PonyFans.com

From the Daily Campus

"We would prefer to have individuals where there's no controversy in respect about how they've run those programs," Turner said Monday."

From Bruce Feldman's Book "Meat Market"

"The first time the rebels (Ole Miss) were banned from post season play and live TV for the 1987 season after a two year investigation found that recruits had received cash from Ole Miss boosters. That episode proved to be a huge embarrassment for then Chancellor GERALD TURNER, who previously had been the head of the NCAAs President's Commission.....a few weeks before the 1993 regular season ended, Ole Miss was rocked by another scandal. The NCAA nailed Ole Miss for 15 infractions most of them of the eye popping variety, such as boosters taking recruits to strip clubs in Memphis....sometimes strippers weren't the principal enticement, In 1992 a booster took 4 rebel recruits to a Memphis strip club and asked what it would take for them to sign with Ole Miss - before offering a player a new Ford Mustang to sign."

Looks like there was a little "controversy" with respect to Gerald Turner's ability to maintain control over booster involvement within a football program. One would think that would be a major negative on the resume of a man seeking to become the president on SMU.....

oh, wait...there is more...

"The NCAA determined that Ole Miss coaches knew all of the violations were taking place, thereby demonstrating the dreaded "lack of institutional control" over the football program. In the wake of the scandal, Ole Miss athletics director Warner Alford resigned in July 1994. The following day, Turner, the school Chancellor fired Brewer (the coach). Then in January 1995, Turner announced he was done at Ole Miss (gee...why?)

Ole Miss was barred from post season play in 1995 and 1996.....the Rebels lost 13 scholarships in the 1995 and 1996 classes. It was the harshest punishments the NCAA had ever levied upon a school not named SMU."

At Old Miss, Turner fired the Coach immediately, so why do you want to attempt to unfairly attack Turner ? All this crap you are bringing up has been looked at before by the NCAA. So I think you are making a huge mistake by attacking Turner. The guy loves our sports programs and hired Orsini. If anyone doesn't want Barnett, as example and I'm not saying they don't, I do not believe Turner would have made that call.

I was attacking Turner's high and mighty comment about not hiring a coach with a past. Ironic when you consider that when Turner was hired as President of SMU, his resume certainly had some question marks. Like, I don't know, when he was President at Ole Miss, they got busted twice in 5 years for paying recruits/players and once for a lack of institutional control. And don't give me that was the Athletic Department, when you are the leader of a University, the buck stops with you.

Oh yeah, he fired the coach AFTER that happened twice in 5 years. What a hard [deleted]. Then left out the back door to go to SMU.

and you are right, all that happened when Turner was president of Ole Miss was looked at by the NCAA.....and they determined there to be a lack of institutional control...that falls on the AD and the President.

Dwan wrote:and you are right, all that happened when Turner was president of Ole Miss was looked at by the NCAA.....and they determined there to be a lack of institutional control...that falls on the AD and the President.

well, we got rid of Hitch as AD and hired Pye as president, so someone must've thought things start at the top.

"when he was President at Ole Miss, they got busted twice in 5 years for paying recruits/players and once for a lack of institutional control."

...wait a sec! More than once in five years? I thought that made you "death penalty eligible!"

I like how you left off that Turner fired Brewer only giving him 30-days pay and no kind of severance for the rest of his three year contract and how Turner and Brewer never got along.

You need to get a grip. Maybe the reason Turner said we won't go after a questionable history is because he doesn't trust a coach to do right if they didn't do right at an arguably easier situation. Perhaps he doesn't want SMU on NCAA probation again.

But then again, why do we need to go after a coach with a history of NCAA infractions. There are good coaches out there without the blemishes. We're SMU, we're offering gobs of cash, why do we need to limit ourselves?

perunapower wrote: There are good coaches out there without the blemishes. We're SMU, we're offering gobs of cash, why do we need to limit ourselves?

Please list the "good coaches without the blemishes."

jtstang wrote:

perunapower wrote: There are good coaches out there without the blemishes. We're SMU, we're offering gobs of cash, why do we need to limit ourselves?

Please list the "good coaches without the blemishes."

Mike Shula, Paul Johnson, Turner Gill, Dave Christensen, Steve Mariucci, Glen Mason, Bo Pelini, Major Applewhite, Gus Malzahn, etc.

Now I didn't quite mean without blemish all, I merely meant the blemishes of Barnett and Neuheisel and the like. Like it or not, if we hire a coach with a history of recruiting scandals and NCAA infractions, we will be seen as reverting back to cheating by a majority of the public. That's the albatross that hangs around our neck with the death penalty being mentioned in almost every article about SMU nationally.

perunapower said:

Mike Shula, Paul Johnson, Turner Gill, Dave Christensen, Steve Mariucci, Glen Mason, Bo Pelini, Major Applewhite, Gus Malzahn, etc.

Now I didn't quite mean without blemish all, I merely meant the blemishes of Barnett and Neuheisel and the like. Like it or not, if we hire a coach with a history of recruiting scandals and NCAA infractions, we will be seen as reverting back to cheating by a majority of the public. That's the albatross that hangs around our neck with the death penalty being mentioned in almost every article about SMU nationally.

In both THESE particular cases, the coach was exonerated based on additional information. Neuheisel demonstrated in court that he sought input from Legal as to whether he should participate. They said "sure".
Barnett was cleared of wrongdoing as well.

So these guys are damaged goods by reputation only. They have never been busted by the NCAA. I would call that an opportunity, not the potential for hiring a sullied-but-competent head coach. Is the perception of cheating, even if de-bunked, enough to give the public the wrong impression? Nevermind selling it as a second chance...what about selling it as righting a wrong?

Maybe I am way off here, but does the presumption of innocence count for anything, especially if the coach was cleared?

RGV Pony wrote:

Dwan wrote:and you are right, all that happened when Turner was president of Ole Miss was looked at by the NCAA.....and they determined there to be a lack of institutional control...that falls on the AD and the President.

well, we got rid of Hitch as AD and hired Pye as president, so someone must've thought things start at the top.

"when he was President at Ole Miss, they got busted twice in 5 years for paying recruits/players and once for a lack of institutional control."

...wait a sec! More than once in five years? I thought that made you "death penalty eligible!"

Bob Hitch was the fall guy. Bill Clements was the reason we got in the mess we did. He couldn't tell the boosters to stop. He had no intention of stopping. SMU threw all the boosters under the bus and then held up Clements like some hero.

Isn't Chrisianity about giving someone a second chance if they have sinned? Barnett or Bowden deserve a second chance to make good.

Out of that list I'd only be content wtih Gill, incensed by any of the others. Okay, maybe Mason, but the talk is he can't recruit, that the turnaround players at UM weren't his and his players got him canned. I don't know what is true.

Dwan wrote:I was attacking Turner's high and mighty comment about not hiring a coach with a past.

There is nothing "high and mighty" about declaring that you don't want a coach with a past. I believe that what you're really trying to say is that you feel we'll unnecessarily restrict candidates by using this standard. Fair enough, but you have no room to attack Gerald Turner for simply having a desire to avoid candidates who would bring negative publicity to this program.

ponyboy wrote:

Dwan wrote:I was attacking Turner's high and mighty comment about not hiring a coach with a past.

There is nothing "high and mighty" about declaring that you don't want a coach with a past. I believe that what you're really trying to say is that you feel we'll unnecessarily restrict candidates by using this standard. Fair enough, but you have no room to attack Gerald Turner for simply having a desire to avoid candidates who would bring negative publicity to this program.

It's time to win. Beggars can't be choosers. And, it's not like Barnett (since that who the reference is to) was found guilty of any wrongdoing.