JUCO progress

[gostangs]

I alluded to this in another post but thougth it was worthy of its own discussion. Should we be encouraged by the number and emphasis (4 out of 12 recruits) of JUCO's in our recruiting class? Seems like you could look at it as positive and negative, but it feels mostly positive to me. The big change is that they are getting easily admitted apparently. On the negative, the coaches obviously think we need a lot of immediate help - but I guess we all knew that anyway. Personally I really like adding JUCO's - it shows a sense of urgency that was missing in previous efforts. Now we need to worry about keeping them - so about that athletic friendly major issue......

[Stallion]

the better issue is to compare the type of JUCO SMU is signing with the type of JUCO the rest of the world signs. SMU still is not signing the traditional JUCO player-they are simply signing JUCOs who ended up in Junior College for lack of other alternatives. There are obviously still major competitive issues in SMU's recruitment of JUCOs. But that's not to say that there has not been a step in the right direction. Arguably, SMU would still be on a 20+ losing streak without JUCOs from last year. They will make us much deeper and better in coming years. But if you think we are on an equal competitive playing field in recruiting JUCOs with other Texas and/or CUSA teams then you are pretty naive.

[gostangs]

I don't think we are on a equal playing field with other CUSA schools in this area, or in recruiting in general. What I don't know is what SMU needs to do from this point going forward to get on an equal playing field. Since you live this - exactly what should all of us be pressuring our adminstration to do in order to get equal with our target competitors? And please be really specific for us slower, naive guys. Identify the top five barriers.

[Stallion]

hell if I know the admission standards for JUCOs at SMU-it seems pretty closely guarded- but it appears to me based upon an educated guess from the prior JUCOS who have signed that SMU is admitting kids who were full qualifiers out of high school OR who may have had a bad grade in high school -perhaps in a core class and can have that grade "washed away" by one year at a Prep school or community college.

[jtstang]

hell if I know the admission standards for JUCOs at SMU-it seems pretty closely guarded- but it appears to me based upon an educated guess from the prior JUCOS who have signed that SMU is admitting kids who were full qualifiers out of high school OR who may have had a bad grade in high school -perhaps in a core class and can have that grade "washed away" by one year at a Prep school or community college.

Let me be the devils advocate here. Assuming that's the case, what should it be in order to bring them in line with everybody else? I mean, this sounds reasonable to me. Since you do not advocate recruiting partials or non-qualifiers out of HS, does it really change things that much that they have a C average at BFCC taking advanced hand clapping? What changes in JUCO recruiting philosophy do you propose?

[Stallion]

I think SMU should be allowed to admit JUCOs who have completely their NCAA mandated JUCO degree just like every other NCAA school is allowed to do. SMU's policy allows for the admission of the exception not the rule.

[jtstang]

Aren't you just asking for a second bite of the apple at the partial- and non-qualifiers you advocate foregoing in the first instance? I mean are they the difference makers that we are not getting under the current policy as you understand it?

[mustangswillwin]

we do get JUCO players that are required to "graduate" from JC. ( i.e. Haywood this year and the defensive tackle last year)

[gostangs]

And for that matter (not to change the subject), but why should we not accept the occasional partial qualifier, if we think they have at least a decent shot at advancing toward a degree? As I understand it our CUSA breathern do this. To be fully competitive we need to do it also - should it be on the list?

So far -

1. Accept qualified JUCO's as a rule, not just as an exception (possibly done)
2. Creat at least two athlete friendly majors
3. Accept no more then ____ partial qualifiers
?
?

Any other ideas? - Exactly how does SMU NOW restrict itself that is different from our competitive target group, and how should it be changes.

I am tired of complaining - I want to know what changes to ask for.

[Boston Pony]

IMHO, both JUCO's & transfers have the same issue as in the past i.e. that not all of their credits will be accepted. This is a school issue and not limited to athletics. SMU doesn't accept all college credits. Another issue is that if you look at other schools, Cal comes to mind, they have taken some players that others didn't look at from Jucos and have succeed without the AA. Arrington & Rodgers are two great examples of under recruited players. Finally, Juco recruiting is much like hs recruiting. The best players want to play for winners with high visibility, two things SMU doesn't offer.

[EastStang]

True, they would pick for example a Baylor or a Notre Dame over SMU for exposure. How many JUCO's do USC, UT, A&M, or Miami gobble up each year? I'll bet its not many. I agree with Stallion, that if someone has gotten through junior college and can show at least some mastery of core courses (English, math, social science), he should be admitted whether he was a non-qualifier or not. Now if all his courses were in automotive repair and physical education, he's probably not going to make it at SMU. But he'll do just fine an a school with an agriculture major. He'll ace tractor repair 101.

[Dooby]

There is also a larger problem with partial and non-qualifiers and that is that they are not on scholarship until they qualify. While that may not be a huge pricetag for a kid going to UT, Texas Tech or UNT, it is quite substantial for a kid that may want to go to SMU. So, even if we freely accepted non-qualifiers, tuition alone would make sucha practice difficult. That being said, Foy Munlin and Akanenmi (sp?) managed to pay their way for one year, so it can be done.

[EastStang]

I don't want to take NQ except if they've graduated from JUCO and now are qualified.

[gostangs]

Why not? If our competitors do it we should also. Was not aware of the no scholorship rule mentioned above - so that probably makes it a moot point for us, but if they want to come and they have a shot at advancing in their degree, we should let them have a shot.

[tmustangp]

I alluded to this in another post but thougth it was worthy of its own discussion. Should we be encouraged by the number and emphasis (4 out of 12 recruits) of JUCO's in our recruiting class? Seems like you could look at it as positive and negative, but it feels mostly positive to me. The big change is that they are getting easily admitted apparently. On the negative, the coaches obviously think we need a lot of immediate help - but I guess we all knew that anyway. Personally I really like adding JUCO's - it shows a sense of urgency that was missing in previous efforts. Now we need to worry about keeping them - so about that athletic friendly major issue......

I know Bennett has had a few stops at other schools but lets look at him at K-State... now lets remember back about 25 years ago when Snyder was starting at K-State and how horrible they were... how did he fix that, by bring in juco's and continue to bring in juco's... i am only 23 but for that past ten years that i have followed college fball, it seems that every year k-state has some juco stud ... Bishop--Tyler cc, ect...list can go on