RGTurner & MexMustang

[SoCal_Pony]

I wanted to give this a separate thread regarding MexMustang's issues with RGT and if people think Turner has been an effective President for SMU.

RGTurner arrived in 1995, that's 23 years. As with anyone who has served in a leadership capacity for that long, his body of work begins to speak for itself.

Here are some key criteria by which I grade RGT, understanding that first and foremost, he is an academic President.

I tried to find our endowment numbers from 1995 but couldn't. What I did find was this from nacubo.org : In 2002, SMU ranked #52 in total endowment at $830k. By 2016 SMU was ranked #68 in total endowment at $1.4B

In 1983, the year I graduated, SMU ranked ~#53 among colleges and universities in America. In 2017, SMU was ranked #61

In terms of athletics, from 1995 to 2016, SMU football was ranked 107th out of 119 Division I programs. Schools such as Ball State, San Jose St, Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana-Monroe are all ranked higher than SMU.

In 1993, 2 years prior to RGT's arrival at SMU, our BB team won the SWC Championship and went to the NCAA tourney. During RGT's time at SMU, from 1995 to 2012, SMU had only 7 winning seasons (everyone tries to pad their OOC schedule), won 0 Championships, went to 0 NCAA tournaments, 1 NIT tourney and 1 CIT tourney. Remember there are some 68 teams that play in the NCAA tourney and 32 in the NIT, so from 1995 till 2012, or 17 years, SMU was not a Top 100 program 16 of those 17 years. Stallion rightfully says our biggest impediment for FB success is our lack of fan support. I happen to agree. But that is not a reason for our BB failures. What LB did for our program could have been done 15 years earlier under the proper leadership.

One final note, all during this time we have witnessed an explosive growth by the city of Dallas. The metroplex has more Fortune 500 companies (22) than maybe any other area outside of NYC. In terms of economic GDP, we are tied with Houston behind only NYC, LA and Chicago. SMU has failed to properly parlay the success of Dallas into the success of SMU. Our B-school is good but not great. Our law school is OK, but IMO not even as good as our B-school.

Comment all you want, but at the end of the day, so much of this rests with RGT. Posters may say, 'Oh he was good, but its time for new leadership'. I wonder if he was ever that good.

[mtrout]

Get outta here with your new fangled stats. Git!

In this millennium we have:
Received votes in fb
Almost won an ncaa tournament game

Take that for data

[Julian Grendel]

I dont know how deep we want to drill, but from a 30,000 feet view, if SMU would approach everything the same way it does, say, the celebration of lights or the SMU Athletic Forum, things would be a lot better than just 'ok.' Whoever it was that said SMU football game presentation was several levels poorer than most things SMU does had a great point.

[Bergermeister]

RGT is a member of a well-healed mutual admiration society. Same people doing the same things. Until SMU puts a go-getter in the president's office it'll be status quo. "Stay the course, Carl!" (Maybe a couple of new fountains) SMU needs an innovative leader - a la Chancellor Boschini at TCU - to get out of this quagmire of same ol', same ol'. SMU lacks initiative on several fronts.

[mtrout]

He has no reason to change. It’s all good with the high society. I don’t think he cares about what 100 message board members think.

[Alaric]

He's very diligent and active ensuring the same brick is used on all new buildings

[tristatecoog]

http://web.archive.org/web/200709062140 ... &sort=1996

The ones that showed significant upward moves from 1996 to 2018 were:
USC -- 44 to 21
Vandy -- 22 to 14
GT -- 42 to 34
BC -- 37 to 32
Brandeis -- NR to 34
Boston U -- NR to 37
Northeastern -- (Deeply) NR to 40
Pepperdine -- NR to 46...cracked top 50 in 2001, rose to 47 in '03, fell to 55 in '06 and now back in top 50.
Miami -- NR to 46
Georgia is improved (#54)

Generally, it's quite hard to move a university's rankings up. It's interesting that the Boston area universities have done so well because I thought the Northeast had a declining population. SoCal schools have done well despite a supposed brain drain to neighboring states, Texas and further. I suppose the population has grown enough to compensate.

