Non-Qualifiers

[Stallion]

...if you want to read one of the more interesting articles I've seen which explains how programs such as SMU can get beat on the field by seemingly inferior talented teams please see the Article posted by Kandy Antz on the WAC Fan Forum. Combined with our own recruiting restrictions which have admittedly have been eased this article explains how schools like Fresno St, Louisiana Tech and San Jose St load up on BCS caliber talent by accepting partial and non-qualifiers not to mention JC players. The problem is equally as important in BB. To all of you who blame the coaches at SMU for ALL our problems you can't understand the issues unless you understand what is going on as described in this article.

[Nacho]

Somehow we have assembled some pretty good talent on the b-ball court.

[Stallion]

...pretty good doesn't always cut it now does it. Read the article to learn why-understand that the majority of Fresno St top Basketball players over the last few years have been partial or non-qualifiers or JC players.

[gostangs]

I think we have identiied the probelm ad nauseum - what about a solution? Do we push the WAC for a higher bar relative to this? If Fresno gets hacked and leaves the conf. then good ridence - its not like the world is tuning in to see them, and the more likly result is they are forced to be more sincere in their interest in having student athletes instead of semi-pros. The same goes for La. Tech, although I don't sense they are as far down this road.

[Stallion]

well to be honest it appears Louisiana Tech might take as many or more than Fresno according to an article posted on the WAC Fan Forum a couple of days ago. Looks to me that La Tech will have an incredible class of SEC caliber recruits composed in great numbers of Non-qualifiers, partial qualifiers and JC players. It is EASILY a better class than SMU's according to the Insiders.

[gostangs]

I am sure you would also agree, this type of player would be 1) a lot more likely to end up in the police blotter, and 2) alot more likely to eventually fail out of school. Don't get my wrong - we should take action to pull up the bar, but La Tech's better class today will be thinned out consideribly relative to classes less dominated by non-qualifiers over the next year or two.

[Pony4Life]

Are there any of our football recruits who haven't qualified? Who?

[Stallion]

again I'm not saying we should sign a single non-qualifier or partial qualifier-I do think we ought to be able to sign 2-3 JC players a year to meet critical needs just as the vast majority of schools in the NCAA and ALL schools in Texas with the exception of Rice can. I also think we should be able to sign the usual NCAA minimum qualifier unless his transcript or record contains undesireable results. However, Fresno has and Louisiana Tech will beat us with the caliber of non-qualifiers and partial qualifiers unless we recruit at least as well as this year.

[Stallion]

according to Rivals there is at least 1 recruit that may not have a qualifying score on the ACT. He has a 17 ACT maybe PX or someone can confirm whether that is 1 point under or the exact minimum qualifying score for a kid with a high GPA-I've forgotten. But since that information is several months old, signing date is next week and he has a 3.6 GPA, I'd rather just see if he is able to sign on next Wednesday. Its been so long since that info was posted he would have had several opportunities to retake the test. He is a 2 star recruit. Note that this kid has a 3.6 GPA but not a qualifying score-this type of descrepancy happens all the time.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 01-28-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 01-28-2003).]

[PX]

Just the composite score isnt enough to go on anymore, the NCAA uses the sum of scores on the ACT not the composite or average. Even with a GPA that high he would need a sum of 68 to be eligible (4x17=68) so he would be skirting the edge. If his composite is really a 16.9, then he's short, if its 17.1 he's eligible. If he needed to, he could take the test again.
Being short of qualifying wouldnt stop a recruit from signing on signing day. They can still sign the Letter of Intent, just not the Grant-In-Aid with it. They would have until the end of August to achieve a qualifying score.

[Nacho]

If you want a "level playing field" then SMU will have to leave the WAC. La Tech, Fresno and SJSU aren't going to change because you don't like it.

[EastStang]

If any six members of the WAC voted to change the requirement, then the other schools would not be permitted to admit non-qualifiers. If that happened, FSU might jump and take Hawaii with them. One thing keeping FSU in the WAC is that we allow them to take non-qualifiers, if that changed they might go to the Mountain West. That threat might be enough to keep Boise State and Nevada from voting for such a proposal. La. Tech and SJS would have no where else to go and would probably stay.

[LaTech77]

Stallion, from what I can glean from our board's recruiting junkies it appears La Tech will probably take about 3 to 5 partial or non qualifiers in this class. I don't know how that compares with Fresno State and others.

[NoOracle]

trying to compete with schools who admit tons of partial qualifiers will only make smu a better team if it's progressive and takes the challenge. also, if i'm a good recruit, i'd rather play a nationally ranked LaTech than a LaTech that no one cares about

[ponyboy]

Stallion, you said above:

1) "I do think we ought to be able to sign 2-3 JC players a year to meet critical needs"

Remind me again what policy is prohibiting us from doing this. I thought we had no procedural impediments but can't remember why we haven't pursued JC transfers.

2) "I also think we should be able to sign the usual NCAA minimum qualifier unless his transcript or record contains undesireable results"

Didn't PX point out that we're just one core class above the bottom of the barrel NCAA minimum (NCAA is 14, we're 15)?

Thanks.