Debunking Stallion's Model (A rebuttal)

[BRStang]

Stallion, I have no interest in trying to prove you wrong, but I found a few problems with your analysis:

1. Your first 3 points are really one in the same: I agree, we have no “kinesiologyâ€

[Pony Soup]

I agree, the 0-12 season really did it. We enderstand when some say it was Cavan's players, but look who we play. I would hope that we could have at least out coached one team to a victory.

We do have some good players now but I think a better recruiter could really help get us going.

[MustangIcon]

Thought this might be helpfull to interject into these debates. I think this helps us because I would assume SMU required more than the minimum 14 "core courses" that were required by the NCAA. Now 16 "core courses" are required by the NCAA, so teams who accepted the mere 14 courses will now be required to increase that to meet NCAA standards. Maybe that puts us on equal footing.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/members ... ck_ref.pdf

[BRStang]

Thought this might be helpfull to interject into these debates. I think this helps us because I would assume SMU required more than the minimum 14 "core courses" that were required by the NCAA. Now 16 "core courses" are required by the NCAA, so teams who accepted the mere 14 courses will now be required to increase that to meet NCAA standards. Maybe that puts us on equal footing.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/members ... ck_ref.pdf

No, before 2005, we required 13 core courses. Now, we require 14, just like the NCAA minimum. In 2008, we both (SMU and NCAA) will move up to 16.

[MustangIcon]

Thought this might be helpfull to interject into these debates. I think this helps us because I would assume SMU required more than the minimum 14 "core courses" that were required by the NCAA. Now 16 "core courses" are required by the NCAA, so teams who accepted the mere 14 courses will now be required to increase that to meet NCAA standards. Maybe that puts us on equal footing.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/members ... ck_ref.pdf

No, before 2005, we required 13 core courses. Now, we require 14, just like the NCAA minimum. In 2008, we both (SMU and NCAA) will move up to 16.

Well, you know what they say when you assume things....

Thanks for the clarification.

[Stallion]

you want to cite a source for that statement-because its been discussed on here for years incluing by people working for the university. If you claim it changed. When did that happen.

[Stallion]

as for your claim about Tulane-you are wrong based upon Tulane's own report on its athletic department that was fully discussed on here. Surely someone remembers the discussion concerning the records showing concentration of majors in general studies type majors at both Rice and Tulane.

[Stallion]

you have also endorse NCAA requirements for GPA and SAT/ACT which are above NCAA minimum standards-apparently you too agree on handicapping SMU against 10 out of 12 schools on our schedule. Again, that's your opinion which you call reasonable-but let's get the facts straight that is a handicap against SMU's competition.

The following statement is total [deleted] and anyone with Rivals database knows it.

There is no evidence that we are any stricter than anyone else in this regard.

[BRStang]

you want to cite a source for that statement-because its been discussed on here for years incluing by people working for the university. If you claim it changed. When did that happen.

http://smumustangs.cstv.com/compliance/ ... pects.html

[BRStang]

as for your claim about Tulane-you are wrong based upon Tulane's own report on its athletic department that was fully discussed on here. Surely someone remembers the discussion concerning the records showing concentration of majors in general studies type majors at both Rice and Tulane.

http://tulane.edu/academics/majors.cfm

Look, I'm not picking a fight. I just want to know why people claim we are doomed before we even start trying to recruit. No matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to substantiate that notion.

[BRStang]

you have also endorse NCAA requirements for GPA and SAT/ACT which are above NCAA minimum standards-apparently you too agree on handicapping SMU against 10 out of 12 schools on our schedule. Again, that's your opinion which you call reasonable-but let's get the facts straight that is a handicap against SMU's competition.

The following statement is total [deleted] and anyone with Rivals database knows it.

There is no evidence that we are any stricter than anyone else in this regard.

I don't know what SMU or other schools (like Tulsa, Tulane, TCU, etc.) use for SAT/ACT/GPA admissions scores. So, I don't know for a fact that SMU is not stricter. But, you haven't proved to anyone that SMU is stricter on these scores for athletes than say TCU, Tulsa, Tulane, etc. To simply say "Everybody on Rivals knows it" doesn't pass the laugh test. Prove it. Again, I am not saying you're wrong. And I am not a "Stallion Basher." I just want to understand.

[Stallion]

your citation to Tulane broad range of majors doesn't establish where Tulane football players concentrate in majors. Based on their own report, they congregate in large numbers in a general studies like major. As for that SMU compliance manual-they appear to be citing NCAA rules-note the several citations to the NCAA manual-note the reference to a pdf which if you download are the new NCAA standards the SMU cite is referring to.- note the reference to non-qualifiers. SMU has never had a non-qualifier enroll as an athlete at this university. It is the policy of SMU not to admit non-qualifiers-therefore until I see more evidence its my belief they are citing NCAA initial eligibility standards-not SMU standards.
As for your comments about Rivals-you don't have access to that information-do you.

[BRStang]

your citation to Tulane broad range of majors doesn't establish where Tulane football players concentrate in majors. Based on their own report, they congregate in large numbers in a general studies like major. As for that SMU compliance manual-they appear to be citing NCAA rules-note the reference to non-qualifiers. SMU has never had a non-qualifier enroll as an athlete at this university. It is the policy of SMU not to admit non-qualifiers-therefore until I see more evidence its my belief they are citing NCAA initial eligibility standards-not SMU standards.
As for your comments about Rivals-you don't have access to that information-do you.

The subsequent reference to non-qualifiers has nothing to do with initial eligibility requirements. Look at it. As for Tulane, I see nothing more geared to "general studies" for athletes than what SMU has as far as "athletic friendly" majors are concerned. Hell, we have a "liberal arts" major.

[Stallion]

Here's the 143 page report on Rice athletics. Quite frankly I can't get anything but the first page to open. In Spring 2003 Tulane did a similar report covered by every single news outlet in this country. Every aspect of the Rice and Tulane football programs were covered by these reports. You either didn't read them or you forgot what they said. They clearly established concentration of Tulane and Rice athletes in a few as in 1-2 general studies types majors which segregated athletes from the student body at large in highly unusual numbers.

http://www.khou.com/images/0405/ricereport.pdf

[jtstang]

Brstang-If you already knew all this stuff, why did you ask for an explanation 27 times today?