|=TM.' J
—
Aggies climb to top
in world of recruiting
A&M signs top
By Homer Jacobs
Sports Editor
The Texas A&M football pro
gram won the battle and the war
Wednesday — the national signing
day for high school seniors — by
signing bluecbip and Parade All-
American running back Randy Sim
mons of McKinney.
By winning the recruiting battle
lor Simmons, the Aggies also won
the whole 1987 . recruiting war as
A&M signed four players off the
Ihtllits l imes Hemlcl bluechip list.
The Aggies already had received
commitments from the other three
blttechippers — running back Dar
en Lewis of Dallas Carter and a pair
of linemen, Matt McCall of Lufkin,
who also was a Parade All-American,
md Greg Lakin of Cypress-
Fairbanks.
Simmons, who many experts con
sider the top running back in the na
tion, rushed for 2,557 yards and 44
[ouchdowns last year to set a Class
4A rushing record.
The running back did not, how
ever, make the required 7()() on the
Scholastic Aptitude Test. Simmons
|y tcored a (i7() but managed a 2.2
liria gfiide-point ratio in school. There
fore, he needs otdy a 080 on the next
SAT try to be eligible to play with
A&M in the fall because of his
higher grade-point ratio.
A&M Coach Jackie Sherrill said
lie was very pleased with this year’s
cropol schoolboy talent that will join
^he Aggies next fall.
| “All the credit really goes to our
■tlayers on campus and certainly our
Assistant coaches,” Sherrill said. “To
tie it all together, I am very, very
iiappy.”
I It was no secret that Sherrill was
iifter running backs, and by landing
I'tlie top two in the state, the Aggies’
Hecruiting campaign should rate as
one of the tops in the nation.
I “We evaluated every running
Kyack in the country just about,”
Sherrill said. “ The running backs in
Htis state, we felt, as a whole and in
dividually, were better than any
place else in the country.
running back
“I think we have the nucjeus of
players that will improve our foot
ball team. And when I say improve
our football team, you’re talking
about going from 10-2 to 11-1 and
12-0. That’s the quality of players we
were able to bring in.”
Besides the four bluechippers
signed, the Aggies also landed live
other players rated in Texas Foot
ball’s Top 80 list.
Crane running back Gerald
Mitchell, Alto running back-de
fensive back Steve Lofton, Cameron
linebacker Seth Dockery, lineman
Jeff Huff of Deer Park and lineman
Keith Alex of Beaumont Central all
have signed with the 1986 Southwest
Conference champions.
In addition to the top Texas talent
headed Sherrill’s way, A&M also
signed two top out-of-state players.
Quarterback Bucky Richardson
from Broadmoor High School in Ba
ton Rouge, La., and wide receiver
Cornelius Patterson of Moss Point,
Miss., decided to cross state lines to
play their college football.
Richardson made the Times-Pic-
ayt/ne Top 82 list, while Patterson is
known nationwide for his 4.8 speed
in the 40-yard dash.
The following are the other re
cruits A&M has signed as of
Wednesday Feb. I 1:
Karry Vincent, receiver. Port Ar
thur Jefferson; Alton Gillis, de
fensive lineman, Dallas Kimball;
Ramsey Bradberry, defensive back,
Richardson Berkner; Doug Carter,
running back, Dallas Thomas Jeffer
son; Larry Horton, running back,
Tatum High; Keith McAfee, run
ning back, Sugai land Willowridge;
Greg Waddle, tight end, Columbus
High; James Webb, defensive line
man, Dallas Roosevelt; John Martin,
offensive lineman, Hallsville High;
William Thomas, quarterback, Am
arillo Palo Duro; Chris Crooms, de
fensive back, Baytown Lee; and
Shane Garrett, wide receiver, Crow
ley, La.
Thursday, February 12, 1987/The Battalion/Page 13
Sports
Athletic allowance draws skepticism
Editor’s note: I'his is the second
segment in u two-purl series on the
question ol monthly ullowunces lor
sr holm ship athletes. Phis segment
discusses the reusability of imple
menting such a plan and its possible
drawbacks.
By Doug Hall
Sports Writer
The idea of college athletes re
ceiving a monthly living allowance —
based on a need basis — has taken
hold with many administrators and
is being considered by the NCAA.
