PonyFans.com

Who at SMU can "level the playing field" so that we can field a competitive football team? Is it Dr. Turner, Board of Directors, faculty senate, etc? Who is making the school keep the policies that are not allowing it to be able to truly be able to compete for athlete/students rather than student/athletes? Would it really be so bad to sacrifice academics a little bit for athletes if it helped the school get positive attention because of the successful performance of our teams?

Others probably know more about this than me, but I've always heard the faculty senate has been the biggest problem.

The reality is that a level playing field will not effect SMU'S academic standing. It has not had an effect on TCU, Texas, Miami, USC, etc.

Wrong JR. It has had a positive affect.

I meant on the schools that have decent athletics, not SMU.

Remember the golden rule: He who has the gold rules.

The board of trustees can make anything happen. The faculty senate only has the authority given to it. Do you think the faculty senate wanted a new football stadium? Of course not. The faculty senate is only a barrier to the extent it is allowed to be a barrier.

If the board of trustees and other prominent alumni (I am saddened by the number of non-SMU alumni on the board), made an affirmative decision to get behind Mustang Football the same way TCU's did after the SWC breakup, we would not have these problems. Alas, the board of trustees, along with the majority of SMU alumni, have been complacent for too long in our acceptance of the abysmal state of SMU athletics. For too long we have accepted the death penalty as the cause of all of our problems, when in reality the source of the problems lies within, whether it be a conscious decision, lack of action, or just plain indifference.

Thanks Old Pony. I agree completely. With that being said, many of you do not like me, nor do you agree with my opinions on SMU athletics. But do not get mad at me. I only want SMU to win and I feel we have the potential to have very successful in revenue generating sports. I will stop pointing my finger at the administration and start pointing my finger at the other major problem...give up? It is the lack of support and attendance by the student and alumni...stay tuned.

Do you think, then, that it is any coincidence that Gerald J. Ford is the President of the Board?

It sounds like this guy wants what TCU has, and he did not get where is is by hearing "No" a lot.

Originally posted by OldPony:
Wrong JR. It has had a positive affect.

It can improve application volume, not academic reputation…

SMU sorely needs an improvement in application volume to diminish the current acceptance rate (77%); but a win at all costs attitude is dangerous. We should have standards on the level with the Pac 10 and ACC – JC transfers, red tags, no partial qualifiers. In an indirect way, the reduction of recruiting restrictions could help SMU’s academic standing, but a lot of other variables would have to work out perfectly.

TCU's application volume has swelled in the last 5 years, however their academic reputation has plummeted. They are on the fringe of the third tier in all of this year's rankers, and don't have a major school in the top 40 in America. Ten years ago, TCU was in the same pond with USC, SMU and Miami (if not, the leader of those four). Today, they are academically in the same pond as the University of Arizona and University of Alabama.

Texas has also taken a hit in the last 10 years, falling from a top 30 school to now out of the top 50. UT is still a fantastic university, but they haven’t kept up with the Joneses, and have slipped.

USC's reputation improved from mid second tier to top 35 over the last 10 years because of a capital campaign that improved their weaker schools. In fact, the athletic department became more stringent over the last decade because the Pac 10 barred the member universities from accepting partial qualifiers. The improvement in academic standing came when the Trojan football team went through the worst 5 years span in the last half-century of USC football.

The absence of recruiting restrictions will help our application volume tremendously; but a financial injection of donor dollars into SMU’s weaker schools is what will elevate our academic standing, and increase the value of our degrees. I think this year’s 0-for season will expatiate the need for change. The latter issue will be up to individual alumni to donate money, which can be tough in our current Bush economy.

Southland, your points are thought provoking.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Southland:
The latter issue will be up to individual alumni to donate money, which can be tough in our current Bush economy.

Current Bush economy??? What is that all about? Besides inheriting a recession from Clinton you may have missed 9/11. Of course the current news of 7%+ growth rate in the last quarter may have passed you by as well.

I guess Southland wanted "Lock Box" to win the election back in 2000.

It's Bush's economy, Bush's war and Bush's SMU football team. If they turn around over the next 12 months though, it's my ideas that did it and i was for it all the time.

Originally posted by Eddie P:
I guess Southland wanted "Lock Box" to win the election back in 2000.

Actually, I voted for Bush; but I don't blindly back a party with ignorance. I expect results, and Bush has fallen well short... (just as his father did) ...and I would hardly call the 2000 Internet correction on the market a recession.

For those that blindly do back the Bush, here is an interesting except on the war in Iraq that 60 minutes discussed on Sunday...

"I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero...
...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.

- President George H.W. Bush from his book, “A World Transformed.” (c) 1998

Southland-

Please don't trivialize something like the war on this site. If you want to debate that, go to CNN.com or somewhere like that...

<small>[ 11-05-2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Eddie P ]</small>