At SMU, there has been a $1B capital campaign and lots of infrastructure investment which doesn't show up in the endowment but should show up in the rankings (over time). Student prospects like shiny buildings, workout facilities, residence halls, etc. The two year residence requirement should eventually improve the retention and graduation rates. Hoops is in a good spot. Football had relatively strong investment in the head coach. The problem was waiting a year or two too long with June. Where was football ranked in 1995?

While falling in the academic rankings, it doesn't seem like RGT would deserve a top 10 salary.

[redpony]

and the really sad thing is that the BOT seems to have the same attitude. Makes one wonder if there will even be a SMU in 25 yr.s.

[NavyCrimson]

Makes me wonder even more - does the BOT or Turner even read this board? LOL Would be interesting.

[SoCal_Pony]

http://web.archive.org/web/20070906214010/http://chronicle.com:80/stats/usnews/index.php?category=Universities&orgs=&sort=1996

The ones that showed significant upward moves from 1996 to 2018 were:
USC -- 44 to 21
Vandy -- 22 to 14
GT -- 42 to 34
BC -- 37 to 32
Brandeis -- NR to 34
Boston U -- NR to 37
Northeastern -- (Deeply) NR to 40
Pepperdine -- NR to 46...cracked top 50 in 2001, rose to 47 in '03, fell to 55 in '06 and now back in top 50.
Miami -- NR to 46
Georgia is improved (#54)

it doesn't seem like RGT would deserve a top 10 salary.

No it doesn’t.

Look at that list, the schools that moved up, virtually every one is located in an area that witnessed strong economic growth, but not to the degree Dallas did.

SMU was teed up for success. We failed.

[Bergermeister]

The problem was waiting a year or two too long with June.

There was ONE member (not RGT) of the inner-circle who insisted June stay another year and the others went along (I won't say they "respected" his wishes). That "shocked" June and the entire football staff - they knew they didn't recruit anybody and still had a job.

[footballdad]

The problem was waiting a year or two too long with June.

There was ONE member (not RGT) of the inner-circle who insisted June stay another year and the others went along (I won't say they "respected" his wishes). That "shocked" June and the entire football staff - they knew they didn't recruit anybody and still had a job.

Yeah, they didn't recruit 'anybody' that year:

Courtland Sutton
Evan Brown
Chad Pursley
Jordan Wyatt
Kyran Mitchell

[tristatecoog]

State of Georgia has invested a lot in higher ed. Hope Scholarships and such. Lottery money. GaTech and UGA have risen.

Other private school peers, not in P5 conferences in 1995, like Tulane, Rice and Tulsa have not improved their athletics. Those may all be worse off.

Other improving universities like NEastern, BU, Pepperdine, Brandeis don't fund football teams. Pepperdine has some decent sports but not like SMU.

Instead of growing endowment, SMU has built at least five buildings over the last 10-15 years and added the Simmons School of Education. Two Simmons buildings, engineering, Collins, Crum, new quad, etc. Education school helped athletics. Engineering and business focus helped SAT score rise. Collins and other grad focus helps finances. Not too bad but don't think it's top 10 pay worthy.

Has the Boston area improved a lot over the last 22 years? Surely Dallas has improved a lot but has that translated into Texas universities having much greater funding? UT and A&M have dropped. UTD has grown.

footballdad, those are great players. Fantastic talent evaluation or beat out strong competition for them?

[Mexmustang]

Guys, its great everyone has an opinion about RGT's performance. That is what the board if for.

But, consider this, TCU's endowment was lower than SMU's. During RGT's term, TCU has had three Presidents. Their endowment is now larger, or about the same, It is that close. Consistency is obviously not a factor.

TCU is now the local college of choice at HPHS. Doesn't seem important, but a great deal of our significant alumni went to HPHS. Worse, it is our hometown HS, the school of Doak Walker. If SMU is now second tier we need to know why. This came from their College Placement Counselor two years ago. You might say well that is to be expected, so close to home etc., but formerly it wasn't the case.

