When Stallion panics. . .

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

I'm not the most prolific poster on this board, but I've been reading it for years. Before that, I used to peruse the old "Mustang Maniacs" board under a different handle. One thing those years of experience have taught me is that Stallion knows more about NCAA athletics admissions and SMU's specific athlete admission policies than anyone else around these parts. I have been reading his comments on SMU admissions for years, and I've learned alot.

I can't state Stallion's position on all the admissions stuff, but his recent posts appear to reflect a position that is somewhere in the neighborhood of "concern, but not panic." Of course, my reading could be wrong and I'm open to correction if so.

Bottom line is. . .I will save my panic regarding our recruting and admissions for the moment that Stallion panics. Until then, I am going to assume that whatever is going on can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. If the coaching staff needs to make some adjustments in their recruiting to resolve this issue, or if the school needs to make some adjustments in admissions, I am confident they will do so.

[shadowman]

I am a bit confused on the doom and gloom of this as well. Sure it sucks and was wrong for those two players. But to me, it sounds like they were told a while ago that they would not be admitted and they appealed. Maybe someone gave the impression that the appeal was a more like a rubberstamp override, and if so, someone effed up there and gave these young men false hope.

Athletics and Academics are a difficult balancing act, you can't let one overshadow the other. This goes both ways.

Maybe Turner and Orsini would rather pick their battles carefully, these two cases are not worth rocking the boat, hell, maybe there was something we do not know about, maybe there was a very thoughtful and insightful review and it was determined that these kids could not pass the core courses of SMU and if we tell them now, they can go somewhere else.

I certainly do not see June bolting early over this, he is under contract and has a job to do.

There is some cause for concern, but it does not seem to be as bad as some are making it.

[Stallion]

I don't know all the facts-but the situation is absolutely an unbelievable, unnecessary fiasco that shows a shocking lack of communication.
Basically, if SMU is denying recruits who have about a 700 SAT or better then you should definitely panic because it will affect us competitively. If we are denying guys with SATs well below 700 SAT then reasonable minds could differ on whether we should be recruiting these guys. You would want to closely examine whether poor SAT scores were balanced by strong work in the classroom and check for learning disabilities etc. I gave the two examples of players that technically could be full qualifiers-would you admit:

Recruit A-3.2 GPA 540 SAT

Recruit B- 3.0 GPA 620 SAT

Those scores are what 600-700 below SMU's average. From my perspective this is a different debate than when there was a 700 SAT minimum. Both Recruit A and Recruit B would have been partial qualifiers under the old debate and my position was that SMU didn't need to admit partial qualifiers to be competitive-so I'm not being as inconsistent as it might seem. On the other hand other schools we compete with ARE getting these kids now so it can be argued that we are once again handicapping ourselves.

Remember also that June Jones is bringing as commitments at a minimum 8-10 marginal recruits a year in every class it appears so its not surprising he's testing the limits. From my perspective its a molehill (other than unnecessary bad publicity) compared to what we previously went through And I base that ON THE GUYS WE ARE GETTING IN as much as the guys that aren't getting in here or anywhere else. (This is an example of a post testing to see if someone wants to clarify the situation.)

Finally, it could be time to panic simply because SMU and June Jones never were on the same page as to what was expected. Have to find that out from June Jones but it should not come as a shock that he probably believed he could admit NCAA minimum qualifiers. (A few of you guys might have noticed I never thought June would take the SMU job based on the way he had built the program at Hawaii)

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Interesting comments. Were there similar issues with supposed "full qualifiers" in June's 1st recruiting class? I don't recall. Although I do remember that there were some recruits who ultimately did not qualify.

Clearly, there is an issue that needs to be worked out internally. But I am confident that it will be resolved. A lot of resources have been invested in the FB program by both the university and many of its wealthiest and most prominent benefactors over the past decade. Not to mention the amount of spade work that Turner, Orsini, and others have done to help with admissions and academic programs for athletes. I just don't see any of the players at the table, June included, having an interest in blowing up all that work.

Also, the hypothetical "full qualifiers" in your post are interesting. A 540 SAT? Geez. It's been a long time since I took the SAT and maybe its changed, but that seems remarkably low. I guess it really isn't hard to be a full qualifier these days.

[Nacho]

you might take notice that anyone in texas who is in the top 10% of their graduating class is automatically admitted to the state school of their choice including ut and a&m REGARDLESS OF THEIR SAT SCORE. in other words the sat is meaningless to all the state schools if a student has the appropriate class rank. in other words schools think the sat is meaningless or else they would use it along with class rank.

[abezontar]

you might take notice that anyone in texas who is in the top 10% of their graduating class is automatically admitted to the state school of their choice including ut and a&m REGARDLESS OF THEIR SAT SCORE. in other words the sat is meaningless to all the state schools if a student has the appropriate class rank. in other words schools think the sat is meaningless or else they would use it along with class rank.

