PonyFans.com

I'm with PonyTe on this one. If the entire landscape of college sports shifts so dramatically in the next 90 days that SMU gets left out in the cold. . .well then it was going to happen anyway, with or without Orsini or any other AD.

Orsini was a much more dynamic and proactive AD than Copeland. But he also had a lot more institutional support. He is not irreplacable. We can (and I believe will) hire an AD who is every bit as good, if not better, than Orsini.

Keep in mind, conference decisions (invitations and whether to accept an invitation) are a presidential level decision. The university presidents, not the ADs, are running this show and will continue to do so. There are some on this board who are totally myopic in their view that Turner somehow "doesn't get it" and is standing in the way of athletics. It doesn't matter how many stadiums we build or renovate, how many big-time coaches we hire, how many new athletic-friendly departments we endow, how much admission standards are loosened. . .its always to someone else's credit and was accomplished despite Turner's opposition. That is totally absurd and flies in the face of the evidence. I've got news for you. . .If Turner were opposed to athletics, none of this would have happened. As evidence, I present Exhibit A - Ken Pye. Don't underestimate the power of a president to make or break athletics at SMU. This isn't A&M where athletics boosters run everything and the President and A&D are just yes-men.

Turner gets it, and he and the new AD are going to keep moving this thing forward. In the end, that’s all we can do. The rest will take care of itself.

Could the ACC be our ultimate destination?

Since football is the main driver in college athletics - who are the best positioned BE football teams who also have strong academics (presumably strong academics will appeal to the ACC Duke, NC, WF), in a major media/recruiting market:

Do the venn diagram and you find that among BE teams only SMU satisfies all three conditions: high academic ranking, competitive football team, and major media / recruiting market.

Something tells me that Louisville wants to go the Big 12. And something tells me that the ACC can see where a "basketball centric" league gets you these days.

The ACC would be the perfect home for SMU - even if the ACC is not a power conference. Strong academic teams with athletic programs that we can compete with.

Good, accurate post CottonBowl. If anyone thinks Orsini was calling the shots, he/she are sadly mistaken. Orsini was third behind RGT and the donors in the decision making tree. His firing, although unfortunate, doesn't really matter much. Like it or not, RGT will be in the driver's seat for at least five more years. I for one, think this is good thing.

If Mexmustang's story is true-that's probably the best news I've heard all week because it's just a personality clash and not a more serious problem in the program. I have always been an Orsini fan-thought he made the hard decisions that made this program economically viable. Not taking a position on whether "twas fair though-cause I don't know what happened. That said I do generally think the criticism of Turner is unfair. He deserved significant criticism during his first decade but he's come along way-and he at deserves a lot of support for how far he's come in the last 5 years or so. Its a waste of time anyway-he's got solid support across the university and he ain't going anywhere despite what a few Football fans think.

Mexmustang wrote:I may have to eat some of my own words. At lunch today one of my friends related that he had heard Orsini was fired for publically criticizing Turner. Supposedly, President Turner had warned him, in a letter that this was unacceptable, but then it happened a second time. If this was true, but like all things heard on the second bottle of wine, needs verification, then Turner was right in terminating him. It is fine to challenge you boss in private, but not to take it public.

That would certainly explain terminated, for cause, publicly, suddenly.

I got to the matter last night. Although there is alot more detail and personalities involved, but what I related yesterday was basically correct.

Our issue now is who do we hire? We have a great opportunity to improve. But, there are different strengths which give us different options. Do we need a well connected politician that can keep us in play in conference realignment as well as convince the administration and the academics that athletic success is a good thing for the university, but that there are costs/requirements or do we go after a whirlwind marketer, that concerns himself with filling seats? I just don't want someone that manages the status quo and is a puppet of the administration.

To me, SO always seemed liked the alpha male in the room. He was rough around the edges but regardless of the situation, he felt like SMU belonged. Whether that was getting into a BCS conference, hiring a big name coach or being Top 25 in everything we do. And I absolutely loved that about him.....I want my leader to be a bulldog. That said, we a need a bulldog with football AND basketball knowledge. Hopefully we find that person.

LA_Mustang wrote:I want my leader to be a bulldog. That said, we a need a bulldog with football AND basketball knowledge. Hopefully we find that person.

