State of the Department Address.

[BUS]

Just got the mail and inside was a nice booklet from the athletic dept. Yes, some of it is Rah Rah but Copeland gives out some hard numbers.

I times when people want to get more details I think this is a good start.

Years ago, 10 or so, Mustang Club members got a quarterly newspaper with some inside scoop.

Thank you for the effort. Now, let's all be happy and WIN.

One Question - Would you be mad if SMU won 7 or 8 games a year in football but only graduated 65 % of their athetes? What about 55%

It would be interesting to see grad rates for OU, T A$M, TTech, Nevada, Boise, LSU ond others.

[SmooPower]

Grad Rates -

Rice: 82%
Baylor: 75%
Tulsa: 66%
SMU: 64%
USC: 61%
Texas Tech: 58%
TCU: 56%
Texas A&M: 49%
Boise State: 48%
LSU: 40%
Nevada: 39%
Texas: 38%
UTEP: 34%
Oklahoma: 33%

This is a four-class average.

[abezontar]

if we won championships I would be happy with Okalahoma's graduation rate.

[Camel]

.... One Question - Would you be mad if SMU won 7 or 8 games a year in football but only graduated 65 % of their athetes? What about 55% ....

I think we all would like to see the Ponies racking up BCS championships while graduating teams full of doctors and lawyers and nuclear physicists.

But let's be honest: imagine we're all USC fans. We have a middle-of-the-road graduation rate (I guess) and are going to be in contention every year for the national championship and the nation's top recruits. I highly doubt there were many USC fans in the Rose Bowl in January, watching their team smack Michigan around and thinking "yeah, this is nice, but I'd trade it all for a higher graduation rate."

I'm not saying we should slide in the gutter and recruit idiots who happen to bench 500 pounds or run a 4.2 in the 40, but as long as we're respectable, and our athletes are making an effort to actually earn a degree, I'll be the first to admit I'd be willing to forego a few all-academic honors in favor of a winning record.

[PK]

USC isn't all that much lower on their graduation rate than we are, 61% vs 64%. On the other hand having a low graduation rate (34%) hasn't done a whole hell of a lot for UTEP. USC is a good example of being able to be competitive without throwing in the academic towel. There are great athletes who can spell their names too...we just need to find them and reel them in.

[BUS]

Ok, here is a follow up question.
What degree programs does USC offer? That could be telling.

[couch 'em]

AFter glancing at their website that Kinesiology major sticks out......

[LA_Mustang]

USC has a similar public image as SMU, but unlike us, they have maintained a pipeline to their surrounding talent laden suburbs and inner-city. Right next door to their campus they constantly pick up quality players from Compton Dominguez, Long Beach Poly, and Inglewood High, all of which are academically low performing high schools. I'm not saying that all kids from these high schools are bad students, but SC finds a way to get them in and apparently, they are graduating just as many as we are?? If ever there was a model we should be copying, its USC.

[BUS]

This thread needs to go to Mr. Copeland and Mr. Turner!

[No Cal Pony]

LA Mustang. I grew up in the LA area. In no way will we be able to model SMU after usc. Many reasons which include the fact usc population dwarfs SMU, usc has way more heisman, all-american, etc. players, usc has a larger endowment and booster club monies, and finally, they are a member of the Pac-10, a major bsc conference. ( I would love SMU to copy usc, but I just can't see it unless a lot more $$ comes rolling in to support recruiting, facilities, etc.)

More to the point, which ties into opints in the "Competitive Disadvantage" thread is the fact that unlike the ACC, the old SWC let itself be destroyed. It is a shame to many. Now that I live in NC, I see that no NC school would let such a thing happen to the schools. People were asking about wake forest, which is a small, private school not too much unlike SMU. Big difference is that even if there are rivalries, fierce competition, unc, ncsu, duke, and wake would NEVER let anything happen to the other school. There is much pride in the rivalries. This is the shame we must face. Clements was TX gov. when the crap hit SMU. Down the line, we were canned by ut and a$m. As we know, baylor escaped because Richards made darn sure her school wasn't going to get left behind. What did Clements do? Exactly.

I am friends with some ut alum. Many of them do miss the old days, but somehow, someway, the powers that be at the big state schools decided that our history didn't matter, and away they went. I may have grown up in CA, but I was astonished that the history of the SWC could and would so easily be thrown away. I again compare that to the NC area schools, which have enough pride and sense of history to NEVER let that happen.

Now, we need the faculty, admin., students and quiet alumni to get up and act. Winning counts. We don't have to radiacally alter the SMU education experience. Just the mindset. If there is a failure to act soon, I am afraid for the future.

Go Ponies!

[LA_Mustang]

No Cal,
Of course I realize that SMU doesn't have the resources of USC....number of alums, money, Pac-10, ect. But there is no reason why we can adopt the USC "model" for having a successful college football program. For instance, having similar admission requirement for athletes, getting an athlete friendly major in place, and marketing the school's athletic programs to the area. Outside of sports and USC being larger, the two schools are almost identical in academics, type of students, student attitude, and public perception. I have many USC friends and I took two classes at USC during the summers of 1999 and 2000, so I have a good understanding of the school's atmosphere. I'm not saying we have a chance at this time to succeed at USC’s level but as far as adopting their model, that is attainable.

[EastStang]

I think to have kineseolgy or physical education majors, there would need to be someone donating $10-20 million to endow a chair and several professorships for that department. (Sorry, I ain't got it). If the academic department is funded, I think the faculty would have a hard time turning it down. Which creates the chicken and egg thing. Should money be diverted from the Mustang Club/Committment to such an endowment effort? Or perhaps someone could make a challenge, they would put up $5 Million if it was matched in other contributions. Either way, without funding I doubt that the administration is going to fund any new majors.

[jtstang]

Should money be diverted from the Mustang Club/Committment to such an endowment effort?

Absolutely it should. If the sole point of a new major is to bring better athletes to SMU as is suggested often on this board, the lion's share of the money should come from the athletic department.

[WreckEm16]

Not sure where you got those numbers.

Over the last 5 years, Tech's graduation rate was 89% per the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.

http://www.redraiders.com/stories/071804/foo_071804018.shtml

[SmooPower]

Not sure where you got those numbers.

Over the last 5 years, Tech's graduation rate was 89% per the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.

http://www.redraiders.com/stories/071804/foo_071804018.shtml

These numbers were taken directly from the NCAA 2003 Graduation Report (the 2004 isn't online yet). As I said in my post, it was a 4 year average - the graduation rate for all football players that matriculated between 1993 and 1997.

The Red Raiders graduated, within a five-year period, a school-record 89 percent of the football student-athletes who joined the program during the 1998-99 academic year, according to a survey conducted by the American Football Coaches Association.

Tech's graduation rate wasn't 89% over the past 5 years . . . it was that 89% of their football players who started school in 98-99 graduated within five years.