OPPOSE THE MILITANT FACULTY!!

George S. Patton · Post by **George S. Patton** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:07 am

If this university truly wants athletics to be a player on this campus, then the first step is to ensure that the faculty's power is reduced drastically.

They've carried too much influence for 20 years and have compromised how our admitting system and degree programs can open more doors for more athletes. It must end.

They aren't the only problem. We need organization in our football program that lacks it terribly.

And I'm going to keep preaching this message until He!! freezes over.

mr. pony · Post by **mr. pony** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:42 am

What's interesting about all this BS instituted after the DP is that it has nothing to do with what we got penalized for. We were PAYING PLAYERS. It wasn't that we were paying players with low grades. I assume we would have paid Rhodes Scholars too.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:51 am

I've been trying to convey that very point for years. The faculty used the vacuum in the athletic department when were not even allowed to have an Athletic Director for about 6 months to turn an Athletic cheating scandal into an alleged academic scandal which never existed. Never. There were zero allegations of academic dishonesty involved in the DP.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:05 pm

Absolutely right. When you read "A Payroll to Meet," do you know how much of the book is devoted to academics? Exactly one paragraph. Four sentences. That is it. I didn't even allege any wrongdoing.

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 pm

However, many of us probably had classes with some athletes pre death penalty when they were never seen or heard from except on test days. I remember seeing some senior players in my sophomore classes once in awhile. No scandels, true, but the players did have to pick and choose their classes very carefully. There were profs that let them skate and others that would automatically flunk them. I got the honor of following the football players at registration one year and got into some of the same sections of required humanities classes as they did. I figured if the prof curved, I'd be above the football players on the curve. Needless to say I got an "A". A technique that I highly recommend.

mr. pony · Post by **mr. pony** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:21 pm

Still doesn't have anything to do with admissions policy.

George S. Patton · Post by **George S. Patton** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:49 pm

mr. pony wrote:Still doesn't have anything to do with admissions policy.

The hell it doesn't. They were the ones who were brought into the equation when Pye overhauled everything. Why do you think it's been a nightmare to get some of these admissions standards changed.

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:17 pm

Still re-hashing this after 20-plus years? That's just sad.

No wonder so many folks around the country don't take us seriously.

Stop talking about the damn DP. Try looking forward and figuring out how you can help, rather than dwelling on a past that can not be changed.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:20 pm

I think the general should organize a good old fashion bra burning to protest the faculty.

I was going to say a draft card burning, but I did not want to offend his military sensibilities. Besides, I bet the Army gave him more than one bra.

mr. pony · Post by **mr. pony** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:23 pm

George S. Patton wrote:
mr. pony wrote:Still doesn't have anything to do with admissions policy.

The hell it doesn't. They were the ones who were brought into the equation when Pye overhauled everything. Why do you think it's been a nightmare to get some of these admissions standards changed.

No, I'm saying EastStang's comment has nothing to do with admissions.

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:26 pm

jtstang wrote:I think the general should organize a good old fashion bra burning to protest the faculty.

I was going to say a draft card burning, but I did not want to offend his military sensibilities. Besides, I bet the Army gave him more than one bra.

How about a plain old book-burning? That seems equally logical and proactive. Maybe we can find some copies of Huck Finn and torch them to show how the mean old factulty at SMU is ruining our lives.

George S. Patton · Post by **George S. Patton** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:36 pm

mr. pony wrote:
George S. Patton wrote:
mr. pony wrote:Still doesn't have anything to do with admissions policy.

The hell it doesn't. They were the ones who were brought into the equation when Pye overhauled everything. Why do you think it's been a nightmare to get some of these admissions standards changed.

No, I'm saying EastStang's comment has nothing to do with admissions.

OK.

Otto,
We are looking ahead with a new coach, staff, organization, etc. It's the militant faculty that would prefer to live in 1988.

I'm seeing too many people on this board who appeared to have blindly worshiped the ground the guys walk on. I had good relationships with several of them, but that didn't mean that I took everything as gospel and drank the Kool-Aid.

But these guys know what kind of power they wield and will do whatever it takes to keep it.

To hell with diplomacy, you get in their face and tell them, "This is what we're doing. You're either with us or against us.''

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:03 pm

Great plan.
I'm guessing you don't run a successful business.

Pony Soup · Post by **Pony Soup** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:05 pm

Yeah - and some B* of a teacher gave me a C in entrepreneurship because I never showed up. Whats up with that?

George S. Patton · Post by **George S. Patton** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:18 pm

Otto wrote:Great plan.
I'm guessing you don't run a successful business.

Had a record year. Thanks for asking.

C'mon, we all know this board is fantasy.