AfricanMustang wrote:
To pass judgment on the Turner years, one would have to compare were we were 24 years ago in September 1995 when he took over and where we are now. Comparing to 33 years ago before the death penalty isn't fair because the institution, its reputation, its donors (and therefore endowment) dwindled. Turner has been rebuilding, especially the facilities, and the endowment. The facilities and endowment will give us the financial muscle to now focus on scholarships which I understand will be the main focus of the next capital campaign.
It's a chicken and egg issue. To do well in athletics, you need facilities to attract the recruits, but you also need to be winning to get the recruits, but you can not win without the recruits, and you can not get the recruits without the facilities.
Outstanding scholars of national repute want to teach at a university that has research facilities and highly motivated students; to have highly motivated students, you have to have scholarships, outstanding scholars of national repute and the facilities. So you build the endowment to attract the students, and fellowships and endowed faculty positions to attract scholars, and then the research facilities (Ford Research Building, the Engineering facilities, etc.)
AA, I agree in principle with what you are saying, you can't just look solely at numbers, but in the case of RGT, he's been here for nearly 25 years, his body of work now stands on its own and has for well over a decade. He absolutely can be judged and I see him and his enabling BOT as failures.
Let's talk about Endowment. I think one could make the argument that after buzzkill Ken Pye, any charming, likeable face (which RGT certainly was), could easily raise funds based solely on Hope and Change. So I'm not certain KP is a negative in this regard. In 1996, SMU's endowment was ranked #32 at almost $600k. Today, we are ranked #67 with $1.65B. For some perspective, the currently ranked #32 endowment is almost $3B. So my point stands and is valid. If anything I was being diplomatic. A drop from #32 to #67 is material, especially for a region of the US that has grown so rapidly economically.
Now I know people will say, 'but SMU has been on this huge capital improvement campaign', and while this is partially true (this campaign hasn't lasted 25 years) it ignores the fact that other schools (especially those with deep pockets) also engage in substantial capital improvements, certainly during a quarter of a century.
You also talk of sports. There is no defense for our record during RGT's tenure here. NONE. We are located at the epicenter of HS sports with substantially more funds than virtually any of these schools and yet Troy, Ark St, Ohio, West Mich, Nevada Reno, Bowling Green, Middle TN St, Old Dominion, Hawaii, Central Mich, Wyoming, Hawaii, UAB (they closed down), Utah St, Ball St, LA Laffy, Rutgers, FLA Atlantic, Temple, Akron, NTSU, Tulane, LA Monroe and So Ala all have higher winning % in FB than SMU during the time RGT has been here. Once again, we are not talking about 5 or 10 or even 15 years, but nearly 25.
Oh, and we've never won an NCAA tournament BB game and pre-LB, never even went to one.
No, the Ken Pye / Death Penalty excuse train left the station years ago. This is all on the current regime.