I realize it is difficult to compare, but TCU's rankings have rapidly moved up, while we have been static in ratings. We are still ahead, but given we are 30-35% more expensive than TCU, we are vulnerable. How can they be so more efficient? We know we reached our borrowing limits and were downgraded by the rating agencies, but why? Why is RGT reported to be the fifth or so highest paid college executive; when the school ranks in the mid-50's amongst universities and over 100 when all colleges and universities are ranked together. Why did the board re elect a man for another 5 years that will be almost 80 when his current contract matures?

It is simply bad business, to have any CEO for over 12 years. Ours will exceed 30! Even if they do a great job. New blood is simply necessary to keep ideas fresh and quite frankly weed out those executives that are simply there because of their relationship with the CEO or decisions are pre-empted by the status quo. Every great Dallas public company changes CEO's to keep fresh blood and young executives moving upward. Great CEO's such as Eric Johnson self-retire for the good the company. I notice we have no board members now from one of Dallas' great public companies. (For those of you who don't recall Mr. Johnson, he was one of the founders of TI, retired at his request, became mayor of Dallas, set the annual planning structure referred to as " the Goals for Dallas", personally conceived of DFW Airport was the first head of the airport board, united minorities and Fort Worth and Dallas behind his vision). Where is Halliburton, TI, American Airlines? We used to have the majority of our board members from these great local companies. They knew about governance, they knew about succession planning. We don't.

Any of you in business, having worked or working in a large organization know this to be true.

But, in a non-profit having the sole board member and CEO as the organizations only paid professional on the board is just dangerous. The board only hears what the CEO wants it to hear. In SMU's case the board has practically all been selected by the President. The by-laws of the university were changed during the Pye years, such that the President doesn't report to the board, but the board reports to the President. I asked two of my former board members why hadn't they amended the by-laws and their response is it takes a 2/3rds vote to change the by-laws and we can't even bring it to a vote.

We quite frankly don't have an effective governing board. First, we now have a board of over 40 people. This isn't a board its a private social club! Second, RGT because of his tenor, has all but personally selected 40 of them. Third, many board members are not independent. For instance the President of the Alumni Association is on the board. Who elects that person? As alumni have you ever seen a ballot? Last time I checked Turner was on 13 boards, many of which share memberships with our (his) board members, or in the case of at least two, they are the CEO's.

The FBI was saddled with J. Edgar for far too long, Now there is a 12 year term limit. The Red Cross scandal was the result of a single entrenched professional. Even large church denominations have found it necessary to move the senior pastors after informal term limits. It is just good business.

SMU is now an organization where decisions are made simply on the basis of what upper and middle management interpret as "what would Gerald want", not sounding out new ideas or debate. I asked one of our recently departed coaches about SMU, their honest answer was simply, "No one on this campus can even fart without Gerald Turner's permission.

I don't care about defending Gerald's record, good or bad, form your own opinion about that, but at least learn about corpoorate governance, succession planning, efffective managment of non-profit organizations, study how successful businesses transition leadership, then you just might get what I'm trying to say.

I've been a member of four public companies, three on the NYSE, been COO of one, CFO of another, been on the Pye Board, know many of our board members, and I've told each one them how vulnerable they are as board members for failing to do their duties as independent board members. I don't suspect any financial fraud, but I do feel the numbers have been manipulated and key information kept from this board because they simply don't take the responsibility to ask!

[NavyCrimson]

But, in a non-profit having the sole board member and CEO as the only paid professional on the board is just dangerous. The board only hears what the CEO wants it to hear. In SMU's case the board has practically all been selected by the President. The by-laws of the university were changed during the Pye years, such that the President doesn't report to the board, but the board reports to the President. I asked two of my former board members why hadn't they amended the by-laws and their response is it takes a 2/3rds vote to change the by-laws and we can't even bring it to a vote.

Now that is a problem which doesn't make for a good future for SMU unless it's changed. Excellent post!