Isn't the top 10% a state mandate? If so, it would not provide an indication of the value state schools place on the SAT.

[ponyboy]

I am so glad I've been on vacation the last week. I couldn't have afforded the stress.

This is a molehill.

[EastStang]

The average SAT score at SMU is 1339. The mean SAT score is 1350. A 700 SAT athlete will have to compete in the classroom for grades with those scoring 1339. Not impossible, but a real uphill task. I have to think that the academic casualties of the past two years are in part responsible for this new look at admissions.

[PonyDoh]

I don't know all the facts-but the situation is absolutely an unbelievable, unnecessary fiasco that shows a shocking lack of communication.
Basically, if SMU is denying recruits who have about a 700 SAT or better then you should definitely panic because it will affect us competitively. If we are denying guys with SATs well below 700 SAT then reasonable minds could differ on whether we should be recruiting these guys. You would want to closely examine whether poor SAT scores were balanced by strong work in the classroom and check for learning disabilities etc. I gave the two examples of players that technically could be full qualifiers-would you admit:

Recruit A-3.2 GPA 540 SAT

Recruit B- 3.0 GPA 620 SAT

Those scores are what 600-700 below SMU's average. From my perspective this is a different debate than when there was a 700 SAT minimum. Both Recruit A and Recruit B would have been partial qualifiers under the old debate and my position was that SMU didn't need to admit partial qualifiers to be competitive-so I'm not being as inconsistent as it might seem. On the other hand other schools we compete with ARE getting these kids now so it can be argued that we are once again handicapping ourselves.

Remember also that June Jones is bringing as commitments at a minimum 8-10 marginal recruits a year in every class it appears so its not surprising he's testing the limits. From my perspective its a molehill (other than unnecessary bad publicity) compared to what we previously went through And I base that ON THE GUYS WE ARE GETTING IN as much as the guys that aren't getting in here or anywhere else. (This is an example of a post testing to see if someone wants to clarify the situation.)

Finally, it could be time to panic simply because SMU and June Jones never were on the same page as to what was expected. Have to find that out from June Jones but it should not come as a shock that he probably believed he could admit NCAA minimum qualifiers. (A few of you guys might have noticed I never thought June would take the SMU job based on the way he had built the program at Hawaii)

Good post, but the last paragraph is the reason for concern. I don't mean to belittle the way these two kids were treated, cause as you stated, the lack of communication is appalling. That said, it's two kids that were good prospects, not great, and the only thing consistent w/programs is kids coming & going. Smooth out the process next time to avoid egg on the face, but I'm not sweating two kids.

The issue is that there is more than smoke to Jones & Turner, and this isn't the first showdown at the ok corral. There is evidence to prove June's dissatisfaction w/the rift between football & academia.

[Nacho]

it is a state mandate. i have never heard any of the schools say anything negative about not including the sat in the criteria. in fact they boast that the top 10% kids do quite well in college. why is the sat so important for the bottom 90% when it has never proven to predict anything?

there are kids in college who had outstanding sat scores who have struggled mightily to get through school. the sat is a crutch used by schools because there is no reliable way to predict future success in college except high school performance and even that is suspect.

i knew a guy in college who had about a 2.8 in hs. at smu he got a 4.0 for the entire four years and went to grad school at harvard.

the real factor is how hard they will work once they get to smu. it cannot be predicted.

i'm sure everyone reading this can tell stories of kids who bombed out and kids who did amazingly well despite hs grades or sat scores.

[Stallion]

The state mandate was the result of a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals directive curtailing affirmative action. The 10% rule was the compromise because it allowed minority opportunity but could be applied without discriminatory intent.

[PoconoPony]

I have several good friends who are retired Deans of Admissions at East Coast private colleges similar to SMU. Both advise that the SAT is a very poor indicator of college success or performance. Most private colleges use the SAT as an element well down on their check list for admissions if it is used at all. The strongest factor/indicator for college success is class rank and grade point average. The SAT is almost a sham used by colleges to rank/rate themselves with other colleges primarily for establishing tuition rates and snob appeal. I am not aware how SMU views the SAT as it relates to Stallion's hypothetical. Bottom line is that it should be a limited factor for admissions if the committee is actually trying to project a marginal applicants chances for handling college level courses.

[Stallion]

for NCAA qualification purposes the SAT/ACT is a mandatory factor for determining qualification under the sliding scale. Of course, since Hall qualified-the question remains whether it should have become the overriding factor in his case

[davish75]

When June Jones came to Austin recently, he indicated that everyone was not in complete agreement on what it takes to have a consistently winning team. He said that everyone needs to be on the same page. He said money was not an issue - it's the admission process.

[RGV Pony]

When June Jones came to Austin recently, he indicated that everyone was not in complete agreement on what it takes to have a consistently winning team. He said that everyone needs to be on the same page. He said money was not an issue - it's the admission process.

yep. and it's a daily battle