Daily Campus Addresses Bennett's Raise
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:17 pmBennett scores big
SMU may have jumped the gun by extending the coach’s contract
by the Daily Campus Ed Board
January 17, 2006
SMU announced that head football coach Phil Bennett signed a one-year contract extension that will keep him at the helm until 2009, as well as a more than $50,000 per year raise, making his salary just over half a million dollars per year.
The SMU football team made tremendous strides during its 2005 campaign. The Ponies’ win over then No. 22 TCU was the first time SMU has beaten a ranked opponent since 1986, which was before the death penalty.
The team finished its season 5-6 with a three-game winning streak, the longest since winning three in a row in 1999.
For a team that went winless in 2003, that’s not too shabby. But, it’s not a truly remarkable season, either.
Ed Board feels that this contract extension and raise are unwarranted, unnecessary and premature. One mediocre season after three pitiful seasons is not a reason to celebrate.
In Bennett’s past four seasons at SMU, the football team is 11-35, a horrible record that surely would have resulted in a coach’s firing at another university that was allegedly committed to football success.
In how many other fields can the figurehead of an organization be less than 32 percent successful at his job and then be rewarded for it?
Bennett’s job is to win football games. While the team is making great improvements, and the 2005 season was a pleasant surprise, Bennett has yet to show that he can consistently win games.
This vote of confidence from the SMU Athletic Department is not an indication of Bennett’s successes as a coach; it’s a sign of the lowering of SMU’s standards in its athletic programs.
Bennett still had time left on his contract. The athletic department could have waited to see if the 2005 season was a sign of things to come or whether the Mustangs just got lucky this year.
Bennett does not deserve a pay raise for taking a mediocre team and making them less mediocre; that’s what his original contract and pay was for.
If he had taken the team to the Conference USA championship game, or at least a bowl game, then Ed Board would agree that a raise and contract extension would be warranted.
Ed Board feels that this is the standard the athletic department should be holding itself to, and nothing less than that should be rewarded.
While Ed Board wishes nothing but the best for the team and hopes for a successful 2006 season, we feel this was an irresponsible decision by the athletic department.
SMU may have jumped the gun by extending the coach’s contract
by the Daily Campus Ed Board
January 17, 2006
SMU announced that head football coach Phil Bennett signed a one-year contract extension that will keep him at the helm until 2009, as well as a more than $50,000 per year raise, making his salary just over half a million dollars per year.
The SMU football team made tremendous strides during its 2005 campaign. The Ponies’ win over then No. 22 TCU was the first time SMU has beaten a ranked opponent since 1986, which was before the death penalty.
The team finished its season 5-6 with a three-game winning streak, the longest since winning three in a row in 1999.
For a team that went winless in 2003, that’s not too shabby. But, it’s not a truly remarkable season, either.
Ed Board feels that this contract extension and raise are unwarranted, unnecessary and premature. One mediocre season after three pitiful seasons is not a reason to celebrate.
In Bennett’s past four seasons at SMU, the football team is 11-35, a horrible record that surely would have resulted in a coach’s firing at another university that was allegedly committed to football success.
In how many other fields can the figurehead of an organization be less than 32 percent successful at his job and then be rewarded for it?
Bennett’s job is to win football games. While the team is making great improvements, and the 2005 season was a pleasant surprise, Bennett has yet to show that he can consistently win games.
This vote of confidence from the SMU Athletic Department is not an indication of Bennett’s successes as a coach; it’s a sign of the lowering of SMU’s standards in its athletic programs.
Bennett still had time left on his contract. The athletic department could have waited to see if the 2005 season was a sign of things to come or whether the Mustangs just got lucky this year.
Bennett does not deserve a pay raise for taking a mediocre team and making them less mediocre; that’s what his original contract and pay was for.
If he had taken the team to the Conference USA championship game, or at least a bowl game, then Ed Board would agree that a raise and contract extension would be warranted.
Ed Board feels that this is the standard the athletic department should be holding itself to, and nothing less than that should be rewarded.
While Ed Board wishes nothing but the best for the team and hopes for a successful 2006 season, we feel this was an irresponsible decision by the athletic department.
