Not So Sure We Are Going to Bring in a Guy w/ a "PAST"..

by **FordtoTolbert** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:46 am

..why in the name of Gary Hammond would we bring in a new head coach who has had issues, serious issues with his university and NCAA? Does not add up for a program with a big old giant juicy scarlet DP on it's chest. Barnett and his "sex, drugs, rock and roll sign on the dotted line, son" past, plus the Bobby Knight "sit back and enjoy it" mentality..does not make sense. What did Bowden do, hose down a board members 18 year old daughter?? Doesn't Rick N have somewhat of a checkered past? You might say, "Well, which coach / school doesn't!?!"....I think we need a stud recruiter, organizer, game day magician without a closet full of crap....just my 2 cents. Long Live Ray Morrison.

by **that's great raplh** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:52 am

agreed on newhiester

by **couch 'em** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:18 pm

The death penalty is over and should have nothing to do with our choice of coaches. I don't care if we hire a coach who is into giant orgies of 80 year old women, heroin, and dog fighting and steals candy from babies as long as nobody finds out and he brings us wins!

by **FordtoTolbert** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:29 pm

cool...still like we need to hire a "good guy", who can coach, inspire, recruit, WIN...slimmy and sleazy has been tried here before, seems to be the wrong formula.

by **mrydel** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:33 pm

Does anyone else find it ironic that this thread is started by a person who insists on keeping the name of a convicted child molester in his screen name? :roll:

by **FordtoTolbert** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:35 pm

ford to tolbert is a reference to one of the all time great qb to wide out combos is smu football histroy, nothing more...

by **Dwan** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:36 pm

because we are no longer using the death penalty as an excuse

by **FordtoTolbert** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:39 pm

dp is NOT an excuse, I get that...my point, why would we hire a new guy with death penalty tendencies / drippings?

by **Dwan** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:48 pm

we have a winning percentage of .250 percent since the death penalty. we have hampered ourselves with a high and mighty attitude towards football. We are doubling the salary of our coach to a million dollars. We have the best up and coming AD in college sports. It is a new day for SMU football. Winning is important again.

the only one of these guys who has a past with the NCAA is slick rick.

Barnett, what, recruits being entertained by Strippers? That happens everywhere. He did a poor job of handling the media and that lead to the University firing him.

Bowden, just a bunch of rumors about an affair.

by **SMUer** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:05 pm

That's why I like Bowden. SEC rep, success in the past and no public "f-you NCAA rules" in his past. As long as we keep one eye on where he's dipping his dong, things should be fine.

by **FordtoTolbert** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:06 pm

Right..so why risk more "image issues" and undue microspoping by hiring guys with issues? Barnett's issues at UC resulted in a "major infraction / violation", with 86+ football players involved in some sort of meal card / fees scam...Ricky N is no choir boy and Bowben carries a "slezzy slicky" image for a variety of reasons. Why upgrade EVERTYTHING as you say and then bring in a coach who doesn't mesh with that strategy / vision? It is not worht it....yes, losing sucks, but let's be real here, wacky [deleted] wild eyed desperation usually results in long periods of crap, as you know.

by **thefamousguy** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:10 pm

FordtoTolbert wrote:cool...still like we need to hire a "good guy", who can coach, inspire, recruit, WIN...slimmy and sleazy has been tried here before, seems to be the wrong formula.

Get Over It! Most of the Good Coaches who are available have some type of blemish on their record.

by **thefamousguy** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:11 pm

FordtoTolbert wrote:Right..so why risk more "image issues" and undue microspoping by hiring guys with issues? Barnett's issues at UC resulted in a "major infraction / violation", with 86+ football players involved in some sort of meal card / fees scam...Ricky N is no choir boy and Bowben carries a "slezzy slicky" image for a variety of reasons. Why upgrade EVERTYTHING as you say and then bring in a coach who doesn't mesh with that strategy / vision? It is not worht it....yes, losing sucks, but let's be real here, wacky [deleted] wild eyed desperation usually results in long periods of crap, as you know.

You can have the most conservative guy on the planet running the team next year but if he isn't capable of winning, the university will continue to lose money/fans.

by **Dwan** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:15 pm

major college coaches are not unlike politicans.....they all have a few skeltons in their closets.

by **Alaric** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:17 pm

It's not that we want to get a coach with a checkered past, the idea is that no "big name" coaches would come to SMU unless they've got some problems with the ole resume. We want wins on the resume so we have to accept other problems. We don't want someone who sacrifices babies but with Bowden for instance, his transgressions look to be a long time ago and he's paid for them by not coaching for 9 years. We've gotta take some risk or we have to accept a coordinator which is risky b/c they're not proven. Doherty had issues as well, just gotta make sure the risk you take is worth it

Not So Sure We Are Going to Bring in a Guy w/ a "PAST"..

Not So Sure We Are Going to Bring in a Guy w/ a "PAST"..

Who is online