The reasons behind the plan are
to cut down on infractions and pro
vide an easier lifestyle for the ath
letes.
Despite the positive aspects of the
monthly allotlmenls supported by
such credible sources as Texas A&M
President Dr. Frank Vandiver,
Texas Christian University Head
basketball Coach Jim Killingsworth
and Dr. Steven Picou, professor of
sports sociology at A&M, detractors
to this proposed plan line up in force
to present (he other side of the argu
ment.
Rick Baker, an assistant SWC
commissioner, said he would be sur
prised to see the divisions allow such
a payment simply due to the costs in
curred.
“With all ol the momentum these
days towards fiscal managements
and cutbacks. I’d be surprised for
this to go through,” Baker said. “It
would be a shift of momentum to
add an additional cost such as this.
“Where do you draw the line on
such a payment? It almost seems like
a no-win situation.”
Baker, a former college athlete,
readily admits he is personally
against such a stipend.
“I guess you could call me old-
fashioned,” he said. “I believe it’s a
situation where schools provide for a
free education, and that in itself
should amount to something.
“As far as feasibilty, however, I
don’t know. I know a lot of coaches
would be in favor of it, and it might
cut down on improprieties. But it
would just seem contrary to what is
already established.
“But I can definitely see where
there is momentum both ways.”
Merrill Green, the head football
coach at Bryan High School, sup
ports the plan, but with the same res
ervations many administrators ex
press.
“My attitude changes a lot on this
subject,” Green said. “The way I un
derstand it, there are a lot of reasons
for and against it.
“Like so many other coaches, Tin
a proponent of the $ 1 ()-to-$ 15-a-
month idea. But I’m afraid that if
you give them $100 a month, they
will want $200. But I can’t see any
thing wrong with it if it’s kept to a
minimum.
“And I guess the $15 I received
back in the ’50s probably equates to
$100 today.”
John David Grow, associate ath
letic director at Texas A&M and a
former Heisman Trophy winner, is
also one who sees both sides of the
fence.
“For me to say that I don’t think
they (athletes) should receive this
type of money would almost seem
un-American,” Grow said. “But it all
gets down to a situation of what you
can afford. How can you fund it?
How many universities can afford to
pay this type of payment. Those are
all questions that will have to be an
swered.”
Glow, using tbe modest figure of
$100 a month, said for A&M to pay
its 240 scholarship athletes over the
course of the school year rings up a
total approaching a quarter of a mil
lion dollars.
Crow also said that implementing
such a plan would require exhaustive
amounts of legislat ion and talk.
“On one side you have the schools
that would not have any trouble
funding such a payment,” he said.
“On the other side you have those
who could never afford it, and then
there’s another group that says,
‘Hey, we’tl like to be able to do this,
but we’re going to have to make cuts
in other areas to do so.’
“When you’ve got three factions
like that going, it’s going to be hard
to get a majority.”
Robinson also sees the dangers in
volved for non-revenue sports by
implementing such a plan.
“Right now, It’s difficult to deter
mine how non-revenue sports will
fare with something like this,” Rob
inson said. “Times are tough right
now, and there are a lot of schools al
ready dropping sports. Unless you
can increase your revenues to pro
vide the cash, something has to gi
ve.”
But, Robinson argued, there are
millions of ways to cut back on ex
penses. 'Travel expenses, equipment
and facilities are all areas that can be
cut, he said.
Or so could scholarships and non
revenue sports, which worries even
proponents such as Picou.
“It will definitely be a financial str
ain,” Picou said. “What we don’t
want to see is this payment reducing
the total number of scholarships, es
pecially in smaller schools. Many
people are also af raid it would elimi- -
nate non-revenue sports.”
The answer, Picou said, is to care
fully research what each school can
afford without damaging existing
programs or turning the payment -
into a bidding war among the top
colleges.
Paul Crawford, an integral mem
ber of A&M’s basketball team, said
he is definitely against this type of
payment.
“I’m against it,” Crawford said,
“because tbis isn’t professional ath
letics. Through the help of coaches
you can get good summer jobs and
make enough money to get by on.
There is also meal money. I just
think it would defeat the purpose of
college athletics.”
Mike Clifford, the Aggies’ 6-8 for
ward, said he was originally against
the idea but had changed his mind
somewhat after examining the dif
ferent aspects.
