Turner's Role

by **couch 'em** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:50 am

So is President Turner football-friendly or not? It seems that recently we have had increased funding and lowering recruiting barriers, but can any credit be given to Turner for this? Why did it take so long? Is this more a result of changes within the Board of Trustees?

by **Scoops** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:57 am

RGT is very football-friendly and athletics-friendly.

by **Bergermeister** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:19 am

Friendly, friendly, friendly.

by **couch 'em** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:26 am

Then why did it taken so long to make the changes that have supposedly been made?

by **OR-See-Nee** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:46 am

Politics, politics, politics. He can't be too authoritarian or he will be run out of town--votes of no confidence by faculty, etc. He's friendly to the program plus he is a former collegiate athlete. The academy is a tricky place, and frankly, while there is still much change to be made, he's made some significant in-roads.

by **Mustang98** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:03 am

RGT is football and athletics friendly. It kills him that he led a successful Capital Campaign in the late 1990's to bolster SMU, but we have a pitiful football team. RGT has had to slowly fight for change with the board of trustees, the faculty, and everyone else. It's been 20 years since the DP and each year the event moves further away in people's minds, but there are a lot of faculty and board members who still feel that humiliation from 1987. RGT has no choice but to gradually make adjustments to the rules.

This is a cynical statement, but even Ron Meyer had some crappy years before he started winning. With the relaxed admission standards for athletes and fully allocated scholarships we are actually doing well. Based on that previous sentence. Last years record of 6-6 should have come in 1992 if we had the policy of today in use in 1988-1989. Yes, this is a down year, but we will get better. It just hurts more becuase we had Pye's policy for over 10 years.

by **2112** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:33 am

this team is getting worse, with poor recruiting standing on deck.

by **Mexmustang** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:41 am

I believe the our President Turner was also a junior college transfer!

by **dcpony** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:50 am

Mexmustang wrote:I believe the our President Turner was also a junior college transfer!

I believe Raymond Berry was also JC transfer. But that was another era...

by **Stallion** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:56 am

O.J Simpson was also a JC Transf... oh never mind

by **OC Mustang** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:39 am

Stallion wrote:O.J Simpson was also a JC Transf... oh never mind

Not much traction there as an example, Chief. :roll:

I'll just point this out for everyone (there is no way I can be the only one to have noticed this)...for all of the damage that Pye supposedly did in the wake of the damage that the DP caused, I think that Turner has been President twice as long as Pye and has had twice as long to think and do something about it. What has happened? Arguably, we are weaker on the whole than we were during Pye's tenure, right? At least I have seen you surmise as much vis-a-vis team parity from say 1992, then 1996, then 2001, and now.

So I put this whole mess on Turner's feet, as he is in charge, and he should be the guy to fix it ultimately. Copeland was his hire. Orsini is his hire. I guess we should be really giving him guff about it. As for his relationship with the faculty senate, where the hell else but academia do the employees have the right to call "no confidence" on executive management? Unions don't even do that. That is singularly the WORST I have ever seen in and around the university setting. Ultimately, if his neck is declared on the line (which it won't, if for no other reason than his fund-raising prowess), he will figure out the way to handle it. The faculty senate way has clearly failed. It is time to try something else...and I don't mean a straw man leading to Div III like most of the facutly wished we'd go.

by **couch 'em** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:50 am

All I can say is that Turner loved Copeland. And we all know how successful Copeland was.

by **abezontar** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:01 pm

Turner also loves Jesus. And I think we all know how successful Jesus is.

by **friarwolf** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:09 pm

Turner serves at the pleasure of the board and thus has to walk a narrow line as they aren't all lovers of athletics........

Having said that, Turner's blind spot continues to be his acceptance of below average performance from his direct reports. Copeland, Brandt, Niemi are all examples of this.....

by **SMU Football Blog** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:13 pm

Was there really that much to criticize Brandt over? Or Neimi? Or am I living under a rock?

Turner's Role

Turner's Role

Who is online