The SMU Football Blog Speaks!

[Stallion]

I'd like to the see the profile (SAT/GPA) of the two not admitted before saying there is no room for improvement. Two areas that should be looked. The NCAA just successively raised core requirements from first 13 to 14 and now 16. SMU needs to make sure their core is compatible with any new changes. Second, there needs to be a clear policy on late qualifiers that fair to recruits, the school and coaching staff-ie communication

[Stallion]

and Mexmustang for the 3 year rolling average that snapshotted on 2004-2006 UT was in the exact medium of all reported State Universities in the NCAA. Hardly marginal. I've already addressed the other issues. Not too concerned about BB from statistics drawn from a small sample of 9-15 kids. To a large degree we ain't talking about BB recruiting anyway which has its own separate ugly secrets.

[cutter]

I'd like to the see the profile (SAT/GPA) of the two not admitted before saying there is no room for improvement. Two areas that should be looked. The NCAA just raised core requirements from 13-14 and now 16) SMU needs to make sure their core is capatable. Second, there needs to be a clear policy on late qualifiers

okay, I agree.
I'm guessing that if the cutoffs of GPA/SAT 2.5/900 as published by DMN is accurate, then there is still some potential room for refinement towards the ncaa cutoff. hopefully, some, if not all, of this will get addressed and fixed in the magical committee.

[Stallion]

cutter you must have gotten ahold of the Division II sliding scale. (hm I thought you wrote 820 at first). The standards you posted are recruits who go through extra scrutiny(Category C). Approximately 65% of our recruits over the last 2 classes fall below even that low threashold. The Division 1 sliding scale was reduced so that the SAT score was deemphasized. There is no minimum SAT but you need a corresponding higher GPA. Yes it redefined many partial qualifiers as full qualifiers. In exchange NCAA raised core requirements. It was a tradeoff to get minorities off the NCAA backs and Big School Coaches off their back who had lost to schools in conferences that allowed partial qualifiers. The thought was that instead of sending partial qualifiers to go to JUCO or the Sun Belt or other conference allowing partials lets just admit them initially to our campus so they can get them academic support from the start. Here are the current core and sliding scale. Look how far they have deemphasized the SAT

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... sQBNwSDsog

[cutter]

cutter you must have gotten ahold of the Division II sliding scale. The Division 1 sliding scale was reduced so that the SAT score was deemphasized. There is no minimum SAT but you need a corresponding higher GPA. Yes it redefined many partial qualifiers as full qualifiers. In exchange NCAA raised core requirements. It was a tradeoff to get minorities off the NCAA backs and Big School Coaches off their back who had lost to schools in conferences that allowed partial qualifiers. The thought was that instead of sending partial qualifiers to go to JUCO or the Sun Belt or other conference allowing partials lets just admitting them initial to our campus so they can get them academic support from the start. Here are the current core and sliding scale. Look how far they have deemphasized the SAT

1. thanks for the partial qualifier info/perspective. it hleps and makes sense.

2. someone posted this link to the sliding scale on another thread in the middle of the flurry of discussion on this topic. I was hoping it was accurate, or somewhat close. I'll compare it to the link you provided.
http://www.ubathletics.buffalo.edu/comp ... gscale.pdf

3. the lower range of acceptable SAT scores is scary, but it's a bit offset by the significantly higher GPA required. if the GPA represents real classroom work done by the student, maybe it's an okay trade-off. but, I can see how some would still try to beat the system or its intent.
I'm thinking, that if you would accept that bottom limit (cringingly), the APR system would help regulate how often you would tread that line?

[cutter]

(hm I thought you wrote 820 at first)

lol....no, I wrote 810 first (from memory), then corrected it to 820. I was hoping no one would notice (kinda like admissions).

[Longtime]

harvard of the south my @ss...we are ranked 68 in the latest US News report...below TAMU, UT & Rice in the state of Texas alone.

Just gotta point out that UT, TAMU and Rice are pretty dadgum good schools. If you're the fourth best school in Texas, you're in good company.

[ponyboy]

And for the thousandth time those rankings are *admissions* based, which are not a perfect indicator of the quality of education actually being offered to those who have been admitted.

[ponyinNC]

harvard of the south my @ss...we are ranked 68 in the latest US News report...below TAMU, UT & Rice in the state of Texas alone.

Just gotta point out that UT, TAMU and Rice are pretty dadgum good schools. If you're the fourth best school in Texas, you're in good company.

agreed...my point was that UT and TAMU don't seem to have the problems we do w/r/t psa admissions.

