Here's why we still lose (Daily Campus, 12/6)

by **mr. pony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:21 am

Former SMU faculty member Marshall Terry says low academic standards are why we got the DP and bemoans the pursuit of football success.

Why are we still losing? He and others like him are the problem, folks.

http://www.smudailycampus.com/media/sto ... 5820.shtml

by **QuikSStang** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:23 am

terrible article. but at least its consistent with the quality of the DC

by Me » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:24 am

That type of attitude at SMU is what makes me SICK!!!!!! Wake up and realize what a good football program can do for a school. I really don't think anyone has in mind to go back to the way things were legality speaking.

by **veerbone** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:26 am

That kind of attitude is why I chose Louisiana Tech over SMU. And you can tell that pencil pusher I said that.

by **mr. pony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:27 am

QuikSStang wrote:terrible article. but at least its consistent with the quality of the DC

I think they do a very good job. They have a lot going on with school, etc.

by **QuikSStang** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:37 am

we cannot have a team of players who got a gpa of 3.5 and 1400 SATs. i cant make the connection between high admission standards and a successful program. this guy is off his rocker

by **dcpony** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:40 am

veerbone wrote:That kind of attitude is why I chose Louisiana Tech over SMU. And you can tell that pencil pusher I said that.

Wow, I like football and obviously I didn't choose to go to SMU because of the football team. But LA Tech over SMU?????

I know LA Tech's had more success than SMU on the gridiron in the last twenty years but the school is probably the 4th or 5th best university in the state.

Hopefully you went there because you got a full-ride.

by **SMUer** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:48 am

QuikSStang wrote:we cannot have a team of players who got a gpa of 3.5 and 1400 SATs. i cant make the connection between high admission standards and a successful program. this guy is off his rocker

If you've hung around a group of football players in the dorms you'll know that a majority didn't get 1400s on their SATs...well, maybe they avg 1400 based on the new scale which corresponds to a 950 on the old. It's a horrible misconception if you think we're prancing little Einsteins out onto the field.

by **Billy Joe** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:55 am

The attitude reflected in the article is why most people quit attending games and many have quit donating to the Mustang Club. There is so much more than bricks and morters in attracting a recruit to your school. Why does Houston, UTEP, TCU, N. Texas, La. Tech, etc. outrecruit SMU? Admission policies.....they have a wider pool of recruits to attract from.....meanwhile, SMU is only going after the so-called 'student athletes'. This continued attitude and model will continue to produce more of the same results on the field.

by **Cadillac** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:05 am

Professor Terry wrote: "The excitement is about the Boulevard now," Terry said. "We've made it into an adverb."

Adverb? I thought it was a verb. But then, I'm not an English professor.

-CoS

by **OC Mustang** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:05 am

Prof. Terry is mistaken. Low recruiting standards didn't deliver the DP; uber-competitiveness and questionable ethics is what delivered the DP.

And I would point out that Galloway bought off in agreement with the restrictive standards, as did Turner (clearly) in his earlier comments last month. Clearly, SMU hasn't reconciled that the university, to date, hasn't the academic gravitas to be able to marry high standards with attracting higher-rated (and thus, according to Stallion, better playing) recruits. Hate to burst that scholarly bubble, but we are not Stanford (which, by the way, puts a whole lot more into their program than we do...and plays more competitively on the whole).

And finally, the kicker: neither students nor alumni (or for that matter, faculty) can rally together around a math or english class. And contrary to Prof. Terry's comments, the Boulevard doesn't cut it either.

by **SMUer** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:10 am

I think it's terrible that (some) faculty fail to realize that good athletics is not only a great recruiting tool for attracting athletes but it is also a wonderful way to attract the attention of better non-athlete students and generate even more revenue.

-Every time we're on TV or radio, free and paid-for advertising.
-Every time somebody buys our merchandise, revenue and free advertising. -Initial impressions, long-term loyalties and prevailing stereotypes are often made through media coverage of athletics. Often, it's the first time a student sees the school, the campus and the type of players/fans they have
-Everybody loves the atmosphere/pride a winning program creates in the school, even bookworms enjoy being able to watch/be a part of an exciting season or a championship season.

by **Pony^** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:17 am

I wonder if the DC reached G. Ford in Miami?

by **The Purple Hippo** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:19 am

Pony^ wrote:I wonder if the DC reached G. Ford in Miami?

they're waiting for me to do it and post it so they can claim credit

by **mustangxc** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:22 am

veerbone wrote:That kind of attitude is why I chose Louisiana Tech over SMU. And you can tell that pencil pusher I said that.

Did you enjoy that 42-1 run last night?

Here's why we still lose (Daily Campus, 12/6)

Here's why we still lose (Daily Campus, 12/6)

Who is online