PonyFans.com

Here is another one by Kate outlining the admissions process for athletes:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 2bc65.html

Any prospective student-athlete who has an SAT score below 900 or a grade point average under 2.5 as determined by SMU is sent to a five-person faculty subcommittee for a closer look.

yikes. they considered 17 of our signees to be borderline.

"among 17 football recruits who were considered by SMU's Faculty Athletic Admissions Subcommittee"

Don't know how well this system works. Based on the two articles, there have been 25 considerations over two years with 2 not being admitted. And it appears there is the possibility of 3 reviews (initial and two appeals).

We also have had two academic casualties this year (and possible one more that turned pro instead).

Academics does appear to be an issue for some of our players.

Coach Jones stated that the school was providing academic support for students starting this fall so part of that problem has been addressed.

As to admissions, we have a new process starting in Feb 2009. Stallion mentioned that this was a vast improvement over the previous process. Perhaps it needs some tweaking. However, 3 reviews seems sufficient particular since the AD is involved in one of those reviews.

We are not given the particulars of objective and subjective criteria the subcommittee uses, but that is the area that might need to be modified. That and the timing of decisions issue.

Since this process has been put in place, we have had > 90% acceptance into the University of marginal candidates for admission. This is an improvement over the previous process where there wasn't even consideration of these marginal candidates.

We had significant production from our Fr class last year and the results contributed to a winning season and a bowl victory. That is hardly evidence of a failure to get quality athletes into the program.

We don't have all the facts but we now at least understand the process. It may not be prefect but I am satisfied to let Jones, Orsini and, yes, Turner work the process and improves it.

A new learning center, will be where the old Mustang Club offices were on the third floor.

ALEX LIFESON wrote:A new learning center, will be where the old Mustang Club offices were on the third floor.

You mean that custodian closet with the coffee table and two old recliners?

Not that I expect anything except the party line, but where are these statements that were released "late Friday"?

The rejections of Brenham defensive back Jeremy Hall and offensive tackle Darryl Jackson of Lakewood, Calif., have drawn some SMU supporters' anger toward university president R. Gerald Turner, who is co-chairman of the reform-minded Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

True.

I find the comments regarding loosening the admissions policies highly condescending. The old policy was naive and unworkable. To even suggest that we loosened the policy from one that was a non-starter is insulting.

Tunks said Turner has asked him to review SMU's procedures in the aftermath of the rejections of Hall and Jackson. SMU is prepared to admit both students in January if they complete 12 transferable credits at an accredited two-year institution, a university spokesperson said.

Well, Turner at least asked for a review. Both students were given the JC option.

The article also says Hall's issue was the SAT.

I wonder if non-qualifiers even count in those numbers. For example the 5 in 2009 who went to JUCO and presumably were non-qualifiers-plus Ryan Clark who failed to qualify or graduate from JUCO. This article claims there were no rejections in 2009 and 8 marginal recruits were submitted. So really did we have 14 marginal signees in 2009 or just the 8. Seems like it would logically be 14 or SMU is admitting non-qualifiers. If so-why did they go to JUCO. Logically, this years numbers of marginal signees could be larger than 17 too if it doesn't include non-qualifiers. Apparently, flew right over Kate's head. The article does state: "Tunks said the late denials of some students can be attributed to having to wait on their final semesters of high school for enough information to make decisions or for the NCAA clearinghouse to approve an athlete." Apparently this committee may never get to consider recruits who do not pass the NCAA Clearinghouse. The more I see about this issue the more I believe the admission issues are more molehill than the Mountain we had to climb under Pye. I'm open to a consideration of more information-as we don't know the profile of those full qualifiers that were rejected. There was an inexcusable miscommunication though concerning the expectations of signed late qualifiers.

This piece seemed a bit slanted toward the administration's point of view and not the angry boosters.

Jones has said the school would accept "NCAA qualifiers" and this now seems to not be the case. That's the story IMO - regardless of stats the school is throwing out there in its defense. Am I missing something?

Stallion, I thought Ryan Clark was just in his first year of JC ('09-'10). Is that correct? Did he fail this first year, or was he there for two?

he failed his 2nd year-never graduated making him by definition a non-qualifier

What percentage of D1 schools have added requirements beyond the standards of the NCAA Clearinghouse? Is this common? If it is not, it would hardly seem that the playing field is all that level, despite the marked improvement in criteria for athletic admissions to SMU, does it?

I'm sure Stallion has some insight here?