from 9 teams who signed but did not enroll in school this year-2007 alone. See Enrolled Rivals Rankings I cited the other day. In truth, the SEC would sign a whole lot more of these kids if they didn't have a rule against. This is what has been happening for years. Some conferences restrict these players-some do not. Some schools within conferences do and some do not. These 44 players are only the tip of the iceburg. Multiply that by 5 years and multiply it again by the number of conferences that restrict non-qualifiers. Its a huge number. They are generally outstanding BCS conference prospects and they will end up somewhere. The conferences and schools that do not restrict them get a rather significant upgrade in talent because they surged into conferences and schools where they are allowed. Over the years teams like Fresno, Marshall, most of the MAC, many in the WAC and now the Big East. Is it a coicidence that the Big East is having a resurgence just as the ACC and SEC prohibit these kids. No-I've been saying for years these schools and conferences have a major advantage that does not show up on recruiting rankings and make their Coaches look like genuises. SEC and Saban have a legitimate gripe. All teams should play by the same rules. I guess we know now where Saban comes down on that little discussion we had on this board the other day. BTW as far as I know SMU has never had a player who signed fail to qualify. But it was just the other day someone was stating that we should use the USF Model without fully understanding the implications of that statement. Its time SMU played by the same rules as everybody else in the NCAA with the provision that we not sign non-qualifiers. That is the logical, realistic alternative to improving our program.

im sorry, but saban has no room to talk. bama is one of the dumbest schools in the country. a guy in my high school got in with a 1.9 GPA and 990 SATs from out of state. seriously, this is ridiculous. im going to visit a friend there for the second time and the people i have met are not the brightest crayons in the box...

what possible relevance does that comment have to admission of althletes under NCAA rules. ZEEEERRRRROOOOO. With the rare exception, admissions of althletes are based upon NCAA minimum qualification standards-not the school 's admission policies for the general student population.

The conferences that allow nonqualifiers are the WAC, C-USA, MAC, Sunbest and Big East right? The only non-BCS conference to bar them is the Mountain West, right?

Stallion doesn't want non-qualifiers at SMU, so I am not sure what the point of his diatribe is. If it is that other schools take kids that SMU doesn't, we already knew that.

the post is to explain the competitive environment in which we are expected to compete. It also points out that what I propose is not a radical, borderline position. Rather, SMU can adjust its standards and still be well within the standards of fair play.

Who wants to play fair? I want to win.

Stallion wrote:the post is to explain the competitive environment in which we are expected to compete. It also points out that what I propose is not a radical, borderline position. Rather, SMU can adjust its standards and still be well within the standards of fair play.

So, explain to me, how are we different than other schools who also do not accept non-qualifiers (i.e., Alabama)? Is there documented proof that a player has to have higher SAT/GPA scores to get into SMU than say Alabama? Maybe there is, I don't know. Do you?

Signing non-qualifiers is a dice roll that has worked out well for the Frogs in the past as they qualified over the spring or summer. I guess they can't do that anymore in the MWC.

EastStang wrote:Signing non-qualifiers is a dice roll that has worked out well for the Frogs in the past as they qualified over the spring or summer. I guess they can't do that anymore in the MWC.

Not sure that is how that works. If someone qualifies in the Spring after signing, I think are still qualified.

On national signing day, if you have 10 scholarships and you sign four non-qualifiers and they don't pan out, unless you can sign another late qualifier or JUCO, you didn't use your scholarships and will have to use them the next year and players that you might have signed will be already signed somewhere else. That's the dice roll.

If you aren't qualified until the Spring, you technically aren't a nonqualifier under NCAA rules. I think any school in any conference can take that risk.

that's what I call a late qualifier but its entirely my invention. SMU has taken very very few of these kids who were not definite qualifiers on signing date in February. But you can qualify at any time before August later in the year. What's my proof that SMU does not accept the same players as other schools-SMU has never had a kid FAIL to qualify. Note the SEC took 44 who DID NOT qualify-not to mention those that DID qualify late which probably would at least be another 40 and more. Baylor has had as many as 8 not qualify in a year, TCU has had as much as 3-4 not qualify in a year. Multiply this by 18 years since the DP and I feel very confident in claiming that SMU does not offer borderline qualifiers

I thought we did have a couple of kids not qualify. I think it was in Phil's first full class. I could be wrong.