“I was against it at first,” he said.
“But there are a lot of guys around
here who have to go to summer
school every summer just to remain
eligible.
“I can see where guys would need
it, but somehow, eventually, it would
get messed up.”
Besides summer school, there are
athletes who must work out all sum
mer to stay in shape, swimmer Chris
Emig said.
“We have to swim all summer just
to be ready for the fall,” he said.
All three athletes said they per
sonally did not need the money, but,
as Clifford said, “if you offered it to
me. I’d certainly take it.”
For the moment, however, no ath
lete will be receiving any type of le
gal monthly allotment. In all proba
bility, with the inevitable legal battles
and heated debates ahead, Picon’s
estimate of two to three years for
such a bill’s passage is probably a
safe guess.
Would such a payment put a per
manent drain on the majority of col
leges? Would athletes be content
with the figure allotted or would it
lead to a full scale bidding war? Will
non revenue sports survive this type
of payment in today’s financial
crunch? Or is college athletics
continuing to outgrow its impor
tance.
At this point, everyone is still eval
uating the pros and cons. But there
is definitely momentum in both di
rections.
Senior Finals
President Vandiver has signed a proposal that will require graduating
seniors at Texas A&M to take final exams. The plan would mean that
"Dead Week", a time that students are supposed to be free of tests and
other assignments to prepare for finals, would be reduced to four days for
all students. This will eliminate weekend studying because the final
exam schedule will begin on Friday. All students, according to President
Vandiver's proposal, will now be given exams in a four day period: Fri
day, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday. The current system allows stu
dents seven days for "Dead Week" with which to study and a less rig
orous five day exam schedule.
Professors must have all graduating senior grade reports com
pleted and sent to the Registrar's Office by 5:00 P.M. Tuesday, the last
day of finals. Provided there is no computer down-time and all professors
report senior grades by 5:00 P.M., seniors will receive their grades on
Thursday. Registrar Robert Lacey stated that if the previous conditions
are met, and if the degree audit system is in place, grades may possibly
be available late Wednesday afternoon.
The Auto Degree Audit System is not in operation at this time and al
though it has been tested, it would need further testing and installation
prior to the May 1988 enactment of senior Finals. Seniors prior to May
1988 have two working days to clear any blocks to their graduation for
parking violations, miscalulated grades, etc.. Under the new proposal, se
niors will have from 8 A.M. to 12 P.M. Thursday when they receive their
grades to clear any blocks and to try to locate professors if a grade error
has been made. Mote that classes for all students end Tuesday and it is
very likely that professors will leave for the semester after they submit
their grades Tuesday afternoon.
Another casualty of the Senior Finals proposal is the Corps of
Cadets Commissioning Ceremony. Beginning in May 1988, the
Commissioning Ceremony as we know it will be eliminated. Also Fi
nal Review will be rescheduled, possibly to the weekend prior to grad
uation. Attendance to Final Review will be significantly reduced if par
ents must travel to A&M on separate weekends to attend both
Commencement and Final Review. This inconvenience may result
in the eventual elimination of Final Review according to some Corps
officials.
Possibly the most dramatic changes caused by the Senior Finals
proposal will be seen in the Commencement Ceremony. Administra
tors foresee that Commencement attendance will suffer. Before May
1988, families are able to witness campus life because all students that
are not graduating are still attending classes. After the enactment of se
nior finals, families and friends will not only miss witnessing the friendli
ness that makes A&M unique, but they may also be burdened with the
parking problems and confusion that accompanies students moving out
of their dorms. Texas A&M's Commencement is unique because each
graduate receives his or her diploma as he walks across the stage, unlike
other universities which hand out hollow tubes and send the diploma in
the mail. When the Senior Finals proposal is enacted, time contraints
placed on faculty, possible computer failure, and other factors may mean
A&M will have to resort to the same impersonal policies already used by
other universities in the state. If graduates no longer receive their diplo
mas at Commencement, attendance will suffer even further.
This information is highly confidential and was not given to the stu
dent organizations who were working to save these traditions. If you
have any questions, contact President, Dr. Frank E. Vandiver at 845-
2217.
/STUDENT
VE1RNMENT
S A&M UNIVERSITY
Traditions Council