Just a question

[mrydel]

This is not to try and justify anything that has occured. I am upset more about the timing of the notifications than anything else, but the "we will admit any NCAA qualifier" is a pretty good subject of controversy also.

But here is my curiosity. When did the partial qualifier disappear? Stallion mentions a few times how there used to be SAT standards and now there no longer are. Here is my question. Is it possible that when the statement was made a couple of years ago that at that time there was an acceptable SAT score that has to be reached (say 700) in order to qualify by NCAA standards, and subsequently that standard was dropped. All of a sudden whereas SMU had relented to accept athletes with a 700 SAT that now they were having to consider athletes with much lower scores ecause they were now NCAA qualifed?

Again, please do not try to turn this into the arguments that are going on in every other thread. I am just wondering if the SAT standards changed in the past 2 years or was this something that had already happened prior to the Turner statement.

[ponyte]

First, you will have to wait for Stallion to get an answer. It would have been better to PM him, get and answer and then post it.

Next, try to stick to topics with real substance and that engages us in quality debate...like jersey colors.

Last, you are going to get hammered cause your question, as innocuous as you tried to phrase it, will get you condemned for being a Turner stooge.

May Peruna have mercy on your cyber soul.

[smupony94]

Take a look at my sig line

[cutter]

I think Stallions post on another thread addresses this in part:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46350&start=15

It would seem that SMU's admission standards still exceeded the NCAA minimum qualifications of an SAT cutoff of 700 under the old criteria, which was recently changed per Stallion. If the DMN article is correct, SMU is currently using an SAT score of 900 and/or a GPA of 2.5 as a cutoff to 'automatic' admission (and, supposedly this is a significant improvement on criteria used in previous years).
So, using SMU's best-in-years current admission criteria for athletes, it seems that not all NCAA-qualifiers would be eligible for admission to SMU under either the old criteria or the new one (which minimizes and allows even lower SAT scores). As I understand it, the new adjustment to NCAA minimum qualifications has merely increased the number of student-athletes that are not eligible for admission to SMU.
Of course, the secondary review process described in the DMN article supposedly allows for some flexibility in student admissions evaluations.

Anyway, I'm just throwing this out there, since the more knowledgeable posters didn't get around to posting here yet.

[Stallion]

This ESPN article dated November 3, 2009 describes the elimination of the SAT floor as pretty recent. Interesting it describes a "presidential trap". Ha! Great prediction. This article clearly describes the type of situation which changes admission dynamics and could have played a part in SMU's recent decision not to admit the "full qualifiers". I don't know for sure because I don't know the recruits SAT scores. It coicided with the increase from 14 to 16 in core curiculum. There have been several versions of the sliding scale over the years.

http://espn.go.com/columns/farrey_tom/1453693.html

[HB Pony Dad]

Last, you are going to get hammered cause your question, as innocuous as you tried to phrase it, will get you condemned for being a Turner stooge.

May Peruna have mercy on your cyber soul.

[Stallion]

If you notice the article doesn't have a year just a date-so I was concerned what year it was. I confirmed it was 2009 based on this search page:

ESPN.com: GEN - It's all academic now
Nov 3, 2009 - Thursday, October 31. Updated: November 3, 9:57 PM ET It's all academic now. By Tom Farrey ESPN.com. There's a new reality show in college sports, one that .... On the front end, even the SAT people have given the NCAA grief about its ...

IMPORTANT: I later found a scholarly article citing "Its all Academic Now" as published on November 1, 2002 so unless one was an update 7 years later I'm not sure when it was published. No mention of the effective date of the changes

[Mestengo]

Last, you are going to get hammered cause your question, as innocuous as you tried to phrase it, will get you condemned for being a Turner stooge.

May Peruna have mercy on your cyber soul.

I now have a picture of this large water front bar at your home that Thad has spoke of.

[PK]

So...basically what were considered partial qualifiers by NCAA when Jones was told that NCAA qualified recruits would be accepted are now deemed qualified by NCAA...right? Wonder how much cash that was worth to the NCAA. It would appear that the "sliding scale" of qualification is headed down hill. I'm all for having great players and winning seasons, but let's stop pretending that these are "student" athletes. Let's just consider them marketing agents and get them enrolled.

[huskerpony]

I could be wrong about this, but I believe partial qualifiers were eliminated early on in the decade. I am pretty sure that you can only be a partial qualifier in D-II now.

I know for sure the Prop 48 went away in the mid-90's. There was a Prop 16 after that--which was more restrictive, but I believe also introduced the sliding scale. I assume that is what Stallion's article referred to about extending the current scale further downward. There were a number of lawsuits about Prop 16 in the late 90's. Not sure if they are still using some version of that or if it is something else now, but the partial qualifier part got changed at some point around then too and that is why all of those kids started going to JUCO to become eligible instead. (Hence the K-State model under Bill Snyder--which someone at SMU forgot to look into before we hired his defensive coordinator.)

[couch 'em]

This is not to try and justify anything that has occured. I am upset more about the timing of the notifications than anything else, but the "we will admit any NCAA qualifier" is a pretty good subject of controversy also.

But here is my curiosity. When did the partial qualifier disappear? Stallion mentions a few times how there used to be SAT standards and now there no longer are. Here is my question. Is it possible that when the statement was made a couple of years ago that at that time there was an acceptable SAT score that has to be reached (say 700) in order to qualify by NCAA standards, and subsequently that standard was dropped. All of a sudden whereas SMU had relented to accept athletes with a 700 SAT that now they were having to consider athletes with much lower scores ecause they were now NCAA qualifed?

Again, please do not try to turn this into the arguments that are going on in every other thread. I am just wondering if the SAT standards changed in the past 2 years or was this something that had already happened prior to the Turner statement.

TURNER LOVER!!!!!

LOL

[HB Pony Dad]

TURNER LOVER!!!!!

LOL

Just saving your bacon!

BTW

I think Turner is wrong.

[HB Pony Dad]

mrydel

since your posted question ponyfans has erupted into anarchy!

it's all your fault!