Big Picture

[JasonB]

Before we get too overly critical of who we think might be coming in and who might not be, lets get a couple of things straight....

1) If Willis has no idea who is being interviewed for the job, then nobody on this board has any idea who is being interviewed for the job.

2) Leaks are leaks. Sometimes they are true, the vast majority of the time they aren't. Greg Davis might have been contacted by SMU, but he may not have been. In all probability, his people leaked that he had been contactacted in order to make other colleges aware that he was available in order to guage interest. Based on what Orsini has said about his requirements for a coach, Davis was either not contacted at all, or was contacted by the search committeee, which is properly run without the guidance of Orsini, as an independant entity. Their job is to contact anyone with decent qualifications who might be interested and have the proper resume. Just because they contact someone with an "adequate" resume doesn't mean that SMU has "slipped" or has less interest than expected in the overall search.

3) Two times ago, we had to pull a coach out of 1-AA. Last time, we got a decent name defensive coordinator, but one who had zero head coaching experience. This time, our supposed list is littered with names such as Barnett, Bowden, Shula, Nutt, Fran, Kraigthorpe. These are all established head coaches that have been at BCS schools. Rather than ripping on all these folks before they even sign a contract, perhaps we should be greatfull for the fact that this is a sign that the committment of the University is actually changing, and that we are making at least some strides in becoming a competitive institution at the two major revenue sports.

4) As others have mentioned, this is an attractive job for many reasons - major Metroplex, really good facilities, great school, and winable conference. Frankly, in some ways I WANT us to be viewed as a stepping stone because I want to hire a coach who has the highest ambition. But one of the major reasons this job is attractive is that the cupboard isn't bare. This doesn't resemble Bennett taking over by any stretch of the imagination. We have the most important position, QB, filled. And that, in itself, will take a new coach a long way. We have several other underclassmen who are skilled players, and that helps to. But having a good QB is very, very important for any coach hoping for a quick turnaround.

So chill. Recognise that some improvements have been made to improve the situation at SMU. Recognise that we are going after bigger names and have a bigger "kitty" to grab them than in the past. We aren't going to see an 0-12 rebuilding year next season like we had under Bennett. Things are going to get better in a hurry. Before we rip on Turner and Orsini, and do ridiculous things like compare them to Pye and Copeland, take a step back and wait to see what happens before we judge everything and everyone involved. And if they hire a Mizzou or UT coordinator, then go ballistic. But other than that, ANY of the names being tossed around will turn SMU into a winner, despite their flaws at previous stops.

[Ponyx2]

A voice of reason. What a concept.

[bigdaddy08091]

1) If Willis has no idea who is being interviewed for the job, then nobody on this board has any idea who is being interviewed for the job.

Willis does have an IDEA and so does Morestead and the other team captains.

[biggin]

A voice of reason. What a concept.

At least one that you like.

No - JasonB makes some good points but his conclusions are what are questionable. Sure the names being thrown out include Bowden, Shula, Nutt, Kragthorpe - but it takes 2 to tango. Sure we are going after bigger names and have a bigger fund - but it takes 2 to tango. There are other more attractive jobs than SMU right now and I'm afraid we will get the leftovers.

[bigdaddy08091]

A voice of reason. What a concept.

At least one that you like.

No - JasonB makes some good points but his conclusions are what are questionable. Sure the names being thrown out include Bowden, Shula, Nutt, Kragthorpe - but it takes 2 to tango. Sure we are going after bigger names and have a bigger fund - but it takes 2 to tango. There are other more attractive jobs than SMU right now and I'm afraid we will get the leftovers.

I don't think so. I have mentioned this several times of this board. Coaching is a fraternity. Loyalty is one of the foundations of fraternities. Orsini had his man when he was hired, or at lease laid the foundation for it. When he got the job at SMU he received calls from every coaching friend he has ever had. Congratulating him on the post and dropping the (if you ever need anything just give me a call line). We are gonna be fine with the hire if Orsini can get it by Turner. Turner and that committee is the issue.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

"Two times ago, we had to pull a coach out of 1-AA. Last time, we got a decent name defensive coordinator, but one who had zero head coaching experience. This time, our supposed list is littered with names such as Barnett, Bowden, Shula, Nutt, Fran, Kraigthorpe"

Thanks Jason for some logical non-doom & gloom!

The doom & gloomers will move on to some other negative aspect
once Orsini kicks their [deleted] with a great hire.....they will be like
"well we still suck.....blah blah blah"

[Ponyx2]

I'm not ashamed to admit I don't have a clue as to what Orsini is really doing. JasonB basically says he doesn't have a clue, either. I've read every post the last month and have yet to read one that I felt was really plugged in to the process. You make vague references to zero interest from the candidates most people favor, but other than a few references to Bowden, I've seen nothing to validate what you are saying. Now you might really know the state of the search but as of yet I don't recall anything that would lend any credibility to your statements. So until something credible comes along, while it's fun to speculate, just chill and don't get our collective bowels in an uproar.

