Spencer Tillman Says OU Down Because of Academic Restriction

[Stallion]

That's true about APR-so WHAT? APR is simply one measure or snap shot of a programs past overall academic success-and doesn't have a thing to do with individual student athlete eligibility either as original qualifier or retaining eligibility under Academic Progress Toward Degree requirements

That wasn't the thrust of my argument. APR is a minor annoyance although it kicked UCONN and a few others in the butt. Congrats you proved a point I already knew

Hate to break it to YOU but SMU is playing the game too now. See the College of Education which you claimed didn't exist for about 6 years after its creation by citing the alleged broken promises to June Jones to expand the curriculum for athletes. Promise KEPT. Promise has been IMPLEMENTED. Promise is being widely utilized by our athletic department

[SoCal_Pony]

MexMustang,

You are a long-time poster and obvious supporter of JJ.

Even though I can't say I agree with all your posts, many are insightful.

I think a lot of posters here on PF would like to hear your thoughts on JJ and the circumstances behind his departure. Also, that loon tiki wanted as a professor at SMU, were you aware of this and did you think it was a reasonable request.

Come on Mex, things are slow right now, this would be the post of the month, maybe the year.

[StallionsModelT]

Well, Stallion, as usual you never go behind the print...you really believe the Head Football Coach at OU would not publicly state his academics are clean and do not a pose a problem unless he has already found a way to circumvent them?

"No matter how high you raise the grade point average, athletes, their handlers and athletic directors at big-time programs will find nefarious ways of getting them eligible at any campus," said Gerald Gurney, a former president of the National Association for Academic Advisors for Athletics and Associate Athletic Director for Academics at the University of Oklahoma, where he is now a professor. He continues:

"By consistently simply asserting the GSR "more accurately assesses the academic success" of college athletes and steadfastly referring to GSR rates, NCAA members have convinced the media to almost exclusively use the new, more-favorable metric. Intentionally or not, the NCAA's APR and GSR metrics confuse the media, fans and the general public. Using the GSR and APR to tout graduation success and increased academic standards is undoubtedly savvy marketing and public relations, but these metrics are fundamentally nothing more than measures of how successful athletic departments are at keeping athletes eligible, and have increasingly fostered acts of academic dishonesty and devalued higher education in a frantic search for eligibility and retention points.
In a now established, high-minded annual ritual the NCAA announces the academic pariahs who have failed to live up to the association's commitment to education. What is readily apparent when this roll call is announced is that in today's big-time free-market college sports world, the NCAA -- in the name of increased academic standards -- sacrifices (non P-5) schools like Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Hampton and Jacksonville State in order to protect its core brands: March Madness and the next iteration of the Bowl Championship Series."

Just who do you believe? Two opinions, same school!

When are you going to have your huge expose on Turner that you promised months ago?

[dr rc]

Spencer Tillman Says OU Down Because of Academic Restriction

to be fair, when he was at OU Barry Switzer made sure all they had to be able to do was sign an X on their letter of intent.

[No Quarter]

This thread seems a good place to describe something that just happened in GA and ask how it might relate to the existing and coming NCAA eligibility requirements. One of the colleges in Atlanta is Georgia State University, long a commuter school and with night classes for students with full time jobs. For the last twenty years or so at least it also has had dorms though they are several city blocks away from most or all classroom buildings. In times past and maybe today GSU students parked at remote locations and were bussed to class - the main campus is urban and in down town Atlanta. There is at least one satellite GSU location in a north suburb. GSU was also regarded as fallback school for students who did not make it the University of GA or GA tech although the academics are changing. GSU has traditional college programs to the Phd level, a law school, and also studies leading to certificates. The current enrollment is about 30,000.

GSU basketball teams have made the NCAA tournament in some years when SMU did not and a football program has been started although it has not achieved a lot of success.

Another college in Atlanta is GA Perimeter College and it has multiple locations around town. It is a JUCO or commuter college with more or less relaxed admissions and has a variety of two year and certificate programs. GPC enrollment is about 20,000 and one supposes it includes a lot of part time students.

