Time for Turner to Go

[CA Mustang]

The reason he is so reviled among most Ole Miss fans/alumni is the way he handled the NCAA investigation in the early 90s. Rather than fighting it he basically opened the doors and provided full cooperation with the investigation... as most people know, cooperating with the NCAA is the only way they ever actually get enough evidence to hammer you. If you fight them and don't hand them what they want, they don't have the power to dig anything up.

That approach didn't work too well for USC, so something changed.

[Pony81]

The man is on track to raise $1 billion. Landed the Bush Library, raised our academic profile.

He doesn't need to be fired.

SMU has a long way to go. No doubt. The competition is also raising big dollars and doing great things. So we are keeping up but not passing them by.

We need to keep the funding coming for scholarships, professors, and continue to reach out to Dallas to get the city behind the school.

Turner's done a very good job. Sure it could be better but he deserves credit for growing the university, getting support behind the school and being a great ambassador of the university.

[redpony]

maybe we should have a special forum for all the polyannas that see nothing but happiness and rainbows through their blinded eyes.
Turner cares nothing about fball and only gives it lip service. Same with his little go-fer casper.

I guess we should change the name of the school to Rich a-holes U. that would be more appropriate since they seem to be calling all the shots.

[NavyCrimson]

If it wasn't for Laura, would we have had the opportunity to get the library?

No one really knows while at the same time can we really give RGT 100% credit???

Hmmm???????

[gostangs]

well of course we would not have had a chance to get the library without Laura - what is your point? Everything ever achieved is done so with a team.

You can complain about the emphasis (or lack thereof) that Turner and some of our BOT put on sports, but to criticize Turner for what he accomplishes for the school is just crazy by any measure. We have moved up the rankings considerably in the last several years, our average SAT has moved up dramatically (and no - everyone's has not moved up the same - ours is above UT now). We have raised a ton of money - much of which goes to scholarships and much of which upgrades the campus. The facilities, faculty and student quality are all at an all time high. In fact - we are top one or two in the state in almost everything except football.

That is why it is perplexing that our Pres and our BOT are fooled by this charlatan. It is not hard to figure out what needs to be done here - and a 60 something is not going to change their ways. It is not that expensive in the big picture of things to make this change now, so i REALLY hope there is an escape clause here. Will be a bummer if not - i am starting to be part of the Mrydel "win before i die" crowd.

[ReedFrawg]

In fact - we are top one or two in the state in almost everything except football.

That is a bold statement...

[Mexmustang]

President Turner needs to be replaced immediately. Quite frankly, it is long overdue. It has nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with good governance by the board. Anyone in the business world is well aware of the pitfalls of having a paid CEO whose only check and balance is a volunteer board of directors running a non-profit organization beyond ten years. And Turner is going on seventeen.

First, a CEO at any company, for profit or non-profit needs to have a reasonable term limit. Whether you head J.P. Morgan Chase, Texas Instruments or SMU. Just good business to rotate management styles, direction, goals and objectives. People get stale.

Second, in the case of a non-profit, after a number of years the governance of the board becomes ineffective and pawns of the CEO rather than a group of independent directors. A typical ploy of an entrenched executive is to expand the board, put yourself in a position to have personally selected its members and control all the information members receive. In the case of SMU, the board is now up to 39 people. Given Gerald's tenure, the vast majority have been personally selected by him. In effect there is no longer governance at SMU.

Finally, Gerald is on the board of (I believe) seventeen organizations and companies. Many of these boards serve companies of executives on SMU's (Gerald's board). Simply a case of cross directorships eliminating any semblance of check and balance. Not to mention, the board fees paid to our president and the lack of attention given to SMU while in service to other institutions. Who has approved all these board memberships. Most companies today severely limit the board memberships of its executives.

Good business practices would have replaced Gerald at least five years ago. Where is our board? Oh I forgot, it is Gerald's, not ours.

[redpony]

We have moved up the rankings considerably in the last several years, our average SAT has moved up dramatically (and no - everyone's has not moved up the same - ours is above UT now).

Really?????????????? What has happened to the standing of our law school over the last few years. IIRC it is struggling to stay at Tier1 level. Then there is Cox business school. The undergrad ratings have dropped significantly.
Great job- Turner. You are really moving things up. His concept of real academics is almost on a par with his lip service to the sports programs.