I agree to a point, but we also need a bulldog who is astute enough to understand and work through the political environment that exists at every university. From the reports I have heard and read, this was an area where SO was seriously lacking or felt was unimportant and it probably cost him his job. The person who will be successful is one who like SO is not afraid to put SMU center stage in the national conversation whether the school is ready or not, but who can work with RGT, JJ and LB to keep the admin and faculty engaged when appropriate and out of the way when necessary. I think RGT might be willing to take some of that on if he feels his AD has his back; clearly with the Mob Boss he didn't. I don't see any major steps back or a return to the athletic purgatory that Pye instituted, but the new person needs to be able to understand and manipulate the complexities of the relationships and egos and not simply steamroll over them.

Stallion wrote:I find it humorous that just when our academic standards have been lowered to the lowest they have been in 25 years there are more prtedictions of DOOM than ever. Good god-go take a look at our BB roster for next year and chill-its almost an All-Star Transfer team

Just to clarify, academic standards have actually been raised. Applications are way up, and the university is about to implement curriculum changes that may prove more challenging to our student-athletes.

I think what we're seeing from the university is some willingness to be flexible with respect to admissions and some commitment in terms of the services offered to get these kids up-to-speed scholastically with the rest of the general student population.

Being proud of our university, I think everyone on this board gets excited when they see average admission SAT scores climb and university rank climb, and of course we're all maybe even more excited to see when our athletic programs climb the ranks.

According to About.com College Admissions, about 1/2 of those who apply to SMU don't get in. Most students who are admitted have a high school average of A- and a combined SAT score of 1700 or better.

But we need to realize that this overall improvement is a bit of a two-edged sword because as the quality of student raises and our faculty tailors their classes to that "average" student, the disparity between the "average" student and the student-athletes that we're now trying to accommodate is going to grow. And of course, the university is committed to educating every student to a level of knowledge where they can earn a degree.

If we continue to succeed this will be a major new challenge for the university that it didn't have to contend with 25 years ago when they were trying to recruit the "big guy in Chemistry 102" to try out for the football team.

RyanSMU98 wrote:The person who will be successful is one who like SO is not afraid to put SMU center stage in the national conversation whether the school is ready or not, but who can work with RGT, JJ and LB to keep the admin and faculty engaged when appropriate and out of the way when necessary.

Having someone who understands how to manage people and understands the value of marketing might be useful too.

Someone who has had experience negotiating major media contracts would, of course, be a bonus.

Look around the college landscape to see who's getting done what you want to accomplish. Pay this person more money than he currently makes at school X.

Del Conte would be an absolute dream and a great way to stick it to TCU. If that is our model for success, let's hire the guy that has done it already.

All student/athletes at all universities competing in athletics are going to face real, sub stantial historic requirements to be admitted into a Division 1A school. You guys are planning for 1976.

A.Incoming Freshman:(Mexmustang-see Foreign Language requirement which is already requirement for graduating from Texas High School* and must be met by SMU students as well (either in high school or in first years at SMU)

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... basketball

• Complete 16 core courses (four years in English, three years in math at an Algebra I level or higher, two years in natural or physical science, two years social science, one year of additional English/math/natural science and four years additional from those listed or foreign language, philosophy or comparative religion).

• Of those 16 core courses, 10 must be completed before the beginning of an athlete's senior year and grades from those core courses are "locked in" for computing a GPA once the seventh semester begins. In other words, there are no more emergency summer sessions in the senior year to rectify failing grades.

• Must have a minimum GPA of 2.3 in those 16 core courses (up from 2.0) with accompanying sliding scale SAT/ACT score(SIGNIFICANT SLIDING SCALE INCREASES TOO AS REFERENCED BELOW). An Academic redshirt may practice with but not compete for his/her team for the first semester. Additionally, beginning this year, junior college transfers will need to have a 2.5 GPA (up from 2.0) in their transferrable credits

*TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS: "Languages other than English--two credits. The credits must consist of any two levels in the same language."


B.JUCOs:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... n-jc-level

Bundled into the NCAA’s academic reform package is a mandate that as of the end of the 2013 academic year, junior college transfers must now have a 2.5 GPA in their transferable credits in order to be eligible for a four-year school.

That’s not only up from a 2.0, but also higher than is required for initial eligibility for freshmen (2.3 under the new NCAA rules) and significantly higher than virtually every university requires for continuing eligibility.