[bigdaddy08091]

I'm not ashamed to admit I don't have a clue as to what Orsini is really doing. JasonB basically says he doesn't have a clue, either. I've read every post the last month and have yet to read one that I felt was really plugged in to the process. You make vague references to zero interest from the candidates most people favor, but other than a few references to Bowden, I've seen nothing to validate what you are saying. Now you might really know the state of the search but as of yet I don't recall anything that would lend any credibility to your statements. So until something credible comes along, while it's fun to speculate, just chill and don't get our collective bowels in an uproar.

It is fun to speculate, and someone has guessed it right, but we don't have a clue. We all know one thing, if Orsini does not have his man (I think he does), we are in trouble with all the other coaching vacancies.

[Pony Fan]

A voice of reason. What a concept.

Totally agree. People on here like stallion would complain for some reason if we hired Urban Meyer.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

People on here like stallion would complain for some reason if we hired Urban Meyer.

Pony Fan, actually more recently Stallion has become a sunshiner compared to some of the latest editions of doom and gloom that frequent this message board since Coach Phil was fired. It's amazing to watch people that almost seem to take pride and joy in "peeing on the parade of hope" that SMU could hire a great coach and become competitive again.

[Stallion]

I've gone on record saying I'd be happy with 11-12-and 90% of the main candidates mentioned on here but don't let the facts get in the way of your straw-man argument [deleted]. Do some of you have the ability to make a rational argument without using my name. Or are your arguments that weak?

[OC Mustang]

We are gonna be fine with the hire if Orsini can get it by Turner. Turner and that committee is the issue.

Dead on. The search is, as typical of a relatively high profile hire, full of speculation from the likes of us and bereft of non-sanitized information from SMU's athletic department or administration. I admit to some trepidation. I am concerned that perhaps the hire isn't going as Orsini would prefer. I was on the search committee for the Provost in the early 90s. Fact: SMU didn't get who it really wanted. Fact: The hired person wasn't what people perceived her to be in the interview process.
So it can happen.

The key here is Turner. If Orsini has who he wants, and that person says "I'll do it", then Turner has to bless it. And I, for one, remain unconvinced that Turner has the athletics department in his top 5 priorities for the university (where I think it should be).

[Ponymon]

We are gonna be fine with the hire if Orsini can get it by Turner. Turner and that committee is the issue.

Dead on. The search is, as typical of a relatively high profile hire, full of speculation from the likes of us and bereft of non-sanitized information from SMU's athletic department or administration. I admit to some trepidation. I am concerned that perhaps the hire isn't going as Orsini would prefer. I was on the search committee for the Provost in the early 90s. Fact: SMU didn't get who it really wanted. Fact: The hired person wasn't what people perceived her to be in the interview process.
So it can happen.

The key here is Turner. If Orsini has who he wants, and that person says "I'll do it", then Turner has to bless it. And I, for one, remain unconvinced that Turner has the athletics department in his top 5 priorities for the university (where I think it should be).

Sounds like it is Barnett if he is having to sell the selection to Turner and the committee!

[OC Mustang]

We are gonna be fine with the hire if Orsini can get it by Turner. Turner and that committee is the issue.

Dead on. The search is, as typical of a relatively high profile hire, full of speculation from the likes of us and bereft of non-sanitized information from SMU's athletic department or administration. I admit to some trepidation. I am concerned that perhaps the hire isn't going as Orsini would prefer. I was on the search committee for the Provost in the early 90s. Fact: SMU didn't get who it really wanted. Fact: The hired person wasn't what people perceived her to be in the interview process.
So it can happen.

The key here is Turner. If Orsini has who he wants, and that person says "I'll do it", then Turner has to bless it. And I, for one, remain unconvinced that Turner has the athletics department in his top 5 priorities for the university (where I think it should be).

Sounds like it is Barnett if he is having to sell the selection to Turner and the committee!

If he is indeed the frontrunner in this pickle, then, yeah, I believe to some degree Barnett is having to do just that...sell his credentials and downplay his, shall we say, history. Right/wrong/indifferent.

And Turner wants an upstanding kind of Paul Johnson guy. Probably would be a great coach, but Turner is delusional if he thinks Johnson can recruit the kind of kids that go to Annapolis. That's silly. Top athletes or no, those are different young men with a different kind of discipline and drive. SMU's we are privileged doesn't play well with that crowd.

[Hoop Fan]

Good points OC. And to Jasons point, I have viewed things as you do for a long time. But because it has taken so long to see any type of even subjective improvement in the situation, i believe there has been way too much muddling along. No real change. Just baby steps, where SMU seems to be doing the minimum possible at every corner, hoping that it helps just enough to make things better and show something. Remember that big supposed change in 2001 or so about admissions? Its done virtually nothing, so i can do nothing but assume it was half hearted and not enough. Remember the Committment about the same time? What a bunch of bunk that was. I dont see any real disgust or determination to turn things around like seen at TCU in the late 90s, or what Tulsa seems to be doing the past few years. SMU is content to muddle along and hope athletics does just enough to keep the wolves at bay.