Here we go again...

[SMU Kilmer]

http://deadspin.com/5588231/smus-focus- ... ll-program


Number 1 story on Deadspin this afternoon.

[NickSMU17]

Someone basically printed the message that has been going around

[ponydawg]

"Even in-state rival Rice, ranked 17th, simply uses the NCAA guidelines for eligibility."

Deadspin.......deadwrong

[Stallion]

Unbelievably inaccurate characterizations in that article

[The PonyGrad]

A lot was on point actually but there were several errors, like:

counted among the most politically conservative schools in the country

[ponyte]

Too funny
The title to the SMU article
"SMU's Focus On Academics Is Destroying Its Football Program"

And the pic below has SMU players holding up the Hawaii bowl trophy. The standards we're currently whining about have only been in place a couple of years . In that couple of years we have a winning season and win a bowl game. Yet, with no change to the admission standards, we all of a sudden are destroying football while we have reached new highs in football with the exact same standards.

Other article titles include

"LeBron James Is A C-o-c-k-s-u-c-k-e-r"
"Counterpoint: LeBron James Is Not A C-o-c-k-s-u-c-k-e-r "
"Timofey Mozgov Is C-o-c-k-s-u-c-k-e-r "

And the one that I suspect many on this board hope we can be competitive in,
"The Search For America's Dumbest Student-Athlete Starts Now "

[skyscraper]

I'm more interested to see what kind of jokes the Deadspin commenters can come up. That's about all this is worth.

[Stallion]

Rice actually released some of this data in 2003- a little dated but at least in 2003 few Rice athletes or football players would fit under Category C (lower tha 2.5 GPA or 900 SAT) much less NCAA minimum standards.


On the Stanford, Duke, Vandy question:

There is extensive data available in the Rice University athletics report:

http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf

Rice has among the highest NCAA Div I academic standards, perhaps second only to Stanford. You can use these numbers as representative of the very top Div 1 academic schools inc. Stanford and Duke.

The average SATs at Rice in 2003:

1447 -- non athletes
1103 -- male athletes
1187 -- female athletes

1152 -- male baseball
1082 -- male football
1034 -- male basketball
1211 -- male athletes (not baseball, football, basketball)

1236 -- female swimming
1158 -- female volleyball
1102 -- female basketball
1216 -- female athletes (not swimming, volleyball, basketball)

19% of Rice's male athletes had SATs below 1000.
8% of Rice's femal athletes had SATs below 1000.

96 of Rice's 301 male athletes are football players.

[NickSMU17]

The only difference is that they are Rice/Standford and we are SMU...they draw a different caliber and type of student

[Junior]

Unbelievably inaccurate characterizations in that article

I find it amusing that in almost any other profession than journalism, if you consistently provde false information, you get fired. In journalism, you get paid.

Amazing.

[rlm1951]

Rice actually released some of this data in 2003- a little dated but at least in 2003 few Rice athletes or football players would fit under Category C (lower tha 2.5 GPA or 900 SAT) much less NCAA minimum standards.


On the Stanford, Duke, Vandy question:

There is extensive data available in the Rice University athletics report:

http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf

Rice has among the highest NCAA Div I academic standards, perhaps second only to Stanford. You can use these numbers as representative of the very top Div 1 academic schools inc. Stanford and Duke.

The average SATs at Rice in 2003:

1447 -- non athletes
1103 -- male athletes
1187 -- female athletes

1152 -- male baseball
1082 -- male football
1034 -- male basketball
1211 -- male athletes (not baseball, football, basketball)

1236 -- female swimming
1158 -- female volleyball
1102 -- female basketball
1216 -- female athletes (not swimming, volleyball, basketball)

19% of Rice's male athletes had SATs below 1000.
8% of Rice's femal athletes had SATs below 1000.

96 of Rice's 301 male athletes are football players.

Stanford's recent record

1996 7–5 .583
1997 5–6 .455
1998 3–8 .273
1999 8–4 .667
2000 5–6 .455
2001 9–3 .750
2002 2–9 .182
2003 4–7 .364
2004 4–7 .364
2005 5–6 .455
2006 1–11 .083
2007 4–8 .333
2008 5–7 .417
2009 8–4 .667

Rice

2007-present 13–12–0 52.0%
2006 7–6 53.8%
1994-2005 55–78–1 41.0%

If this is what SMU wants out of a program, I'll watch a team that wants to win.