Stallion's Blue Chip Question Marks

[Stallion]

...based on the comments of recruits themselves, reports from recruiting services and reading between the lines of outstanding prospects who have not lined up visits, the following are superstar Texas players(at least 3 star) who apparently have eligibility issues-anyone who follows recruiting knows the quality of these recruits: RBs Marcus Cross, Charles Elix, Edgar Miller, Ronald Simmons, WRs Brandon Clark, Quenton Holman, Darrell Kitchen, Rashard Turner, Daniel Wofford, LM Lamar Williams, Ryan Kirkpatrick, Joseph Bryant,and Brad Girtman, TE Omar McKenzie. If eligible these kids would each receieve numerous offers a piece. There maybe 100 more 2 star kids with the same acdemic issues or kids who need time to develop in JC who might someday be outstanding prospects. These are not leftovers but outstanding prospects who someday find there way onto rosters at schools like San Jose St, La Tech, Nevada, Fresno et al. In fact San Jose St signed three Texas kids last year who would have fit in this mold in prior years and have added Tyson Thompson this year. Kids like this from across the country are some of the reasons SMU doesn't seem to be as competitive on the field as we would have hoped.

[Charleston Pony]

If Simmons has the grades that have been reported, he's probably worth taking a risk on. If he doesn't eventually qualify, we can always roll that 'ship into next year's relatively small class. Will be interesting to see the coaches' philosophy, but I'm guessing they won't waste a 'ship on a marginal prospect just to get maximum numbers in this class.

[Q fan]

I have a question regarding Stallion's post. I'm not quite sure how to word it, but I'll give it a shot.

Stallion names several quality prospects who he asserts will likely end up at schools like Fresno, San Jose, Nevada, etc. Do schools in the BCS conferences ever take these type of prospects? Or do the BCS conference have rules against taking partial or non-qualifiers? I guess, if the answer is that BCS schools do not consider these type of prospects, it bothers me a little that our conference allows teams to take players who are marginal (at best) classroom prospects. What is the story there?

Despite the problems that it may have caused on the field over the past decade or so, I am proud of our school for not recruiting the type of hooligans that populate the football and basketball rosters of some of our conference foes. One thing that really pleases me about this recruiting season is Bennett has shown that a non-BCS school like SMU, which doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel academically, can still attract quality recruits.

[Johnny Rock]

Q Fan, you make a good point that it is nice to see that SMU has recruited players that usually graduate. However, you mentioned SMU has attracted 'quality recruits' This recruiting class certainly has some of those 'quality recruits', which is evidenced by our recruits other scholarship offers. In the past, SMU has not been able to get 'quality recruits' due, in large part, to SMU's academic restrictions. While I am proud that many, if not most, of our athletes graduate, I certainly would like SMU to start competing with the other schools in our conference and other 'large' conference schools. SMU has made changes to its academic policies, which has helped tremendoulsy already. But SMU needs to do more. SMU appears to have its finest recruiting class in a decade. In large part,due to Bennett and his staff, our new facilities, and the changes in academic policies. As a semi-young alumni, I am in favor of lowering the standards even more, and competing on a level-playing field with every school. If this happens, SMU would become more competitive; create more alumni interest; and raise more money.

[PX]

Most of the BCS conferences have rules prohibiting or limiting the signing of partial and non-qualifiers. Players who arent fully qualfied after high school cannot acccept an athletic scholarship to a Division 1 school, so they must either pay their own way as freshmen (Prop 48) or go to Junior College. Players that sit out as Prop 48 casualties lose that first year of eligibility, but cant earn it back if they graduate from college in 4 years. The majority go to junior college, and the larger schools recruit them from there. A player that did not qualify out of high school must graduate from junior college and have a minimum of 48 transferable hours to accept a D1 scholarship. Stallion uses the example of Tyson Thompson who originally signed with TCU, but didnt qualify. Thompson apparently wanted to go to Nebraska, but Nebraska couldnt admit him, (transfer hours?) and he eventually signed with San Jose, something of a last resort.
Last year SMU had one recruit fail to qualify, and he's in a junior college now. I dont know if our coaches are still staying in touch with him, if he takes the right classes in JC he could transfer to SMU after next season. I've heard that all of this years commits but one have qualified already.
Its unlikely that SMU would ever have a recruit take the Prop 48 route, because he would have to pay his own way to school and no one is willing to lay out that much money when they can go to a JC for free. Most of the larger schools avoid guys who dont have a good chance to qualify, not just because of their conference rules, but also because its not wise to commit a scholarship to someone who is unlikely to be eligible, when you could use that scholarship somewhere else. Smaller schools are sometimes willing to take the risk, though, in hopes of getting an impact player. Schools like Fresno are more attractive to Prop 48 kid, because their tuition for in-state residents is much, much cheaper.