Who's driving the SMU bus w/r/t Athletics?

[ponyinNC]

This is long, and may be a rant, but I would really appreciate some insight:

Someone please answer this question for me. Hart is the AD - and to this point he has done absolutely NOTHING except blow up Twitter and write a weekly column that provides no real insight. His tweet one-word answers to our questions (e.g. "possibly", "working on it", "hopefully soon", etc) make me want to pull my already-thinnnng hair out.

If Hart is the "yes" man to RGT - then fine. It is what it is. But I think RGT has proven that during his tenures at both Ole Miss and SMU - he really couldn't care less about performance on the field. Ole Miss fb record was atrocious during his time there. Yes, the Grove is awesome - much like the boulevard - but Ole Miss did nothing. If you've paid attention, Ole Miss had the #1 recruiting class this year. So what has changed? Oh yeah, RGT isn't there anymore. Perhaps they have a President that actually cares about the reputation of his fb team??

RGT was content with Copeland. Graduate players, clean program (all good things), but no pressure to make noise in the CFB world. IMHO, that all changed when Orsini was hired. So I will give RGT credit for that. But the CofC was STEVE"S IDEA. And it worked. We got JJ coming off a Sugar Bowl. We ponied up and got possibly the hottest coach at the time.

Orsini's goal was Top 25 across the board. He may have mucked up the BB hire, and that's on him, but he did wonders for UCF that I thought he would mimic here.

Then out of the blue, Orsini gets axed. I am not in the know, so I don't know what happened - but Steve O was the only one trying to push forward for changes that we needed. Changes that may have been promised to JJ. Promisies that are, as yet, likely unfulfilled (IPF comes to mind).

Perhaps the CofC is really the "man behind the curtain" and they are driving the bus. Ok, I get it, they put substantial money into this school and they should have a say. But how much of a say should they have? Isn't that what got us in trouble in the 80's??? I think it was.

But just becasue you are a successful business man/woman - does that qualify you to make athletics-related decisions??? I'm smart enough to defer to others when I don't have the expertise - that is why, as a General Counsel, I employ outside counsel when needed. Which for me, is very often.

SO again - I ask - WHO is driving the bus here? Do we have the institutional buy-in (like TCU does) to really make the push forward??

We've come out of the abyss. It took 25 years, but we did it. And JJ deserves credit where credit is due.

BUt moving forward, I want some godarn commitment to succeed. And if we don't have it, why am I wasting my time and money on SMU football? I support the players. They make sacrificies that I, as a student in college, would never have had the ability to make. They are Mustangs. They are great kids and I cheer my heart out for them. No question.

It is not unlike the military. Regardless of whether I support a war or not - I will ALWAYS support the men and women that make the sacrificies on our behalf. They are heroes. But in those cases, my criticism is always directed toward Congress and the President, not the service members. So it is with SMU football.

We must demand accountability.

RANT OVER

[Bergermeister]

We must demand accountability.

That's funny.

[East Coast Mustang]

I think it's a legitimate question. I think RGT is concerned with making the big money folks happy. In 2008, some of them wanted June so he did what needed to be done on his end (relaxing some academic standards) and they stroked the check.

Going forward, we need the big money people to continue to have an interest in SMU fielding a nationally competitive program in football.

[StallionsModelT]

Good post.

RGT's time at the helm is coming to an end likely with the end of the current fundraising campaign in 2015. How motivated is RGT to ensure that SMU athletics is being positioned as well as possible for the longterm?

[gostangs]

Every school has its own distinct culture. TCU's top administration, BOT, and student body is mostly Texan - and therefore they put a huge emphasis on football success as their identity. Academics are important, but there is a ton of focus on sports and sometimes to the detriment of the school academically. Their student quality and rankings (both football and otherwise) reflect that.

Our culture is more national - and much more focused on becoming a top tier (as in among the best nationally - not just in the state) academic institution. That is what Turner is paid to care about as his first priority. it is what his bosses are trying to achieve. They are finance, oil and gas, banking, and real estate guys (and gals) that have broader interests and understand the purpose of SMU is education first. Turner knows that in this part of the world a football team is required to stay relevant in the world, but decent (and causing no harm) is good enough in his eyes. We have a few BOT that are pushing for more, but the majority are very happy with the academic progress at SMU and don't want to rock the boat. Others are pointing out that Vanderbilt /Stanford and a handful of others are getting both done. Every example of where both is happening also comes with a top 5 conference - which we don't have. That is a fundamental issue that will keep us from achieving our goals in football (not basketball) until it is fixed. You cant say they don't care - they pony up an extra 2.5 million every year for JJ and staff, plus fill the 4 million dollar yearly deficit caused by not having a decent conference. Feel free to open up your wallet and participate.

So yes - there is accountability, but the emphasis is different than what you might prefer. It isn't likely to change.

