The SMU Football Blog Speaks!

[Stallion]

and what relevance does that statement have concerning admission standards. ZERO. Hard to graduate when you lose so many players to the NFL Draft. APR shows SMU and UT even and in some years Texas has beaten SMU. They are also a reflection of a former admission policy June Jones does not live by. I said SMU under June Jones. Texas has had less non-qualifiers in football than just about any school in Texas not named Rice over the last 5 years.

[Stallion]

BTW I'm not just pulling this out of my [deleted]. Anyone who has a Rivals subscription can click Commitment List, Click Texas, Click the years 2009-2005 and for each year Click More Information. Look for a check under Enrolled. This will give you Enrolled Rankings. Texas has enrolled 102/104 recruits signed over the last 5 years. No sign that Texas is signing questionable academic recruits which would certainly show up through the NCAA Clearinghouse if true. And they don't seem to even allow non-qualifiers to even get a shot at getting in after JUCO like SMU does.

The two that didn't get in were Antonine Hicks:

1)Wide receiver prospect Antoine Hicks, a versatile player out of Mansfield Timberview, received his ACT scores this week, and the 6-foot-2, 193-pounder came up just short of the necessary marks.

"I fell short," Hicks said. "The requirement I had to go was a couple points short. I needed to score a 70 and I ended up scoring a 67." (Stallion Comment: a 67 is the equivalent of an 810 SAT-hardly an embarrassing score)

2)Andre Jones who was arrested an released from his scholarship by UT - again exercising discretion by the university because of behavior.

[cutter]

and what relevance does that statement have concerning admission standards. ZERO. Hard to graduate when you lose so many players to the NFL Draft. APR shows SMU and UT even and in some years Texas has beaten SMU. They are also a reflection of a former admission policy June Jones does not live by. I said SMU under June Jones. Texas has had less non-qualifiers in football than just about any school in Texas not named Rice over the last 5 years.

sounds reasonable, except the early departure for the nfl argument seems to be disputed by multiple sources describing the calculation:
"Overall graduation figures take into account the new and more optimistic NCAA Graduation Success Rates. The Graduation Success Rates credit schools for transfers who graduate and do not penalize them for athletes who leave early, but in good academic standing."
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/253594_jackson28.html

still, I agree with others who point out that Texas has no need to pursue lesser academically-qualified athletes, compared to SMU which is playing 'catch-up' at the moment. hopefully, that will not be the case in the not-so-distant future.

I am not, of course, advocating accepting players who have artificially inflated grades (eg, online courses, as you have pointed out) and the like. nonetheless, there seems to be some room for further improvement (yes, I get that it is way, way better now than it has ever been) in admission standards so that SMU will not only be more lenient than it has in the past, but more equivalent to the vast majority of D1 programs (which, I could be wrong, but I believe you suggested elsewhere that is probably not the case).

[cutter]

BTW I'm not just pulling this out of my [deleted].

nope, wouldn't think of it. if anything, I rely on your extensive research and perspective, however colored it is with your personality.
I trust your info. I just think SMU is battling to catch-up to everyone else, you know?

[ponyinNC]

I have a rivals sub and can see that. I guess my question is this...plain and simple...

do we (SMU) require higher admissions criteria than UT? I see that they have been enrolled at UT. But UT may only require ncaa clearinghouse while SMU requires something extra. what am i missing??

[Stallion]

that's a fair point-but with a sample of 102 if UT were really pushing the margins it would jump up and bite them in the [deleted] more. As I added later, the scholarship of one of the two recruits was revoked after he was arrested. The other recruit made a 67 on his ACT which is the equivalent of an 810 SAT which is not an embarrassingly low score. With a 2.8-3.2 GPA you can be a full qualifyier with a much lower SAT of 620-540. Simply no sign that UT recruits the margins excessively. I've always thought the quote "the same standards as UT" missed the boat since other schools are really the ones taking the chances.

[cutter]

Simply no sign that UT recruits the margins excessively.