[Mexmustang]

TCU Walks and Chews Gum

Can a university president use its success in football to raise the rankings of a university?

TCU’s apparently can. It all comes down to a matter of strong leadership at the top.

The current US News “Ranking of Universities”, is now available on line. It provides some interesting insight as to the progress of TCU relative to SMU (based upon numbers provided by universities for the fall 2013).

TCU has now improved its acceptance level (ratio of acceptances to applicants) to 37.6%. SMU has not fared as well, now accepting over half of our applicants, 54.6%. This ratio is an important indicator of the improvement in the quality of undergraduates. Many ranking services give this more weight than average SAT scores, weighted 9th. A higher number of applicants to new students (lower percentage) allow universities to be more selective in their admissions, GPA's, standardized test scores and student activities. SMU claims this isn't true that TCU and other universities are using a method not used by SMU. (Begs the obvious, "If we are reporting our own numbers why don't we use this method?")

Well, SMU doesn’t attract the same applicants! No, actually US News, reports that the three schools mentioned most often by TCU and SMU applicants are TCU-SMU, A&M, and Baylor; SMU-TCU, A&M, and USC—it must be the California girls.

A College guidance counselor at Highland Park High School just noted that for the last decade, TCU has become a college of choice for their graduates, largely at the expense of SMU. Baylor is also growing in popularity amongst their graduates, again at the expense of SMU.

It began with TCU's athletic successes, but continued as the campus was rebuilt and the school received a top rating several years ago in finance/investment management by a poll of regional employers in Texas.

TCU is also noted for having kept the cost of college down. US News, reports that their tuition for the fall of 2013 is $34,590 and R&B $10,650. SMU? Well it had had one of the fastest increases during the period, SMU’s tuition this fall is now $41,750 and R&B $13,539. It must be the higher cost of living in Dallas.

TCU has also been on a major building campaign. It has completely rebuilt the main quadrangle, student housing, including fraternities and expanded housing to all first and second year undergraduates. It also rebuilt Ammon Carter Stadium (over $104,000,000 rebuild), most of it athletic facilities, including its IPF, indoor and outdoor track and baseball. SMU has undergone a similar program and will open its new sophomore housing next year. However, SMU’s investment in athletic facilities has been a small fraction of those budgeted at TCU. SMU is spending money on the refurbishment of Moody Coliseum in large part to complete the pledge made to acquire the George W. Bush Presidential Library, not basketball. If you see the layout and positioning it is designed to sight line the new GWBL. SMU has cancelled the IPF (even reportedly after the pledges were in place), and has no plans to reestablish men’s track or baseball.

TCU’s commitment to athletic facilities primarily occurred while still a member of the Mountain West Conference or applying to the former Big East.

In the past ten years, TCU’s 18 varsity athletic programs have prospered (14 participating in post-season play) under the guidance of two strong athletic directors. It has had one Head Football Coach, who along with the men’s baseball coach has won National Coach of the Year. Before this season,TCU has never won less than 8 games in a season during that ten year period. SMU on the other hand has had three AD’s, three Head Football Coaches and three Men’s Basketball Coaches.

Well, we all know TCU successfully earned its way out of the Big East and just played its second year in the Big 12. But, who remembers that even ten years after the death penalty TCU had a worse football record than SMU? SMU would have even been bowl eligible if we had only beaten Pat Sullivan’s 0-9 team in Ft. Worth! Boosters are still fighting amongst themselves as to fire another football coach or AD.

But, TCU’s President got it together and fixed it! SMU has gotten itself into a conference nightmare, a conference that has seen 17 schools come and go in the year SMU applied. The only official word from the university simply states that “much has changed since we announced our intention to join the Big East Conference over a year ago.” And that SMU is better off by staying. It gives no explanation as to why these schools left, what hand SMU had in these departures, why SMU is better off and most importantly, what contingency planning or alternatives are being considered by the university. Remember the millions we were to earn? Well those dollars turned into pixie dust and the football budget was actually cut this year. Rather than market the programs, we choose to put the burden on our players, playing "money games" in College Station and now Ann Arbor!

Let's see, we were kicked out of the SWC, the original WAC, and effectively the Big East. Do you really believe we are making any effort to join the Big X12? or any other major conference?