And on the Orsini thing, he was bumpy internally. Lets just leave it at that. You have had that in your business also, where someone on your team has such bumpiness that it eventually outweighs the good.

[CalallenStang]

Orsini got axed (in part) because he couldn't market the program. Say what you want to about Hart, but he has a marketing background and has put in work to get the word out about SMU with billboards and improved the gameday experience to try and get fans to return.

As far as coaches go, the big money people are in control.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

With regard to Ole Miss, I've seen several on this board criticize Turner for his attitude towards athletics there. But didn't Ole Miss football get hit pretty hard by the NCAA at least twice while he was there? I think they lost a ton of scholarships in 1993 or 1994. And I seem to recall they had a complete dirt bag of a head coach who subsequently was banned from coaching any NCAA team for a few years (I might not remember that correctly). So I do have to wonder if any football issues there during Turner's tenure can simply be laid at his door? Not trying to get cross-wise with anyone b/c I know the kind of vitriol Turner tends to evoke on this board. But I am curious if the assessment of his time at Ole Miss that I've seen several times here is a bit simplistic.

Also, I've heard the argument made that Ole Miss' defiant embracing of Confederate heritage during that period turned off a lot of top recruits and was something frequently used against them on the recruiting trial. . .an issue that I think Turner worked to change.

With regard to Ole Miss' #1 recruiting class, my understanding is that the NCAA is sniffing around there again and has interviewed a couple of recruits. Not saying that anything is imminent, but any time Ole Miss beats out LSU, Arky, Alabama, etc. for recruits I'm going to be VERY suspicious.

[East Coast Mustang]

Every school has its own distinct culture. TCU's top administration, BOT, and student body is mostly Texan - and therefore they put a huge emphasis on football success as their identity. Academics are important, but there is a ton of focus on sports and sometimes to the detriment of the school academically. Their student quality and rankings (both football and otherwise) reflect that.

Our culture is more national - and much more focused on becoming a top tier (as in among the best nationally - not just in the state) academic institution. That is what Turner is paid to care about as his first priority. it is what his bosses are trying to achieve. They are finance, oil and gas, banking, and real estate guys (and gals) that have broader interests and understand the purpose of SMU is education first. Turner knows that in this part of the world a football team is required to stay relevant in the world, but decent (and causing no harm) is good enough in his eyes. We have a few BOT that are pushing for more, but the majority are very happy with the academic progress at SMU and don't want to rock the boat. Others are pointing out that Vanderbilt /Stanford and a handful of others are getting both done. Every example of where both is happening also comes with a top 5 conference - which we don't have. That is a fundamental issue that will keep us from achieving our goals in football (not basketball) until it is fixed. You cant say they don't care - they pony up an extra 2.5 million every year for JJ and staff, plus fill the 4 million dollar yearly deficit caused by not having a decent conference. Feel free to open up your wallet and participate.

So yes - there is accountability, but the emphasis is different than what you might prefer. It isn't likely to change.

And on the Orsini thing, he was bumpy internally. Lets just leave it at that. You have had that in your business also, where someone on your team has such bumpiness that it eventually outweighs the good.

The thing is, a nationally viable football team creates interest in the university, and in turn applications increase. TCU has seen this drastically. And when Butler made their Final Four runs, applications were up and alumni giving went up substantially as well. Admitting two dozen academically questionable guys isn't going to destroy your school's academic reputation, and if they ball out on the field, they're worth their weight in gold to the school.

And you're right about Orisini internally- I think it's telling that he hasn't been hired anywhere else (to my knowledge). With that said, Steve did a great job here and I wish him the best...I just think that he was somewhat to blame for his own dismissal, which is unfortunate.

[ponyinNC]

With regard to Ole Miss' #1 recruiting class, my understanding is that the NCAA is sniffing around there again and has interviewed a couple of recruits. Not saying that anything is imminent, but any time Ole Miss beats out LSU, Arky, Alabama, etc. for recruits I'm going to be VERY suspicious.

That is crap, sir. That is the same ridiculous garbage that people have thrown at SMU for the Frazier/Mudiay commitments. It is called hard work on the recruiting trail.

I am so sick of teh vitriol that comes when a non-traditional power beats the big guy for recruits. It's crap. Things are cyclical - Bama won't be on top forever. ANyone remember Shula / Price / Fran?????

And what do they say about glass houses?? Every school in the SEC has or is doing this - and they get a slap on the writs. Auburn/Cam Newton - TAMU/Ricky Seals Jones/ Miss St / SoCar et al. C'mon - if anything is going on there, it is no less than the rest of the crowd.

[Pony81]

I think most would concede that the SMU game day experience has improved dramatically with the addition of the blvd and now Hart has taken it even higher with improved tents, video, ects.

I'm actually pretty proud of SMU for seeing where improvement can be made and actually doing it. Shows confidence and hard work. Makes me want to continue investing in the school.

