Stallion, Kandy Atz and all

[LaTech77]

SMU, faithful, I'd like to say this about some of the discussions which have gone on here, and especially those on the Owlzone WAC board.

I think it's fine if you have issues about the academic qualifications of athletes at schools which compete in your conference. I do hate to see the discussion deteriorate into the mud slinging which has happened.

Yes, Louisiana Tech, Fresno State and at least two other WAC schools do accept some partial and non-qualifiers. As I understand it they are among some 41 Division 1-A schools nationwide who do this. If the WAC presidents wish to outlaw this for our conference I am certain we would abide by their ruling. If the NCAA says you can no longer do this, I am certain we would abide by that ruling.

Please understand that one or two posters who keep egging on this discussion over at the WAC board are absolute HATERS of Louisiana Tech. One absolutely refuses to state his reasons or his own school loyalty. The other is from a Division 1-AA school which Tech left behind as a competitor many years ago. He resents being left behind.

In response to some SMU posters who bring up all this discussion about qualifiers and non-qualifiers the tactic of some has been to dredge up SMU's past run-in with the NCAA. I assure you most fans of Louisiana Tech do not look at SMU as cheaters. We are pleased to be associated with your school in this athletic conference. Scores of Tech supporters look forward to attending games in Dallas when SMU hosts Tech. We do wish you seemed a little happier to have us as a conference mate, but we hope that will come with time.

Thank you, and I look forward to being at Moody in early March. Your Mustangs are starting to look like they could be one of the top three or four teams in the conference.

[Charleston Pony]

I don't think the discussion here has been to denigrate La Tech, or Fresno or San Jose or any of those programs who have chosen to allow partial and non-qualifiers. We recognize you are simply playing by the rules the WAC allows. I think most SMU fans would prefer not to have to compete against schools who allow partial and non-qualifiers, but we don't exactly have many options these days. We dug our own grave when we brought on the death penalty, so we have to live with that.

I think the point Stallion and others have made on this board is that SMU (and Rice, Tulsa and others who choose not to admit "academic risks") are not competing on the proverbial "level playing field" in the WAC. I think the discussion began in response to those success starved SMU faithful who would proclaim SMU future WAC champs by virtue of the verbal commitments that have been reported for the recruiting class of 2003.

You've got to admit...if and when SMU starts fielding teams that can compete for WAC championships, this whole "you take non-qualifiers" thing should make for some pretty healthy rivalries. For purely geographical proximity reasons, I suspect the chances that SMU/La Tech can develop a rivalry are much better than SMU/Fresno.

[SMU91]

From a background of growing up watching and playing for SMU in the southwest confrence, the WAC is obviously a disapointing confrence to be in. Saying that, Fresno & LA tech has brought some national attention to the WAC. They are not Texas or the Aggies, but we should be lucky to have them. What kind of confrence would we have without them.