I buy that.
but, just wondering..... do you view SMU's program to be on equal footing with UT's, such that both programs have equal access to the same quality of athlete (physically and academically) pool?
if you don't view them as equal (I'm guessing most of us don't), then is your aversion to accepting the ncaa clearinghouse-qualified athlete based on not lowering standards so low as to allow academically 'incapable' students to be admitted (which, I think, one might find equal proponents on both sides of this point)?

[friarwolf]

It doesn't surprise me that ut has "higher standards" than us. They are only one of the most dominant athletic programs in the country and as such, have a huge recruiting pool to choose their athletes. When you have your choice of numerous superior athletes for each position, it's pretty easy to use academic performance as one of your initial filters........

[Stallion]

No and that's why I'm fine with the profile SMU has admitted over the last 2 years. To rebuild its program SMU needs to go after late qualifiers, JUCOs, Transfers etc. . I fully expect if we do get better we won't see 65% of our recruiting classes come from Category C. But let's not miss the point. SMU has loosened its admission standards like I always hoped they would. I never wanted the partial qualifiers who have now been redefined as Full Qualiers simply because the NCAA bowed to pressure about cultural discrimination and deemphasized the SAT to irreelevance

[cutter]

It doesn't surprise me that ut has "higher standards" than us. They are only one of the most dominant athletic programs in the country and as such, have a huge recruiting pool to choose their athletes. When you have your choice of numerous superior athletes for each position, it's pretty easy to use academic performance as one of your initial filters........

Agreed.
They have a luxury that SMU does not have...... yet.

[cutter]

I never wanted the partial qualifiers who have now been redefined as Full Qualiers simply because the NCAA bowed to pressure about cultural discrimination and deemphasized the SAT to irreelevance

I can see that.
Do you think that there is no further room for loosening the standards that SMU is using? or, might there still be a bit more give in moving the cutoff point?

[NickSMU17]

Texas doesn't have to take questionable kids, they gt 1st look at best talent....We should be looking at more what TCU, Tech, A&M, Houston...these are the schools we are equal to or are shooting for....


Comparing anything we do athletically to texas is dumb

[Mexmustang]

Three quick points:

First Stallion raises the "ghost" that challenging Turner to live by his statements is leading us down the path of lack of instituitional control. No, it is simply a case of expecting a CEO to abide by his statements and take leadership over a dispute between the athletic department and the academic admissions committee, who seem to be resigning their positions as quickly as we identify then. Simply make it right to two students caught in the middle. It is the lack of leadership that leads to the lack of instituitioal control, not the exercise of leadership.

Personally, I want to ask Turner why tuition and fees are up almost 50% ($18,500 this fall) in the five years my four children have been in school? Did any of you increase your overhead and payroll that much in this economy? Challenging a school president for lack of leadership and budgetary inflation contributes to instituitional control, it doesn't erode it.

Second, Stallion is now quick to call any supportive statement to the" Model" a road to NCAA probation. It was only when we were able to show that he, like Al Gore and global warming and the internet did not develop or define the problems with SMU athletics, the so-called Model was neither invented by him nor achieved by his degrading comments on a free fan site.

Third, Texas has the absolute lowest academic success record in the former big twelve as measured by graduation rates, and the worst SAT average (as he previously pointed out) amongst all reporting BSC basketball programs in the country (just how does one get an SAT score less than 800--their three year average?). If Texas gets the first cut at every recruit, why are these recruits performing so poorly? Answer,it must be the total lack of institutional control-

[friarwolf]

I would love to have A&M's potential talent pool...............

[cutter]

. I never wanted the partial qualifiers who have now been redefined as Full Qualiers simply because the NCAA bowed to pressure about cultural discrimination and deemphasized the SAT to irreelevance

actually, is there really a large number of partifal qualifiers that would have become full qualifiers under the sliding scale (real question here -- I'm curious). I mean, the lower your GPA, the higher you have to score on the SAT/ACT. I'm imagining that the old partial qualifier had both low GPA and low test scores, no?

the sliding scale currently shows a GPA of 2.5 requiring an SAT of 820, which doesn't seem outrageously low.