The current plan is to merge GSU and GPC and the combined operation will be the largest college in the state. There are questions that must be resolved about what seem to be very different admission standards and academics.

I wish I could have posed my questions with out the long back story. If an institution which is a state university and participates in NCAA Div I athletics offers two year degree programs and one year certificate can ball players be enrolled in those study plans and participate in college sports? I don't know. I would guess that those who have followed the NCAA admissions and eligibility rules have a ready answer. Is it a path for "one and done" athletes? Has it been tried somewhere and stopped?

[Stallion]

recruit would still have to meet NCAA initial eligibility admission standards and be enrolled in a 4 year program and advance under NCAA rules toward his degree in a 4 year major path. A lot of schools have agreements with Jucos. One example around here is Texas A&M and Blinn-College Station

[No Quarter]

recruit would still have to meet NCAA initial eligibility admission standards and be enrolled in a 4 year program and advance under NCAA rules toward his degree in a 4 year major path. A lot of schools have agreements with Jucos. One example around here is Texas A&M and Blinn-College Station

Thanks for the statement of the rule.

[dirtysouthpony]

This thread seems a good place to describe something that just happened in GA and ask how it might relate to the existing and coming NCAA eligibility requirements. One of the colleges in Atlanta is Georgia State University, long a commuter school and with night classes for students with full time jobs. For the last twenty years or so at least it also has had dorms though they are several city blocks away from most or all classroom buildings. In times past and maybe today GSU students parked at remote locations and were bussed to class - the main campus is urban and in down town Atlanta. There is at least one satellite GSU location in a north suburb. GSU was also regarded as fallback school for students who did not make it the University of GA or GA tech although the academics are changing. GSU has traditional college programs to the Phd level, a law school, and also studies leading to certificates. The current enrollment is about 30,000.

GSU basketball teams have made the NCAA tournament in some years when SMU did not and a football program has been started although it has not achieved a lot of success.

Another college in Atlanta is GA Perimeter College and it has multiple locations around town. It is a JUCO or commuter college with more or less relaxed admissions and has a variety of two year and certificate programs. GPC enrollment is about 20,000 and one supposes it includes a lot of part time students.

The current plan is to merge GSU and GPC and the combined operation will be the largest college in the state. There are questions that must be resolved about what seem to be very different admission standards and academics.

I wish I could have posed my questions with out the long back story. If an institution which is a state university and participates in NCAA Div I athletics offers two year degree programs and one year certificate can ball players be enrolled in those study plans and participate in college sports? I don't know. I would guess that those who have followed the NCAA admissions and eligibility rules have a ready answer. Is it a path for "one and done" athletes? Has it been tried somewhere and stopped?

Quarter, I live in metro Atlanta, and I have some of the same questions. I think Ga State will follow the same path as Boise St. , which was a former JC, if I remember correctly.

[Mexmustang]

We do have some information that we are debating whether to share or not. Certainly it would not do any good at all to raise these issues before the February signing date.

Our support of JJ was more (not all) an attack on the barriers and difficulties all our coaches have faced over the past two decades: the lack of institutional governance at SMU (another word for "institutional control"?), the apparent lack of athletic leadership from the top, that would have made whatever systems and committees in place far more friendly to the staff trying to compete with schools we wish to compete against and the number of verbal promises made directly to us (not some coach) that were simply not timely kept.

Do we think Coach Morris is a good hire? No! A great hire. But this is our fifth 'rodeo', six if we count Tom Mason. What makes this hire different? We hopefully believe that this hire will be laid at the feet of our President--he must take personal responsibility for his success, not an AD like the others. Somewhat like LB. Has his attitude changed? Let's see. But, nothing will ensure success like taking personal responsibility to make it happen. On the other hand in almost 30 years as President of Ole Miss and SMU he has not had a single conference championship in either MBB or football. Not only have we at SMU had four athletic directors and six football coaches during his tenure, but have had five annual finishes at the bottom or near bottom of all D-1 schools in America--that is over 100 institutions. I believe the record speaks for itself.