[Mexmustang]

Stallion, UT's baskeball results are highly relevant. First, the numbers are based upon their own reporting, second, they represent 100% of their recruits, and at Texas their annual recruits are at the high end of the number of annual recruits (NBA and drop outs), and finally, every public university reported. Of course it is statistically relevant. As to graduation rates amongst the former big twelve, those were also widely published, why aren't these relvant? Just because you don't like them? The basketball numbers were those who were kind enough to provide. I ask a different way, how do recruits at UT's basketball program average less than 400 on each of the two tests? Over a three year period.

Pesonally, the issue is at this time is what the coaching staff, financial supporters, two students and the public was promised by the administration that the admission rules are, not a disussion of what the criteria for admision should be going forward. I have no problem forming a committee to determine the future criteria, just so it is objective and transparent. I do have a problem leaving two kids "out to dry". What the SAT scores were or weren't shouldn't even be part of the discussion as to whether the administration re-nigged on thier committment to admit NCAA qualifiers, regardless of the SAT score. Don't be sucked in by the news story linked to a recent and former member of the admissions committee attempting to draw attention away from real issue, which is the credibility of the administration. I found it perticularily amusing that he would even mention specific SAT scores--most schools have now come to the conclusion that SAT scores fail to predict success in the classroom. Once more, the coaches and the students thought he qualified under the SMU/NCAA criteria. The committee didn't see that the two criteria were,thought to beone and the same.

Any attempt of alumns, fans and supporters to call the administration's hand,is not "lack of institutional control", but rather the opposite. The administration was called to task, a simple challenge to an administration that has attempted to remain alouf to the problem and farm it out at some date uncertain, to a committee made up of members uncertain, and not stepping in and taking charge by admitting a misktake was made, that there exists a "gap" in the acceptance process and making it right for the two students. Even you should agree that SMU has been the real loser in this and we look like insenstive elitists.

[jtstang]

Any attempt of alumns, fans and supporters to call the administration's hand,is not "lack of institutional control", but rather the opposite. The administration was called to task, a simple challenge to an administration that has attempted to remain alouf to the problem and farm it out at some date uncertain, to a committee made up of members uncertain, and not stepping in and taking charge by admitting a misktake was made, that there exists a "gap" in the acceptance process and making it right for the two students. Even you should agree that SMU has been the real loser in this and we look like insenstive elitists.

Let me preface this by saying I am an advocate of making SMU's admission criteria for athletes equal to the NCAA qualification standard. But surely you can see that ceding control of admissions under the current system (which apparently will boot a kid at the last minute, making us look like insensitive elitists, I agree) to the football coaches is a slippery slope to relinqueshing institutional control. You are making Stallion's argument for him.

We all chose to go to a private school, and in turn, do not have a right to the openness of a public school. The fact that the school will address the issues two weeks after they happen is troubling though, and an indication that they think no one is watching....

[PK]

We all chose to go to a private school, and in turn, do not have a right to the openness of a public school. The fact that the school will address the issues two weeks after they happen is troubling though, and an indication that they think no one is watching....

Obviously they don't keep up with PonyFans.com message boards...

[Mustang75]

Obviously they don't keep up with PonyFans.com message boards...

We can only hope!

[Stallion]

Let me put this to you straight Mexmustang

I appreciate the Circle of Champions-and what they did. They deserve congratulations and thanks

Now its time for them to head to their Ford Stadium Luxury Lounge seats and sit back enjoy the football game-they didn't pay to control the admission process of the university. I don't give a damn what they think they were promised just like I don't give a damn that Clements and Cox thought they "had a Payroll to Meet". If that's what they think SMU is heading for serious problems. MexMustang you have very dangerous ideas-I've always worried that you in particular seem to glorify how this university was run in the Good Ole Days. Sometimes I think you don't even think what Clements, Cox did anything wrong. There are too many on this board that seem to think the exact same thing. If we are heading in the direction of usurping control of the University like in the Good Ole Days. the Circle of Champions should be disbanded immediately. How many of those Circle of Champions know the first thing about NCAA Rules including College Admissions. I'd say probably ZERO. They are simply regurgitating what others told them. SMU has an administration charged with running the University-and it better damn well stay that way. And if the Circle of Champions tells yet another SMU President-"nevermind the athletic department-we'll handle that" then Turner ought to offer his resignation to the Board of Trustees and fully disclose that information. Then we can drop Football and have Homecoming at a Soccer Game.

[ponydawg]

I'm fine with having a little academic standards if there has to be......but how can you compare letting in athletes who have been cleared by the NCAA clearing house to paying recruits and their families like back in the day. I understand it is all a slippery slope, but not sure we can compare letting in marginal student athletes to total chaos and lack of control.