New Regulations may benefit academically minded schools

[Water Pony]

Here is an article from today's Chicago Tribune on tighter recruiting rules that may occur as a result of recent scandals. It references Northwestern, Illinois and Texas' Mack Brown. A more leveling playing field is always helpful. Plus, if parents accompany recruits, I think it helps us.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com ... -headlines

[gostangs]

This, combined with the "go pro early" change will help. We need true academic reform before we see better equalization. In other words - graduate within a narrower time frame - advance towards your degree or lose eligibility, no baby sitting courses, graduation rates effect recruiting numbers, total athletic departmental transparancy etc....

Since none of this is happening any time soon, we need to accelerate our ability to play by the rules that exist - create some baby sitting courses, and get some JUCOs in here. With the rules as they are, if we don't show up on the police blotter every now and then we aren't getting it done probably.

[Cheesesteak]

gostangs:

"With the rules as they are, if we don't show up on the police blotter every now and then we aren't getting it done probably."

I hope that you didn't mean what you wrote (in quotes above).

SMU aspires to and deserves better than that.

[Pony4Life]

And IS better than that!

[gostangs]

It was offered somewhat tounge in cheek but I am more serious then kidding. We occupied the "lofty rarified air" spot for 20 years and it has gotten us nowhere. We deserve just what we have received - because we have been scared of our shadow for so long. Time to take some risks, and if that means getting a select few thugs then so be it. What do we have to lose? If you think we have earned any respect for doing everything the right way you are nieve - we will be rewarded when we win and not before.

[Cheesesteak]

Posted by gostangs:

"It was offered somewhat tounge in cheek but I am more serious then kidding. We occupied the "lofty rarified air" spot for 20 years and it has gotten us nowhere. We deserve just what we have received - because we have been scared of our shadow for so long. Time to take some risks, and if that means getting a select few thugs then so be it. What do we have to lose? If you think we have earned any respect for doing everything the right way you are nieve - we will be rewarded when we win and not before."

"...getting a few thugs then so be it" - SMU is a university not a reform school.

"...earned any respect for doing everything the right way you are nieve" - SMU has earned back the institutional respect it lost during the DP era.

It was exactly this casual willingness ("what do we have to lose?") to chase football victories at almost any cost that previously brought shame onto the Hilltop.

The administration (modifying admission criteria, etc.) and generous donors (Ford, Lloyd, Pettus, etc.) recently have done much to bring SMU closer to the competitive realities of D-1A football.

SMU must not chase the lowest common denominator.

Football is only a part of SMU's public identity.

I am pleased that SMU is guided by an academic-minded administration/board of trustees intent on improving the overall quality of the university, while guarding its reputation.

SMU Football will win again...with integrity...the right way.

[Water Pony]

Thanks, Cheesesteak, for your challenge. Impatience with our recent history drive us to duplicate the path followed by others. It is my wish that changes in recruiting rules, graduation rates and loosening to a degree the BCS stranglehold on the revenue will reward schools who want to do it right.

What is the alternative? Repeating our past sins or going mano-a-mano with the BCS schools, their money, fan base, etc. We need a third way, the right way to have reasonable hope now and long term. If we become me-too, we will lose ourselves and any chance maintaining it, so why do it?

[Stallion]

please list all sins committed in the past relating to academic admission standards which meet NCAA minimums? That's right there are NONE NADA ZILCH. Once again we see these argument which serve to tie SMU hands and have nothing to do with SMU's past sins or the DP. Cheesesteak and Water Pony support the Model which has lead to one of the most pathetic periods in Texas Football History. Well Boys you had your chance and failed miserably-and the times they are a changing.

[Water Pony]

First, don't tell me my position on the model.

Your answer challenges the wrong premise. I support changing the game (ours, NCAA and BCS). My reaction was to the expression of interest in cutting corners (trying not to get caught bending or breaking the rules.) We can't out do the state schools in money generation, recruiting budgets and methods, etc.; so find a better model NOT THE SAME ONE then or now.

Your reactions are so predictable, boring and sound like a broken record. Be more creative than Pye bad, Stallion good.

[gostangs]

I too believe SMU will win again - I am just not nieve about how it will happen - it will happen because every year we further water down the idiodic rules we slapped on ourselves - and we are getting more realistic about what it takes to win. It takes great athletes - and lots of them ain't great students and aren't even that nice. If we want to play the "our *** don't stink" game, we will stay right where we are. Every competitive school has some discipline problems with their athletes - when we start having them again it will mean we are winning, filling our stadium, increasing the applicant pool, bettering the university in more important ways. I never said break any rules - we just need to play within the exisiting ones like we mean it and quit flogging ourselves.

[Water Pony]

New article reminds us that new rules are needed, if for no other reason than the realization that the recruits are juniors and seniors in high school and should be better protected. The suggestion travel would not be paid sounds difficult but might level the playing a bit.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/f ... index.html

[EastStang]

I guess the question is whether we want to admit students who probably won't graduate or do better in revenue sports (like admittedly UT, A&M, TCU, and OU)? My view has been and always will be that we should try and balance these interests. Some of the kids who come here do end up graduating by sheer will and determination, others flunk out. One thing is certain, the faculty no longer will cut athletes much slack and there are no gut majors anymore at SMU. On the other hand our graduates probably will be able to read (although many are still spelling challenged), unlike a certain OSU player who shall remain nameless.