Essay Question

[StangEsq]

** Please see my post below for a revision/clarification of this question. :] **

Hypothetically speaking, would the integrity of the school as a whole be compromised by admitting 20 gifted football or basketball players with 800 SATs and 2.0 high school GPAs? If there are 5000 other students at the school, would those 20 individuals tarnish the reputation of the school? Would the accolades and notariety that the success of those programs may bring offset the negative aspect of admitting inferior students? Does the corresponding increase in applicants to the school that results from the success of football and basketball programs progvide such an offset? Should the same standards that apply to football and basketball players apply to a gifted painter, pianist, actor or writer who is far less talented in the classroom, but who has an opportunity to be successful in his field and benefit the school down the road?

Georgetown's basketball team is a good example of what I'm talking about. How has the type of "student" that Gtown recruits affected the reputation of the school as a whole?

Just interested in hearing some banter and repartee on the issue if anyone has time to think about it.

[This message has been edited by StangEsq (edited 01-27-2003).]

[Lawgrad]

The problem is that the students with a 2.0/800 SAT would stick out like a sore thumb at SMU, and someone in the media would jump all over the story. Can you see the headlines in the DMN: SMU sells integrity for wins? Being a small private university is much different than the largest state school, with 40,000 students and untold numbers of alumni. We don't have the majors to hide the less scholastic students, as the major state schools do, and ultimately that is a very important point. Do I think we need to institute an underwater basket weaving major? Absolutely not, we simply need to look for the best athletes that fit inside SMU's athletic and academic system.

I think Coach Bennett is doing the right thing now, recruiting good athletes who will not automatically fail in the classroom. Just because you are a good athlete does not mean that you have to be an idiot. Couple that with the fact that every year there is increased talk of graduation rates being tied to scholarships, and I think that we are headed down the right track.

[PX]

Socratic answer:

How will these 20 non-qualifiers (and an 800 SAT and 2.0 GPA is a non-qualifier, not partial) pay for their first years tuition, $28,000? Their status as non-qualifiers prevents them from accepting a scholarship.

Is it wise to have 20 players with only 3 years of eligibility?

How will these 20 academically unprepared students stay eligible and remain in school? What classes will they take? Dont tell me about "athlete friendly" majors, when they are freshmen they will have to take the same English and math and history classes everyone else takes, and thats where the problems begin.

What BCS conference would ever consider admitting a school that has 20 non-qualifiers playing for them? None of the BCS conferences admit that kind of student, and thats one of the reasons why none of those leagues will touch Fresno. Very few would disagree that our biggest problem is the expense and lack of visibility from playing in the WAC. If you begin to play the Non-qualifier game, there arent going to be a whole lot of other options.

Does admitting those 20 players guarantee success? San Jose State will apparently take anyone, and bend over backwards to keep them eligible, yet they dont seem to be getting any of these accolades or notoriety you mention. Their football teams is mediocre at best, and their basketball team is a laughing stock.

The first question is really the important one, how will you get these proposed athletes to come here if they have to pay their own tuition? The rest is really moot.

[Stallion]

I agree non-qualifiers are a non-issue at SMU because no one will pay the tuition. But it is an issue that affects the competitive balance in the WAC. Unless one understands what is going on at Fresno, Hawaii, San Jose, and Louisiana Tech among others it is difficult to understand just how hard the SMU Head Football and BB Head Coaching jobs are. BTW San Jose was easily the most improved team in the league last year since they started their concentration on JC players and will likely be moreso next year with Tyson Thompson.

[StangEsq]

I think my ignorance of the eligibility issue has caused me to post a flawed question. I wanted to pose a hypothetical that involved athletes that are eligible, but do not meet the admission standards of SMU.

[PX]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by StangEsq:
<B>I think my ignorance of the eligibility issue has caused me to post a flawed question. I wanted to pose a hypothetical that involved athletes that are eligible, but do not meet the admission standards of SMU. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The seperation between the students who can be admitted to SMU and those who are under NCAA minimums is a pretty thin margin. A few months ago I posted 4 examples of athletes in different sports that we offered scholarships to, and either signed to letters of intent or would have signed if they had chosen SMU, but who had not met NCAA minimums. On signing day it was public knowledge that we had offered to all four, and it was public knowledge that they had not made eligible test scores yet. Two I know of did make their scores and took D1 scholarships, one (Kelvin Cox) did not make an eligible score and did not enroll at SMU in the fall. The 4th one signed with another school, and I havent kept up with what happened to him.

Admission for prospective high school recruits is based on grades. The admissions office has stopped using SAT score as a criteria. All a recruit needs is the NCAA minimum to be eligible. There is no hard and fast minimum for grades, to be admitted. Good grades in core courses can more than make up for weak grades in Home economics. Also, the NCAA has a sliding scale for eligibility, weak grades require a higher SAT score and a student with better grades in the core courses can be eligible with a lower test score.
SMU requires one more core course than the NCAA minimum (NCAA recently raised their minimum to 14.) A core course is pretty much anything that isnt a remedial, PE, or vocational (auto shot etc.) class. Some schools offer as many as 300 classes that are certified as core courses. I posted the list of Dallas Carters core classes on the other board a few months ago, and can give you the link again if you want to look at it.
I know some people are going to scream and rant about the one core class, because its almost the last thing that sets us apart from the absolute lowest, scrape the bottom of the barrel, minimums. To me though, one class isnt a big deal. A college bound student shouldnt have a problem with taking 15 real classes in 4 years of high school. Thats just my opinion.

Anyway, my final response is you're going to have a hard time finding these 20 athletes that are eligible, but that cant get by admissions. If you look for them, I'm sure they are out there, but i dont know why you want to go to the trouble of seeking out guys who are academic risks, when apparently we were able to find a good group of players who were able to be admitted without trouble. And admitted early, I might add. Bennett had academic folders submitted for most of these recruits in July, and the majority were admitted before school started.