I also share the desire to improve on the academic side first and foremost. Athletics should be a marketing tool to drive student recruitment and donor dollars. If all are working well, it becomes a beautifully self fulfilling cycle.

We should aspire to be Vanderbilt. Southern, high academics, while competive in a power conference. Dallas would benefit greatly if we could reach that level of quality.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

"That is crap, sir. That is the same ridiculous garbage that people have thrown at SMU for the Frazier/Mudiay commitments. It is called hard work on the recruiting trail.

I am so sick of teh vitriol that comes when a non-traditional power beats the big guy for recruits. It's crap. Things are cyclical - Bama won't be on top forever. ANyone remember Shula / Price / Fran?????

And what do they say about glass houses?? Every school in the SEC has or is doing this - and they get a slap on the writs. Auburn/Cam Newton - TAMU/Ricky Seals Jones/ Miss St / SoCar et al. C'mon - if anything is going on there, it is no less than the rest of the crowd."

This is an interesting response. Got me thinking.

First of all, yes Ole Miss is cheating. They have no history of winning recruiting battles against Alabama, Auburn, LSU, or Georgia. . . absolutely none. This year's class was so far outside the norm of Ole Miss recruiting that it is a glaring anomoly. Not dissimilar from the 1978 SMU class really. Totally disagree that being suspicious of that is "crap" and "ridiculous garbage". Now yes, I agree that whatever cheating Ole Miss has done was no doubt accompanied by "hard work on the recruiting trail." But hard work alone doesn't win football recruiting battles in the SEC.

Second, the SEC is definitely not cyclical in the way you imply. It is only cyclical in that 4 or 5 programs have completely dominated the conference for decades, so you could say it is cyclical among those programs. But Ole Miss is NOT one of those programs. See below for a list of SEC championships. Ole Miss hasn't won or shared a conference title since 1963. In the 79 year period from 1934 to 2012, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia have won 48 conference titles (60% of total). The Mississippi schools COMBINED have won a total of 7 titles in 79 years, and none since 1963. Poor Mississippi State hasn't sniffed it since the beginning of World War II. I would extrapolate from that data that football recruiting in the SEC has not historically been cyclical.

As for your last point, I agree that the SEC is rife with cheating. That is what makes Ole Miss' startling and unprecedented recruiting success this year particularly interesting. Whatever they are doing, they've obviously figured out how to get a leg up on some pretty darn good cheaters.

Alabama 2012 23
Tennessee 1998 13
Georgia 2005 12
LSU 2011 11 8
Florida 2008 8 (+1 vacated) 12
Auburn 2010 7
Mississippi 1963 6
Kentucky 1976 2 0
Mississippi State 1941 1
Arkansas Never 0 4
South Carolina Never 0 1
Missouri Never 0 0
Texas A&M Never 0 0
Vanderbilt Never 0 0

[East Coast Mustang]

I disagree. The SEC cleans up in recruiting because of the conference's prestige, rabid fan bases, and exposure through its valuable TV contracts. Nkemdiche was considered a "silent commit" to Ole Miss for awhile because his brother (who wasn't highly recruited out of HS) was already playing there. That gives you momentum with other recruits as well. I think it's intellectually lazy to just assume they're cheating because they haven't been as successful traditionally. Unless you have some hard evidence, don't throw the accusation around

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Fair enough. I acutally feel a little bad b/c I steered this thread away from a discussion of SMU. Didn't mean to.

[Charleston Pony]

With regard to Ole Miss, I've seen several on this board criticize Turner for his attitude towards athletics there. But didn't Ole Miss football get hit pretty hard by the NCAA at least twice while he was there? I think they lost a ton of scholarships in 1993 or 1994. And I seem to recall they had a complete dirt bag of a head coach who subsequently was banned from coaching any NCAA team for a few years (I might not remember that correctly). So I do have to wonder if any football issues there during Turner's tenure can simply be laid at his door? Not trying to get cross-wise with anyone b/c I know the kind of vitriol Turner tends to evoke on this board. But I am curious if the assessment of his time at Ole Miss that I've seen several times here is a bit simplistic.

Also, I've heard the argument made that Ole Miss' defiant embracing of Confederate heritage during that period turned off a lot of top recruits and was something frequently used against them on the recruiting trial. . .an issue that I think Turner worked to change.

With regard to Ole Miss' #1 recruiting class, my understanding is that the NCAA is sniffing around there again and has interviewed a couple of recruits. Not saying that anything is imminent, but any time Ole Miss beats out LSU, Arky, Alabama, etc. for recruits I'm going to be VERY suspicious.

right now, others in the SEC are suspicious of Ole Miss. If they start beating Bama on the field, their odds of ending up on probation will improve significantly

[SMUer]

Texas A&M's president is pro-athletics...