C. Academic Redshirt for an Estimated 35-48% of Incoming Freshmen Based on NCAA Study of Past Classes:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recru ... reate-term.

To understand this you really need to study the HUGE increase in the sliding scale requirements of SAT/GPA-its going to hit SMU recruits under Jones and Doherty and probably Brown like a ton of bricks with perhaps aroind 50% ineligible to play as Freshmen based upon prior signed classes. NCAA study of student athlete performance indicates that approximately 36% of all Football signees and 48% of all Basketball signees will be impacted by this requirement.

SMU COMMENT: The sliding scales are difficult to comprehend. You can't look at the 2.3 GPA minimum and understand it because it slides upwards with SAT. Pertinent example for SMU-We know SMU signs or at least has signed double digits athletes per year in Category C (defined as below 2.5 GPA and 900 SAT) . Under new freshman eligibility sliding scale kids with a 2.5 GPA and 900 SAT would easily be subject to mandatory Freshman Academic Redshirt Rule-and its not even close

D. Much stricter APR requirements for Bowl/NCAA Tournament eligibility-at a level much higher than SMU scored in either BB or FB in the last annual report-clock is ticking on those kids being recruited today for our eligibility in future years
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... pr-cutline

The requirement: a four-year average Academic Progress Rate (APR) of 930, measuring how well teams keep players in school, keep them eligible and ultimately graduate them. The NCAA says that roughly portends a 50% graduation rate.

Ten teams that reached the NCAA men's basketball tournament last March fell beneath a 930 APR, including eventual champion Connecticut, third-seeded Syracuse and Sweet 16 qualifier Florida State. All told, one in every 20 men's teams in the more than 340-member Division I came up short.

Football-At 930, that would have affected six of last season's 70 bowl participants and 17 of 120 major-college teams overall.

Among the latter were six teams from marquee conferences -- Maryland and North Carolina State from the Atlantic Coast, Louisville from the Big East, Michigan from the Big Ten and Colorado and Washington State from the Pacific 12 -- plus newly independent Brigham Young.

SMU Comment-a second bad year in APR this year in report to be released very soon could have disaterous results especially for SMU BB especially since the 4 released transfers will cost us 4 points unless they transfer with at least a 2.6 GPA. We need a strong APR report this year because those transfer deductions would hit us in future reports

E. Prohibition on Back Loading Transcript in High School:

The 2016 standards mandate the same 16 core courses but stipulate that 10 must be completed by the start of the student's senior year of high school and that all 16 are finished in four years. So effectively say goodbye to the practice popular in basketball of reclassifying to enjoy a fifth year of high school. This will send kids transfering among diploma mills to JUCO

Stallion, are you sure about the Texas foreign language requirement? That would be four hs semesters, equaling two college semesters (6 hours) or one year of a foreign language at SMU.

I looked it up and only about five states have a two hs semesters of a foreign language required for graduation. The State of Texas did not show any foreign language hours to be a requirement for graduation, only a recommendation. I would very much like to see your source if you can find it. If all Texas hs graduates have to meet a 2 year requirement then there would be no argument, but I haven't found any states other than the five that required one year of high school language study, not two years--the equivalent of one year of college study.

Well, I found a second source that listed 12 states, but not Texas or our recruiting territory. Some required 4 hs semesters or the equivalent of one college year of study.

Yes those are the Texas recommended requirements but those minimum requirements aren't really meant to be applied as broadly as you suggest-this explains -note these are high schoool failure types(really) who are not planning on attended college-If they've failed before 10th grade they likely can't meet the new NCAA backload requirements, the broad NCAA core requirements(which have gone from 12 to 16 over the years) or the core requirements that can be met by foreign language. Its not that big a deal and is common at most Texas universitiies

Minimum High School Program Permission to graduate under the minimum high school program must be agreed to in writing and signed by the student, student’s parent (or other person standing in parental relation to the student), and a school counselor or school administrator. Under HB 3, to graduate under the minimum high school program, students must: • be at least 16 years of age; • have completed 2 credits required for graduation in each subject of the foundation curriculum; or • have failed to be promoted to the 10th grade one or more times as determined by the school district

http://www.tiva.org/tivanew/node/107