As far as Stallion's comment on our athletic admissions standards, we wouldn't disagree with him at all, save for the fact the formal academic acceptance committees must approve all student athletes have 1100 (not 1000 as I wrote earlier) or less SAT scores, not his assumption it begins at 850 or less. In terms of the available athletic pool, that is a huge number of athletes! This school is so obsessed with SAT averages, it misses the point that Baylor and TCU have not--that SAT scores are only part of the College and University by US News ranking system in fact only a little above 8% of the total weighting. Raising SAT scores is more a matter of recruiting students wanting to apply to an institution that reputation of the liberal arts programs (alone). Applications are based upon a number things--including athletic success and costs. We have had the worst athletic success in the past 30 years and the fastest growing tuition, fees and R&B costs. We have the highest tuition and fees of any major university in Texas and nearly twice the cost of the out of state costs of UT and A&M, and roughly 35% higher than Baylor of TCU. if you were to follow the US News rankings over the past two decades, SMU has been almost stagnant, while both TCU and Baylor have been rapidly gaining ground and would soon catch us if trend lines were valid predictors--which they are not. As many of my friends say, "they get it"! Raise the level of your athletic programs and money and applications will follow. How many of you are aware that both Baylor and TCU have achieved almost the same growth of endowment as SMU? in the Fall '13 report, TCU actually had a higher level! I just say, "A rising tide raises all boats".

[Stallion]

(see below)

[Stallion]

you continue to spew incorrect information. I know exactly what the screen is-its 900 SAT and 2.5 GPA. What you are failing to admit is that just about ALL fully qualified recruits are admitted to SMU anyway DESPITE the screen by the admission committee itself or through the appeal steps ending with President Turner. In June's first 2 classes about 23 out of 25 players that went through the screen were admitted-92% -100% were granted at least conditional admission and the consensus is even from June Jones that academic admissions are not the issue. Based on the Provost Report 2 years ago we had 1 guy admitted with a 620 SAT, 1 with a 740 SAT and about 7-8 that were at or below about an 830 SAT (which is equal to the old 700 SAT score under Prop 48 before the recentering of the SAT). For perspective that year we signed 15 minority FB and Basketball freshman recruits. Not all minorities come from poorly performing high schools or are marginal academic students subject to the screen. I only mentioned 850 SAT because that's probably the point at which it becomes more critical. I'm not even sure if that includes the many recruits taking the ACT since there was no indication that the graph included ACT scores. and of course it doesn't include JUCO transfers. NCAA admissions deal with a sliding scale which too many don't understand. The two who didn't pass the screen could conceivably scored in the 600-700s because the NCAA deemphasized the SAT if a kid manufactures a high GPA at say Diploma Mill Prep. Those guys might not be able to read

Here's the evidence of the exact requirements of the screen:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/colleg ... s-8503.ece

[Stallion]

One last thing about what a waste of time this stupid argument is- - the Class of 2016 which we are recruiting vigorously already requires a minimum 910 SAT and a 2.3 GPA on the sliding scale or they are going to have to sit for a mandatory Freshman Academic Redshirt. So SMU's screen is very close to the new NCAA screen for immediate eligibility- in fact SMU's SAT screen is 10 points lower. Particularly applicable to Basketball because how many freshman can you afford to sign who can't play their freshman year? How many Superstars are going to be willing to sit their freshman year instead of heading overseas

[Mexmustang]

The admission requirement for scholarship athletes is 1100 SAT or higher, 80 or higher on TOEFL for foreign athletes, and a GPA of 3.2 or higher on core high school courses or it must go to one of two academic acceptance committees. I would define that as screening.

Regardless, the NCAA REGS you mention don't come into effect until August 1. 2016. I thought our discussion was on the current REGS and processes not the future. Again I am not defending our ex-coach, I am trying to explain why SMU's system differs from other schools. He won't be here in 2016. If he did complain it was for his last recruiting year 2013-14.

