Page 1 of 2

Neuheisel, Bowden, Barnett or Mason

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:32 am
by ponygrad90
The more I see that list the more excited I am getting-

Let the Best man win!!!!!!

Pony Up!!!!!

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:44 am
by mr. pony
Where's the list?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:03 pm
by smu diamond m
mr. pony wrote:Where's the list?

The thread title, maybe?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:07 pm
by jackspub
great list, finally someone with realistic expectations.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:28 pm
by Otto
I'd be good with any of them (although Mason doesn't get me too fired up for season tickets just yet) ... and in the order in which you have them listed.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:39 pm
by George S. Patton
Absolutely NOT to Neuheisel.

I've posted this before. He does not have a good rapport when it comes to dealing with Texas High School coaches. His pretty-boy and flashy image will not work with them.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:42 pm
by NickSMU17
Quote from Ex Northwestern player under Barnett....

"He's an awesome guy and would do a good job recruiting. I think he'd be great for SMU. I don't think he'd take the job though."

If we can get this guy we need to hire him. He has dealt with similar academic restrictions before.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:56 pm
by Billy Joe
I would be excited about any of the aforementioned names. However, I would be equally or more excited if SMU added a few athlete friendly majors and/or an education major and announced a policy that the school would readily accept transfer hours from other Div. 1-A schools and from JUCO / Community College type schools.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:01 pm
by Otto
George S. Patton wrote:Absolutely NOT to Neuheisel.

I've posted this before. He does not have a good rapport when it comes to dealing with Texas High School coaches. His pretty-boy and flashy image will not work with them.
You've posted everything before, usually many times, as if repeating things over and over, as if that somehow will make your point (?) more valid.

Who cares if the Texas high school coaches like him? Doesn't matter in the slightest. Jimmy Tubbs was supposed to be a personal friend of every high school coach in the city, if not DFW or the state, and his recruiting impact among local coaches wasn't a hell of a lot more significant than yours or mine. Matt Doherty waltzes in with his big name and his UNC/Kansas background, and lo and behold, recruits know who he is and come to SMU. Who was it, Kwiatkowski or someone who said he chose SMU in part because "Coach Doherty is kind of a big deal"?

If a coach can have the same impact on football recruiting, the pre-existing relationships with Texas high school coaches mean nothing.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:06 pm
by mr. pony
Good point.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:08 pm
by MustangPride
I'll second that....

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:16 pm
by George S. Patton
MustangPride wrote:I'll second that....


Basketball and football ain't the same.

EDIT: John Mackovic pretty much had the same appeal. Mack Brown had to clean up a lot of that mess. We cannot afford to not cultivate, nurture and improve those relationships.

We're in a FREAKIN' hotbed for high school football. This state has a national reputation for it. And some of you don't think it's a big deal?

This is a blatant form of arrogant, naive or just flat out stupid thinking that I've come across.

But you guys are right. Let's just casually call and do as little as possible with Texas high schools and make sure that the competitive imbalance continues.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:27 pm
by giacfsp
I'll use small words if it will help:

"If a kid can play, it don't matter where he's from."

This is a "freakin' hotbed" of basketball talent, too, but by all accounts, the Michigan kid is a player and the three California kids are players. If this year's Magnificent Seven and next year's freshmen start to turn things around, Texas coaches will be calling us to send their kids to SMU.

The notion that SMU players somehow have to come from Dallas, or even Texas, is inane. Sure, it's nice to say "he's a hometown guy," but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean anything. Logic dictates we'll get a lot of Texas players. But if Coach Doherty finds the next John Koncak in Kansas City, rest assured he'll go after him, even if it means snubbing a Texas kid.

I'm hoping the next football coach does the same thing.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:30 pm
by mustangxc
giacfsp wrote:I'll use small words if it will help:

"If a kid can play, it don't matter where he's from."

This is a "freakin' hotbed" of basketball talent, too, but by all accounts, the Michigan kid is a player and the three California kids are players. If this year's Magnificent Seven and next year's freshmen start to turn things around, Texas coaches will be calling us to send their kids to SMU.

The notion that SMU players somehow have to come from Dallas, or even Texas, is inane. Sure, it's nice to say "he's a hometown guy," but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean anything. Logic dictates we'll get a lot of Texas players. But if Coach Doherty finds the next John Koncak in Kansas City, rest assured he'll go after him, even if it means snubbing a Texas kid.

I'm hoping the next football coach does the same thing.


While I agree wholeheartedly with your approach in basketball and would not limit myself to Texas recruiting in football either, it is not reasonable to focus your recruiting efforts in football outside of Texas simply based on the numbers game.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:33 pm
by giacfsp
Agreed, wholeheartedly .... hence the "Logic dictates we'll get a lot of Texas players" statement.

Glad we're on the same page here. :D