Well, but SMU has been a successful in raising funds, maybe the best in the history of any private university. Sorry, that also belongs to TCU! Ten years ago TCU’s endowment fund was well behind SMU’s and this year’s US News has just reported that TCU’s endowment has exceeded that of its cross town rival.

That’s right the Rose Bowl Championship, the Big Twelve, more selective in students, more popular with local college seniors, holding its tuition and student costs in check and now a larger endowment! $1,191,100,000 vs. $1,190,709,000. Most important—TCU started further back in pack ten years ago than SMU!

SMU opened this season in the Faux Big East. Hope you caught the games this year as many of these teams will not be on the schedule next season as they depart for other conferences. Fortunately, SMU doesn’t schedule Rice University anymore, left behind from the cobbling together of the Faux Conference, a university that despite its size and outstanding academics has a 6-4 winning margin over SMU in the past ten years.

Leadership does make a difference; athletic success contributes to the overall success of a university and clearly demonstrates that the leadership of TCU, its president, board, alumni and donors are all working together—on all fronts. Maybe SMU will one day just learn to walk again! But, then again, that requires leadership!

Gerald, when Dickie Scruggs (tobacco settlement) kicked you out at Ole Miss, He reported said, "In three years, you have successfully raised tuition, built a new building and named it after yourself, alienated the student body and alumni, placed our football on probation and fired a very well liked (and my personal friend) football coach. You have one of three choices, you can retire, you can resign or you can be fired. But come September you will no longer be president of this university!" as related by two Old Miss former board members.

Dickie should have given us the money to build our IPF, for all that SMU did for Ole Miss football!

[RGV Pony]

Interesting treatise

[CalallenStang]

They fired the law school dean.

I don't think that Cox undergrad rankings have dropped substantially. I remember in 2006 Cox being unranked in US News and around 20th-25th in BusinessWeek. Now we are #40 in US News and #30 in BusinessWeek. Seems to be that we are trying to move up in US News rankings at the expense of BW

[Mexmustang]

SAT scores are for college president to take to their boards. But, in truth most educators don't take much stock in them. They are not a valid predictor of college success. In fact they are one of the lower weighted statistics used in the US News ratings. By the way, SMU is not even in the top 100. Most of the numbers bantered about by our administration leaves our many, many universities and colleges. Williams for instance is not part of their data base.

SAT scores are also misused. I remember three years ago arguing with one of our past Board Chairman, when he railed about the effect our football recruiting would have on our SAT scores if we didn't a faculty admissions committee. He obviously not only placed far too much value on these silly numbers, but had no concept of statistics and how negligible the effect of 25 scholarship athletes would have on the SAT averages of our incoming freshman classes! I obviously broke his bubble and his belief that SAT scores really make a great university.

[couch 'em]

Could the delay in firing June be somehow related to the probable stepping down of Turner in a year or so?

[SMU2007]

He obviously not only placed far too much value on these silly numbers, but had no concept of statistics and how negligible the effect of 25 scholarship athletes would have on the SAT averages of our incoming freshman classes!

This is what I don't understand about the "academics over athletics" crowd. If you let 50 illiterate people into your university, it is not going to have a real impact on the student body. A football team full of the most average students is not going to benefit a university more than a team full of people scraping by. Such a small piece of the puzzle. Not to mention the boost in everything else schools with good athletics seem to enjoy.

[gostangs]

Mex - you are wrong on many fronts here. US News has us about 60 - TCU and Baylor 30-40 pots in th "major university" rankings - significantly below us. I can tell you from having my own and other students having just gone through this process that almost EVERY SINGLE student at HP that ended up at TCU and Baylor got rejected by SMU. Our incoming freshman SAT is over 1300 - higher than everyone in the state but Rice. TCU has a higher number of applicants, but they are very poor quality - our average ATHLETE stats are the same as TCU's average student. It is not even close.
Like i said, you can complain Turner is not athletics friendly enough - but academically we have risen well in the rankings in the last 17 yrs since Turner, doubled our endowment and raised a ton of money for scholarships and buildings. It will be time for a change very soon - but Turner has had an immensely positive impact on SMU academically. I jus think he made a horrible decision with June - but that is a different issue .