Quite frankly I don't know how the NCAA can make any rule at this time pertaining to SAT scores. In fact I have not seen reference to a 900 score. You maybe correct, I just haven't seen it. (Currently 400 is the minimum if you can get a 3.55 GPA).

The SAT scoring system is going to change again in the spring of 2016 and it is rumored that the ACT score will be forced to change as well. I know that SAT is going back to 1600 with two tests--that is all I know. That is all the universities know at this point. Furthermore I don't know how the ACT will track the new SAT or if the ACT is going to change as well. I would hope that the NCAA would at least track the scores before changing the rules. How do they even know if a 900 score on today's test will equate to a 900 on the new test? Maybe the simple answer is it won't change. At this point no one knows. but if the system does change, I would think they would at least wait until several thousand take the test so it can be adequately profiled and scored a the bar set.

Back to SMU. Currently, anything less than 1100 and 3.2 goes into a committee system, but one having two committees. The first committee is basically controlled by the Provost, the Faculty Admissions Committee, which looks at SAT scores less than 1100 SAT but higher than 900 the second looks at those below 900 SAT with a minimum of 2.5,plus GPA--this so-called committee is limited to 35 per year. The complaint here is that a good deal of the 35 went unused in 2013-14. Also I've been told and cannot verify this that those declined in the first committee can't fall into the second committee for re-consideration. If so, we have a really confusing situation where athletes have say a 1000 SAT could be denied and a student having less than 900 is accepted--regardless of character or GPA issues. So this makes little sense.

FYI several athletes were denied admission in 2013-14--by the academic committee! Those having SAT scores in the mid-range of 1100-900. In addition several were submitted then withdrawn and some never submitted because coaches were aware of the pattern of acceptance and denial. Again, the screening begins at 1100, not the 900 you suggested. If character and academic fraud is not suspected then all should be admitted that have a 900 SAT and 2.5 gpa or higher. That wasn't the case last year, and certainly not the case in the last six years nor the last twenty!

Regarding our so-called Olympic sports, the effects of a mandatory (without appeal) TOEFL score has been very harmful. For years foreign athletes took TOEFL to help place them in English--but not for admissions. This is an English exam, but by admission very tricky. Now any foreign athlete making less than 70 is denied, without appeal. Two questions. Why measure English again if they have obviously done well on the SAT test, a test entirely written in English, with one section testing English grammar and vocabulary? Second, how did our former students not having to pass this exam do in the classroom? You guessed it, several made the dean's list, one had the highest GPA among all athletes and another went to SMU Law School and graduated at the top of his/her class.

This test as well as the SAT system together is coming under more and more scrutiny. Harvard University has been publicly debating the usefulness of the SAT in predicting classroom performance and is seriously considering dropping the requirement for admissions altogether. More and more schools are debating the cost (revenue) and value. Several have concluded the test is only seen to be a valid predictor in the first semester of the freshman year. Oh, and don't forget the debate regarding racial bias. (My God! How will the college ratings system and administrators handle that if Harvard and others drop the SAT requirement? We might have to measure a school by the quality and reputation of its educators (faculty) and educational value contributed as compared to cost!)

The current NCAA REGS are that student athletes having SAT scores of 900 and above must have a GPA of 2.3 to qualify and those at the other end having a 3.2 GPA could qualify with only a 540 SAT score! The REGS set out basically a straight line between GPA and SAT scores, inverse to one another--as one indicator improves the other declines, etc. For instance, a 3.0 GPA requires only a 620 SAT. TOEFL is not mentioned by the NCAA for foreign athletes.

What happens to the language pertaining to "qualification" not to be confused with "academic redshirting", in the Fall of 2016? I don't know. Maybe it stays the same, but as you have said not many schools like SMU will accept those that have to sit out. But, as well all know, athletes, handlers and athletic departments of major programs will find a way to make it work and get those athletes on the field.

