Letter to Editor by SMU Prof. J Slocum. WOW.

[EastStang]

I think the Professor is wrong about Bennett. But right about the program aspects of it. If you keep denying admission to kids who can compete on the field, you will keep denying success to the football program. And who knows, perhaps you might get both. If you start winning then smart kids who happen to be good football players might choose SMU instead of other schools like Baylor, OU, A&M and TT.

[OC Mustang]

Winning cures pretty much all our current ills.
Therefore, the focus should be on WINS, not moral victories.
(I know sometime in the future, I am going to regret having written that.)

[SMU Football Blog]

First, I don't trust anyone named Slocum.

Second, I agree with the last two paragraphs, but not the first two. The suggestion of rewarding a B and hoping for an A is silly. Does anyone really believe there is anything anyone can say or do to Phil Bennett to make him work more or less for SMU? I think that is silly. Bennett has done and is doing all he can; we will see if it pays off in 2006. The issue will never be motivating the coach; the issue will always be whether the coach is capable. If you have to worry about motivating your coach, you have hired the wrong guy.

[Hoop Fan]

First, I don't trust anyone named Slocum.

Second, I agree with the last two paragraphs, but not the first two. The suggestion of rewarding a B and hoping for an A is silly. Does anyone really believe there is anything anyone can say or do to Phil Bennett to make him work more or less for SMU? I think that is silly. Bennett has done and is doing all he can; we will see if it pays off in 2006. The issue will never be motivating the coach; the issue will always be whether the coach is capable. If you have to worry about motivating your coach, you have hired the wrong guy.

I agree, but Slocum is entitled to his opinion. I'm just glad he took the time to do it and had the stones to express an opinion from the 'inside'.

[ponyplayer]

First, I don't trust anyone named Slocum.

Second, I agree with the last two paragraphs, but not the first two. The suggestion of rewarding a B and hoping for an A is silly. Does anyone really believe there is anything anyone can say or do to Phil Bennett to make him work more or less for SMU? I think that is silly. Bennett has done and is doing all he can; we will see if it pays off in 2006. The issue will never be motivating the coach; the issue will always be whether the coach is capable. If you have to worry about motivating your coach, you have hired the wrong guy.

I agree, but Slocum is entitled to his opinion. I'm just glad he took the time to do it and had the stones to express an opinion from the 'inside'.

why would you be glad he took the time to do it?

[Hoop Fan]

might have been a poor choice of words. I'm glad to see there might actually be some internal debate within the university about these issues.

[OC Mustang]

Slocum is among the most published and respected of the business school professors vis-a-vis SMU faculty, or perhaps anywhere. The OBA textbook is AUTHORED by him...and it is in its 10th edition. His vitae is 35 pages long, with a good chunk of those devoted to published articles and books. His achievements give him credibility at the university, and his vitae could compete with anybody at SMU and most other universities. He could run circles around most of the professors at SMU, Cox or otherwise, on this point.

He is also not a person to blithely indulge himself to comment to the editor about anything, tenure or no. Everything he does is deliberate, and he is more adept at adding subtext to his comments.

Point: he is credible, and something is going on such that he would chime in at this point. Guys, I may be wrong...wouldn't be the first time. But I take this as a significant shot across the bow at Turner & Copeland, if not Bennett himself.

Given Slocum's reputation, as well as what I personally recall of the man, he is a) truthful and b) knows something going on inside that would move him to fire this off to the DMN. He is not teaching any object lesson. He is in a position to know, and he believes that something is amiss.

Why is that important? Well, it is one thing for us to chastise administration or Mustang Club or Alumni Association types. They pretty much smile, nod, express similar sentiment, and conveniently ignore us. They will have a much more difficult time ignoring someone like him.

[DiamondM]

I'm still not clear on what, exactly, he is calling for Turner, Copeland, Bennett, and/or the Mustang Club to do. Fire Bennett? Kick academic standards to the curb so we can win just like Texas? What?

And if he's saying both, they seem kind of at odds because the bit about academic standards suggests that Bennett is not working with everything he should be entitled to.

If he's talking about SMU stop worrying about academic standards because Texas doesn't worry (which I actually think is a bit of an overstatement, especially under the new rules), then who, exactly is responsible for making that come true. Turner, maybe. Copeland? You can believe and say what you want about him, but one thing he has been doing is beating down the doors of the faculty senate and academic administrators to make his and Bennett's job easier. After all, it is in his best interest. Bennett? How the heck is he supposed to do anything about it other than making buddies in the faculty (which he has done). The Mustang Club?????!!!!!

Anyway, given the inherent contradiction of his letter, and the lack of solutions, to me he's just another guy taking unconstructive pot shots, like others on this board. He just used a different forum.

[NavyCrimson]

well said - OC.

[Eddie P]

OC-

Despite Slocum's myriad accomplishments, I am curious where his "shot across the bow" is aimed. Does his frustration stem from the lack of success on the football field, coupled with observations that other universities embrace their teams winning percentages more than their graduations percentages? And that our manner of doing things is not conducive to competitive success in the "money sports" of NCAA? Perhaps that the framework we operate in is not the same as other schools enjoying success with their programs?

And this framework was constructed by Turner/Copeland/Bennet?

[mrydel]

Perhaps I am over simplifying things, but I read it as a statement first about the salary increase that of course was not warranted due to results but more likely as a message to recruits that Bennett "will be here for your term if you sign with us". Then he rightly pointed out that we do not recruit on an even level with our competition. Why give a coach a salary increase if not also give him the ammunition with which to perform. This does not translate into lowering graduation stnadards, but rather if you do one you should do the other or do neither.

[Eddie P]

That was kinda my interpretation as well. And whether I agreed with everything in the letter or not (I did not) I am pleased that such a reknown professor is examining the athletic situation at our school. If he is as brilliant as his credentials suggest, then perhaps he will come to some sound conclusions/solutions and push for those solutions from his end.

[expony18]

i had slocum for a class in Cox. he's an [deleted] who only cares about two things... himself and his golf game... he would spend endless time rambling on in class about his golf game and how he would gamble with the top execs in dallas. his comments in the DMN are as usless as his class was to my degree....

[OC Mustang]

I don't know exactly where John is going with the "shot across the bow" I mentioned earlier. That is what I meant by subtext. I read a criticism of Turner and Copeland. He is openly questioning their judgment. I am less concerned about the particular issue than I am the fact that he is piping up in the first place. It isn't his style to step in cow patties, especially the steaming ones (if you will indulge my Texas roots). He doesn't go looking for trouble, regardless of his tenure and Chair position.

As for expony18's comments, well, I can say that I have seen professors sleep in class during tests, I have had professors get drunk and get me drunk right after class, and I have seen at least one come to class on the sauce. That's why they are professors and not teaching in high schools. John is an academic star and a business mind of the first order in a number of disciplines ranging from finance to industrial psychology. His peccadillos in expony18's class do not concern me. His concern, however, for the good judgment, or lack of, vis-a-vis this program does concern me. He has credibiliy, and the existence of said credibility should indicate that we are legitimately concerned (as if we needed to know that).

[BUS]

Summary of Slocum. IMHO

WHERE is the comittment?
Give a raise
Have great facilities
WHERE are the majors?
The acceptance?
The players to WIN?

I think it is aimed at Turner and the Faculty Senate as a "GET serious about wining."