Questions regarding athletic admissions ("the Model")

[SMU Football Blog]

I saved something of his on my home computer, but it was a lot longer than three months ago. I will try and find it tonight.

If I recall the two major issues are (i) transfers; and (ii) additional core course requirements above NCAA minimum.

I will point out I think the transfer issue may be a gray area right now and may very well be in a state of flux. For example, how does Serge go from JuCo to Minnesota to SMU in less than 9 months and there not be a problem?

[BRStang]

I saved something of his on my home computer, but it was a lot longer than three months ago. I will try and find it tonight.

If I recall the two major issues are (i) transfers; and (ii) additional core course requirements above NCAA minimum.

I will point out I think the transfer issue may be a gray area right now and may very well be in a state of flux. For example, how does Serge go from JuCo to Minnesota to SMU in less than 9 months and there not be a problem?

Thanks, Blog.

I'd just like to get a specific grasp on this seemingly vague notion that we somehow "don't compete on a level playing field with our natural and traditional rivals" when it comes to recruiting restrictions. It's been said for years repeatedly. If that's true, let's all get on the same page so we can begin to try to change it (some more). But we need to know specifically how we are still shooting ourselves in the foot. You know what I mean?

[abezontar]

I saved something of his on my home computer, but it was a lot longer than three months ago. I will try and find it tonight.

If I recall the two major issues are (i) transfers; and (ii) additional core course requirements above NCAA minimum.

I will point out I think the transfer issue may be a gray area right now and may very well be in a state of flux. For example, how does Serge go from JuCo to Minnesota to SMU in less than 9 months and there not be a problem?

With regards to the core course requirement, are we still above the NCAA minimum now that the NCAA has raised the number of required core courses (which I'm not 100% sure that they have done)?

[BRStang]

I saved something of his on my home computer, but it was a lot longer than three months ago. I will try and find it tonight.

If I recall the two major issues are (i) transfers; and (ii) additional core course requirements above NCAA minimum.

I will point out I think the transfer issue may be a gray area right now and may very well be in a state of flux. For example, how does Serge go from JuCo to Minnesota to SMU in less than 9 months and there not be a problem?

With regards to the core course requirement, are we still above the NCAA minimum now that the NCAA has raised the number of required core courses (which I'm not 100% sure that they have done)?

According to the NCAA website, "In Division I, the minimum number of core courses is 16 for students who enter a Division I school August 1, 2008 and after".

Currently, both SMU and the NCAA mandate 14 core courses.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/members ... ility.html

[SMU Football Blog]

If you want something that isn't vague, I am sorry but you will never get it. SMU doesn't talk about it. You can't actually know what a recruit's academic status is. For those two reasons, all you will ever get are some vague references. I suppose Bennett could go scorched earth and start talking if and when he is let go, but that is highly unlikely.

I heard a rumor a couple of years ago that the board of trustees athletics committee did a study and found that every single football player at Tulsa could have gotten into SMU and that extended to something like 85-90% of the football players at SMU's opponents overall. The purpose of such study was not real clear, but presumably it was being prepared to rebut any argument that a coach could not be successful. All attempts by me to get such a report were either met with cryptic denials or puzzled looks. Someone did say to me once, "Certainly, there were and are restrictions, but what if the argument that you can't get good athletes into SMU is nothing more than an excuse?" I freely admit such a report may not actually exist.

[CashMcMogulsonIII]

The members on the board don't want a good football team with revenue. One of the members flat out told me he didn't want the team to be like Texas' team. Even his wife gasped "Did you hear about that Texas player, getting arrested? I couldn't imagine that ever happening at SMU oh the horror" I say get rid of the board and Turner because they are not committed to this program.

[perunapower]

The members on the board don't want a good football team with revenue. One of the members flat out told me he didn't want the team to be like Texas' team. Even his wife gasped "Did you hear about that Texas player, getting arrested? I couldn't imagine that ever happening at SMU oh the horror" I say get rid of the board and Turner because they are not committed to this program.

Be like UT in what way? W's or criminal record? Prestige or press coverage? Would I like SMU to be as successful as UT has been in years past? Definitely. But that quote seems horribly mangled and taken out of context to fit your personal agenda.

[OR-See-Nee]

Before anyone jumps on me, I admit I am not well versed in recruiting and admissions issues. So I ask this question with genuine interest in the answer: are there different standards, with the NCAA or internally to SMU, regarding admissions for football recruits versus basketball recuits? I ask this because if the standards are the same, then how does coach Doh get a 24th nationally ranked class here (according to Hoopscoops.com) and we have trouble getting that type of classification on the football side of things? I know Rivals doesn't rate the basketball class nearly as high as hoopscoops.com. If there are different standards, why is that the case?

Thanks for the help.

[CashMcMogulsonIII]

The members on the board don't want a good football team with revenue. One of the members flat out told me he didn't want the team to be like Texas' team. Even his wife gasped "Did you hear about that Texas player, getting arrested? I couldn't imagine that ever happening at SMU oh the horror" I say get rid of the board and Turner because they are not committed to this program.

Be like UT in what way? W's or criminal record? Prestige or press coverage? Would I like SMU to be as successful as UT has been in years past? Definitely. But that quote seems horribly mangled and taken out of context to fit your personal agenda.

This quote was not taken out of context. The board member does not want to be as prestigious as Texas and have the national exposure or W's. He said "We don't want to be in a top conference with them a mid program is good enough" That is why the board of T's and Turner have no commitment to the program and all the fans should be outraged. It's not just the coaches it is the top of the School. Read mustangdad40's post and you figure it out. Even if we get a major coach the program will still suffer due to their lack of care.

[PonyKai]

The members on the board don't want a good football team with revenue. One of the members flat out told me he didn't want the team to be like Texas' team. Even his wife gasped "Did you hear about that Texas player, getting arrested? I couldn't imagine that ever happening at SMU oh the horror" I say get rid of the board and Turner because they are not committed to this program.

Be like UT in what way? W's or criminal record? Prestige or press coverage? Would I like SMU to be as successful as UT has been in years past? Definitely. But that quote seems horribly mangled and taken out of context to fit your personal agenda.

This quote was not taken out of context. The board member does not want to be as prestigious as Texas and have the national exposure or W's. He said "We don't want to be in a top conference with them a mid program is good enough" That is why the board of T's and Turner have no commitment to the program and all the fans should be outraged. It's not just the coaches it is the top of the School. Read mustangdad40's post and you figure it out. Even if we get a major coach the program will still suffer due to their lack of care.

I think it's unfair to cite Turner as a problem at this point. While I'm no scholar on his life's work, and no expert by any means, it seems that he has been very beneficial for the University and recognizes the fact that the most lasting part of his legacy will be athletics on the Hilltop.

Because of this, and the fact he appears to be a rational, reasonable person, as opposed to a certain president we had before, I think that he will let the Athletic Department do the right thing and not work against it. But I've been wrong before.