Good Discussion of Proposed NCAA Academic Reform

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed May 19, 2010 3:20 pm

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pr ... tings.html

FroggieFever · Post by **FroggieFever** » Wed May 19, 2010 4:21 pm

we need HIGHER academic standards not LOWER ones!

Mexmustang · Post by **Mexmustang** » Wed May 19, 2010 8:24 pm

I would prefer five years to graduate, which is consistant with redshirting, etc. However, let's do away with athletic friendly majors (at all schools) that don't really prepare a player for a life without football. I would prefer, as an option a matching redshirt academic year to work on math, English and writing skills, that could offer a student athlete the opportunity get prepared for real courses and majors. If we can holdback a young offensive lineman out for a year to let him grow and matture, why not also do so academics?

couch 'em · Post by **couch 'em** » Thu May 20, 2010 7:28 am

Higher academic requirements are BAD for SMU! You can require more hours, but Boise St. is always going to be easy to graduate from.

Some people out there playing football are just not readyfor the academics at SMU, we need less hours their first semester to ease them into it and assess their abillities, not more. Otherwise legit academic schools should just quit football.

Samurai Stang · Post by **Samurai Stang** » Thu May 20, 2010 11:58 am

Mexmustang wrote:I would prefer five years to graduate, which is consistant with redshirting, etc. However, let's do away with athletic friendly majors (at all schools) that don't really prepare a player for a life without football. I would prefer, as an option a matching redshirt academic year to work on math, English and writing skills, that could offer a student athlete the opportunity get prepared for real courses and majors. If we can holdback a young offensive lineman out for a year to let him grow and matture, why not also do so academics?

Your post is utterly ridiculous. This is beyond Pye.

If your love for academics is so great, there are scholarships that are devoted entirely to that field. In fact, in those areas students are not even forced to make room in their schedules for athletics.

You desire to treat athletes as though they are academic charity cases. It is insulting to the number of athletes that have attended SMU and graduated, as well as those currently on the team. Do not simply assume that all athletes are remedial students because they take the field. You seek to address a problem that does not exist, and in doing so wish a plague upon SMU athletics.

SMU2007 · Post by **SMU2007** » Thu May 20, 2010 12:29 pm

athletes on average are dumber than the normal student at any school. that's not even an arguable point

FroggieFever · Post by **FroggieFever** » Thu May 20, 2010 1:57 pm

SMU2007 wrote:athletes on average are dumber than the normal student at any school. that's not even an arguable point

not necessary dumber, they just don't produce the same academic results as the average student. there is a difference.

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Thu May 20, 2010 2:08 pm

FroggieFever wrote:
SMU2007 wrote:athletes on average are dumber than the normal student at any school. that's not even an arguable point

not necessary dumber, they just don't produce the same academic results as the average student. there is a difference.

Do smarter people not capitalize the first word in a sentence anymore?

smuuth · Post by **smuuth** » Thu May 20, 2010 7:45 pm

Oh, the stereotypes......Mexmustang is right. 5 years with an emphasis to help those who need the most help adjusting during the first year. Additionally, I would recommend that the number of scholarships available be partially based on the number of players that are graduating in the 4-5 year time period. More graduates equals more scholarships. For instance. If you are UT and only graduating 50% of your players within five years then instead of 25 scholarships you might have say 18. Other factors would be considered of course. The schools graduating their players would have more scholarship players while the football factories who only care about wins would have fewer sch players and eventually parity.

Mexmustang · Post by **Mexmustang** » Thu May 20, 2010 11:55 pm

I don't agree that athletes are "dumber, etc." That may be true in some instances--certainly many are not as well prepared perhaps because of the quality of the school they attended or their high school ignored their academic issues in favor of their performance on the field.

If we or any other school are really trying to make a difference in these players' lives, why "cheat" them by having them for 3-4 years without any academic accomplishments? I feel that if we are going to accept a number of players that will struggle in school, we should be prepared to help them succeed.

Pye wouldn't have allowed us to even consider recruiting athletes with marginal academic records. He certainly wouldn't see the need to provide a support system different from the average student. Maybe my suggestions are impractical, but limiting athletes to 4 or 4-1/2 years for graduation only invites academic fraud. I obviously wasn't addressing the student/athlete that has little or no special "needs" in terms of academics. But, given a student/athletes commitment in time, they should be given the option to accomplish graduation in five years.

I also feel that we (the university) should be prepared to do everything possible to see that they succeed in the classroom--even if it means they receive special help such as courses in writing and math, and intensive tutoring, not available to the average student. Pye would not agree with this position and neither does our current administration.

SMU2007 · Post by **SMU2007** » Fri May 21, 2010 8:20 am

if my comment is just a stereotype and isn't accurate, then why did everyone complain that smu wouldn't bend the admissions criteria to help out our football program before june? surely those "just as smart as anyone else" athletes would have gotten in without any help anyway, right?

Samurai Stang · Post by **Samurai Stang** » Fri May 21, 2010 11:24 am

SMU2007 wrote:if my comment is just a stereotype and isn't accurate, then why did everyone complain that smu wouldn't bend the admissions criteria to help out our football program before june? surely those "just as smart as anyone else" athletes would have gotten in without any help anyway, right?

Stating that SMU must work to allow athletes admission that are not scholars is one matter.

Stating that SMU must rigorously increase its academic requirements for what is expected of coursework for student athletes is another matter. There is not, at this moment, a problem regarding the graduation of student athletes. Before the players that were dismissed are brought up, keep in mind that they would have most likely failed in mexmustang's proposed system, as well. The desire to succeed academically cannot be taught. The ability to succeed academically for those who wish it is already present at SMU.

CalallenStang · Post by **CalallenStang** » Fri May 21, 2010 11:27 am

SMU2007 wrote:if my comment is just a stereotype and isn't accurate, then why did everyone complain that smu wouldn't bend the admissions criteria to help out our football program before june? surely those "just as smart as anyone else" athletes would have gotten in without any help anyway, right?

"Smart" is measured with IQ tests

"College Admissions Material" is measured with SAT, ACT, and GPA.

Huge difference.

Samurai Stang · Post by **Samurai Stang** » Fri May 21, 2010 11:34 am

Mexmustang wrote:I also feel that we (the university) should be prepared to do everything possible to see that they succeed in the classroom--even if it means they receive special help such as courses in writing and math, and intensive tutoring, not available to the average student. Pye would not agree with this position and neither does our current administration.

It is against NCAA rules to offer academic aid to athletes that is not available to others. As such, the Learning Enhancement Center is available to all students, even though athletes were the reason it was constructed. This is because athletes are to be treated equally to normal students.

Your post reeks of Pye in that you seek a program in which academics are of greater importance than athletics.

However, let's do away with athletic friendly majors (at all schools) that don't really prepare a player for a life without football.

All majors are of value. A college degree, on its own, is of value. Notice how you attempt to remove the majors that are friendly to athletes, while at the same time turning them into remedial students. You desire to at once make SMU's academic requirements both easier and more strenuous.

PoconoPony · Post by **PoconoPony** » Fri May 21, 2010 12:04 pm

Report this postReply with quoteRe: Good Discussion of Proposed NCAA Academic Reform
by SMU2007 ├é┬╗ Thu May 20, 2010 12:29 pm per SMU2007

athletes on average are dumber than the normal student at any school. that's not even an arguable point

I suggest that you check the grade point averages for all athletic teams other than football and basketball and you will find team GPAs far above the average student body GPA.