Franchione to the Hilltop?

[SMU Football Blog]

I am proud of the academic reputation of this school, too. Such that it is. Frankly, I think it could be better. We still admit 2 out of 3 and graduate 2 out of 3. For every dumb as a brick football player the faculty complains of, there are 3 students that are dumb as bricks not playing sports (I am not making those numbers up). Like it or not, this school still has its fair share of Paris Hilton wanna be's and dumb as dirt frat guys who will be shuttled off to an office in daddy's company where they won't do too much harm.

I do know that requiring athletes to be rhodes scholars does nothing for our academic reputation.

[Hilltopper]

.... They don't expect math majors to be stellar in their Wellness 2: Running class.... why expect athletes to be stellar in math?

The first half of that is true. But with regard to your question: I don't expect all athletes to be stellar in a particular class, but if they're getting a free education at the school where I paid my own way, I do expect them to earn that education. I want them to kick tail on the field, too, but I also expect them to earn their degrees.

[couch 'em]

There are certain majors in this university that any idiot can graduate with. Trust me, I know some dirt-dumb people graduating cum laude, and I'm not talking about performance degrees like dance or music, either. If these people can come in and dominate, any football player smart enough to remember plays can at least squeek through. And I'm ok with that.

Personally, I don't see the difference between dance and football.... I'm surprised there aren't universities with a major called Football. You could have players learn about coaching theory, nutrition, anatomy, communication skills, maybe some marketing. Much like dance majors, they would have to be proficient at both playing football and at the more intellectual aspects. It would prepare these guys for doing what they love - anything to do with football. Most won't end up playing in the NFL, but most dance majors don't end up dancing for a living either.

[DiamondM75]

Try this one:

kinesiology -

The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans.

The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement.

[abezontar]

Even Rice has that major.

[SoCal_Pony]

But with regard to your question: I don't expect all athletes to be stellar in a particular class, but if they're getting a free education at the school where I paid my own way, I do expect them to earn that education.

That is an extraordinarily naïve post on your part....and symptomatic of the problems that exist at this University.

These college athletes bring in over a billion dollars per year in revenues to their schools….TV rights to the NCAA BB tournament alone are worth $545M per year.

[The XtC]

[quote="Hoop Fan"]Bennett has really frustrated me at times, especially the Baylor game go for it on 4th down move, and what Stallion pointed in #4. DeMyron, Phillips, Henderson, Givens, Turner, all should be emphasized more and allowed to make mistakes.

Having said all that, I still think Bennett is the right type fit for this job. It doesnt really matter what his overall record here is. What matters is this years record, quality wins, recruiting ability and our alternatives frankly. As we sit here right now, does he have a good chance to turn this thing around or not? If the anwser is no, then you gotta change. If the anwser is yes, then what his record was in 2003 and how many times he lost to Rice doesnt matter at this point. We all know he had nothing to work with when he got here. Beating Rice tomorrow is a must, but as easy as this years schedule is relative to the BCS, its still harder than previous years by quite a bit. No San Jose and Nevadas on the schedule this year, and no Tulsa at home. We blew the ECU game, but thats probably the only game on the schedule that Stallion or anyone else really looked at and expected to win based on ability.[/quote]

I've seen a couple of other posts where this years schedule was called tougher or the conference was referred to as tougher this year over last, and I must respectfully disagree.

Four teams from last year return, TCU, Rice, Tulsa and UTEP. Tulsa is a little stronger, but Rice is definitely weaker than last season. For the most part, though, those 4 are a wash.

In our non-conference games, Tech and Oklahoma State were replaced with Baylor and A&M. Tech and OSU both went to bowl games last year, neither Baylor or the aggies are likely to be bowling this year.

In conference, there are no teams in C-USA that are comparable to Fresno State or Boise State. UTEP might be close, but they are a carry-over from last season. ECU went winless last year, they were actually below San Jose State in the sagarin rankings. Nevada won 5 games last year, they came into their game with us needing a win to be bowl eligible. Replacing Nevada this year is Tulane, a basically homeless team whose only other win is a 1-AA team. Houston is a good team, but not comparable to Boise or Fresno. UAB will struggle to finish above .500, again not comparable to Boise or Fresno. That would leave Marshall vs. La. Tech, pretty much a wash. Actually, Marshall, UAB and La. Tech all seem close to equal to me, although I dont have much objective data on hand to suppor that. I'm sure I could find some if I looked.

Any way I look at it, this years schedule, both in and out of conference, is softer than last year. And less traveling.

[Hoop Fan]

Overall strength of schedule, you might be right, probably are. The distinction I draw is winnable games. Whether A&M this year is weaker than OSU last year, I don't know, but neither are winnable games for SMU at this point. So to me, those comparisons at the tougher end of the schedule are academic.

SMU is roughly the same team this year as last, probably marginally better. I saw 5 winnable games on last years schedule: Nevada, San Jose, Tulsa, @Rice and La Tech. I think there are or were 5 winnable games on paper on this years schedule: Baylor, ECU, @Tulsa, Rice and Tulane. The tiebreakers in my mind making this years schedule harder are Baylor is a Big 12 team separating them from Nevada, and Tulsa was an 11 point favorite over us this year, the experts expected a clear talent difference.

All very debatable, and a splitting hairs basically. We are not having a good year is the bottom line. But I do think we had two quality wins this year, compared to none last year. Despite the ECU and Tulsa disappointments, I'd rather do what we did this year than last year, so far.

[gostangs]

Don't be nieve - There is not one winning football team in america that does it with students - every top 20 program has non-students who could not give a flip about their education. SMU's academic reputation has nothing to do with the football team.