There are two things that should be obvious, SMU's current admission standards and processes are not the same as the NCAA qualification guidelines and that secondly the process is complex and subject to being subjective. This is the problem high school coaches and athletes don't easily understand when dealing with us. A letter of intent and qualifying under the NCAA REGS don't mean they will be admitted, nor will the decision either good or bad, be timely. It only takes a few athletes who qualify with the NCAA, offered a scholarship, sign a letter of intent, then turned down April 1st to destroy our reputation.

What is worse, a head coach does not participate in the committee presentations at either level--he is not allowed to explain his recommendations in the committee meetings and be an advocate for his candidate.

I guess if the new 2016 REGS are applied in September of 2016 and the new SAT format adopted, the second committee (administrative approval) can be abolished altogether if we won't academically redshirt athletes.

Are you certain that the "academic redshirt" rule requires a 910 SAT in 2016. I can't find it. All I have seen is the increase in required high school GPA of 2.3 from effectively 2.0.

Have you seen the NCAA study regarding this GPA increase? The changes seems almost insignificant. The numbers of kids that on a pro forma basis that either would not qualify or have to academically redshirt, by raising the GPA bar from 2.0 to 2.3, based upon admissions in 2010 were 35.2% of all football players and 43.1%! I find those numbers staggering. Such that academic fraud will increase at major programs. I didn't find anything on the effects of raising the SAT score. Secondly, this demonstrates how only a slight difference in one requirement results in the disqualification of large number of recruits. Imagine, SMU having just a slightly higher standard than say TCU or Texas or Baylor, could prevent us from recruiting 35% of all high school football players. I knew it could be a large number, but not that significant.

[Stallion]

You are hopelessly delusional. We aren't talking about Jimmie from Highland Park trying out for the golf or tennis team or Sven from Sweden trying to make the Swim team. We are talking about Football and Basketball with high percentages of minorities from underperforming high schools.

Look I quoted university officials- on what the standards are for football and basketball. Here it is again-"Any prospective student-athlete who has an SAT score below 900 or a grade point average under 2.5 as determined by SMU is sent to a five-person faculty subcommittee for a closer look".You are wrong. Again 100% of June's 25 recruits in his first 2 classes whose scores were reviewed based on the above screen eventually got at least conditional admission.

You are embarrassing yourself. June Jones sucked-he brought this program down by sitting on his lazy [deleted]. He didn't do his job-he will never be hired again at a reputable program because he has been exposed. The SMU community now knows exactly what is necessary to recruit at this school and the contrast couldn't be more stark. Stop making [deleted] up-you are doing a disserve to the university.

PS You still haven't taken the time to understand the NCAA sliding scale or the mandatory freshman redshirt and you come on here and try to lead a protest movement on SMU admission standards? Stop wasting our time. Since you constantly misstate the interpretation of the rule and can't find something that is widely available and has been repeatedly discussed in the academic/athletic community for 3 years-here it is. See yellow marked on 2016 sliding scale

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_cen ... _Sheet.pdf

[Stallion]

BTW you're little hypothetical about Prospect A scoring a 620 on the Sat(English &Math) would be in about the bottom 6% of all students taking the SAT and Prospect B scoring a 520 would be in the bottom 1-2%. Do you really understand what you are talking about when you throw those numbers around as kids who should be admitted to SMU-because they can qualify under NCAA sliding scale at a Diploma Mill. We don't need those kids to compete and its embarrassing that anyone would suggest that they should be admitted to SMU. Hint: You have to go to bottom of 2nd page of this link. Ex. 260 English + 260 Math=520 SAT. You get 400 points for signing your name

http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalSe ... s-2012.pdf

The only thing you posted that shows you might actually learn something about the topic is you finally noticed that "based upon admissions in 2010 35.2% of all football players and 43.1% of all basketball recruits" will be subject to mandatory freshman redshirt (if they don't improve their scores). GET IT????? This ain't 1980 anymore-I've quoted those exact percentages dozens of times on this website. All schools are going to have to change to adjust to these new requirements. You are discovering this in 2015-I cited in 2012 or whenever the standards were passed. You are only 3 years behind me