PonyFans.com

Okay, based on the many discussions on the admissions issue, I am a little confused. I am getting the feeling that there isn't an overwhelming consensus as to where the 'line in the sand' should be drawn for the athletes. What say you?

Make it Level
admit anyone that is approved by the ncaa clearinghouse (except for behavior issues)

I’ll Take Almost Level, please
admit only those individuals which meet an SMU standard that is slightly above those of the ncaa clearinghouse. You can arbitrarily define what this is, but based upon prior discussions on this board, let’s say the ballpark is sub-2.5 GPA and a sub-700 SAT. BUT, note the existing parameters of the ncaa sliding scale (attached), ie low GPA has to accompany higher SAT, and low SAT has to accompany higher GPA.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/af2 ... 1ad6fc8b25

I Want It Moderately Level, and Hope for the Best
admit only those individuals who are better than the bare-bones athlete, but not quite at the academic level of the general student population. Again, for approximations sake, let’s say GPA greater than 2.5 or so, and SAT at least 700. BUT, again noting the sliding scale compensation on either measurement (see above).

It Shouldn’t Be Level, We’re SMU
admit only those individuals who are markedly closer to the parameters for general admission than those who just satisfy the ncaa clearinghouse standards.



Please note that I, obviously, created arbitrary GPA and SAT parameters in the categories. They are not rigid, and we have all had the discussions of where the actual numbers should lie in other threads. I am only wondering about the general spirit of YOUR intent for SMU.

interesting.

Pardon the pun, but the poll is slanted. Who is possibly going to argue against a "level playing field"? The key question is what is level? It's not NCAA minimum as not all of our competitors go that low. And, even if we agree that level equals the NCAA minimum, what is the cost of being fully level vs. almost level?

Ridiculous poll. Like ponyboy said, why would anyone argue against a "level playing field"? And please tell me the benefit the university gets from "almost level"? Wow, we didn't take someone with a 600 SAT but we did take someone with a 700 SAT. Great! Really setting the bar high ponies!

If we choose anything other than a level playing field, why the HELL are we paying $2 million for a coach? Football is either a priority, or it's not. Enough of this in-between, half a.ssed crap.

If your mission is to make the football team directly improve the university's academics, then only let in students with SAT >1400 and 3.5+ GPAs that want to play football. Because that's the only way the people playing football are going to directly improve our academic status. Until then, if the NCAA clears them to play, we are complete fools to think we are accomplishing anything by denying them admission.

ponyboy wrote:Pardon the pun, but the poll is slanted.

I like that. nice.

ponyboy wrote:Pardon the pun, but the poll is slanted. Who is possibly going to argue against a "level playing field"? The key question is what is level? It's not NCAA minimum as not all of our competitors go that low. And, even if we agree that level equals the NCAA minimum, what is the cost of being fully level vs. almost level?

yeah, I know the structure is somewhat loaded, but 'level' meant equal access to the complete pool of players available by the ncaa clearinghouse standards. maybe, I'm wrong, but I think most of us see that as giving a program the most even odds of competing with everyone out there (if coaching, program support, etc are in place). plus, based on Stallion's prior comments elsewhere, I am somewhat reasonably assuming (but, could be wrong) that the vast majority (like 85% or so) of the other D1 programs (our competitors) are using the ncaa clearinghouse standards. to be clear, Stallion made that assessment, as he said, based on the old ncaa standards just before the latest sliding scale change, but thought it was a fair guess that the same percentage of programs (ie, most) would adjust to the current standard/change. At least, that's how I took his comments and he didn't correct me.

and, yes, there are a jillion other variables involved in leveling the playing field, but this was thrown out just to get an idea of people's thoughts on the admission standards question. I started out thinking we were all in the same boat -- minimum ncaa requirements -- but have since realized that everyone has their own valid take on things.

and, of course, from any of the perspectives, one should ask "at what cost?"

Somehow I think Stallion will like this

It's the model, stupid

SMU2007 wrote:Ridiculous poll. Like ponyboy said, why would anyone argue against a "level playing field"? And please tell me the benefit the university gets from "almost level"? Wow, we didn't take someone with a 600 SAT but we did take someone with a 700 SAT. Great! Really setting the bar high ponies!

If we choose anything other than a level playing field, why the HELL are we paying $2 million for a coach? Football is either a priority, or it's not. Enough of this in-between, half a.ssed crap.

If your mission is to make the football team directly improve the university's academics, then only let in students with SAT >1400 and 3.5+ GPAs that want to play football. Because that's the only way the people playing football are going to directly improve our academic status. Until then, if the NCAA clears them to play, we are complete fools to think we are accomplishing anything by denying them admission.

all valid points. but, aren't you a bit surprised that some/a few others answered differently?
I am. that's sorta why I posted it. I just wanted to see where people were at.

not looking to argue the merits of any of the positions here. I think we've done that lots on the other threads. just wanted a snapshot of the group.
like I said, I started out a couple of weeks ago believing that 100% would vote with the first option. sometimes it helps to pause and reflect, I think.

RGV Pony wrote:Somehow I think Stallion will like this

It's the model, stupid

lol.... I'm waiting.

I would think a whole bunch more than 15% would not admit a full qualifier with a sub 700 SAT. Heck last week we found 9 recruits at 5 schools that denied admission to full qualifiers within the last month. None of those are the traditional schools which clearly retain higher standards. That's an area where I don't have a estimate. Look for schools that have a bunch of
non-qualiers over an extended period- might be a hint because when these recruits commit 1 1/2 years before admission then sooner or later those schools will have non qualifiers show up on their commitment list because they are pushing the margins.

Stallion wrote:I would think a whole bunch more than 15% would not admit a full qualifier with a sub 700 SAT. Heck last week we found 9 recruits at 5 schools that denied admission to full qualifiers within the last month. None of those are the traditional schools which clearly retain higher standards. That's an area where I don't have a estimate. Look for schools that don't have many non-qualiers over an extended period might be a hint because when these recruits commit 1 1/2 years before admission then sooner or later those schools will have non qualifiers show up on their commitment list because they are pushing the margins.

okay, I stand corrected.
might your stab-in-the-dark guess be as low as 50% of schools? Your guess would be useful, as my guess would be worthless, as I have no historical knowledge.

oh yeah, I was going to give you credit for the ncaa reference sheet included above, but ran out of room.

ponyboy wrote:And, even if we agree that level equals the NCAA minimum, what is the cost of being fully level vs. almost level?

No cost whatsoever.

jtstang wrote:

ponyboy wrote:And, even if we agree that level equals the NCAA minimum, what is the cost of being fully level vs. almost level?

No cost whatsoever.

hmm..I think, I've learned from other's comments that some would consider the associated cost might include
- ego
- political posture
- perceived tainting of institutional prestige

not arguing for any of these. just have come to learn that some of this may be in play, at least in the thought processes of others.

Why do people continue to hold the idea that allowing a few potential football athletes into school is somehow going to "lessen our institutional prestige"? SMU has done a good enough job on its own without the help of any marginal student athletes to tarnish its own image and/or reputation. The entire allotment of football scholarships makes up less than 1% of the total student body...it's ridiculous to think that a couple of marginal or sub par recruits are going to somehow hammer SMU's national ranking. I'm not necessarily arguing for their admission, but with the multiple larger, more public, and more important problems SMU has with its image and reputation, sub-standard revenue athletes ought to fall way down on the list. It's a stupid argument to make.

They want us to win, but they want us to do it

with one hand tied behind our back.