PonyFans.com

Based on recent events, as well as those of his entire presidency, is it time for SMU and Turner to part ways? The football team is the greatest factor by which persons understand a university, and he has consistently neglected it in his policies and priorities. This has decreased the value of SMU, as the extent to which SMU sports has fallen has made the entire university nearly synonymous with failure.

Throughout his duration at SMU, every other position associated with athletics has changed. Athletic directors and head coaches have come and gone, and yet the problem remains. This is because there has always been a greater problem, one which still remains and always will be a hindrance to success unless it is removed.

There is no one else left to blame.

Unbelievable that we have these issues at this late date. I keep finding other places for my charitable dollars until this sorts itself out. Another sad day for SMU, an almost Pye-like moment. Teachers aren't worth a $%^&^. Had an argument with a college prof friend last night, even my wife commented, what a gutless wonder...something about "imanations of the penumbra" which I referred to as the "pull the theory out of my a#$ method of judicial activism." Too bad I need him as a keyboard player... Somebody has to call BS on these people or they will run us into the ground like a third world country. Just another example of SMUggness gone wild. It's stuff like this that will kill athletics and the school in the end.
Here in Fresno, we can't get a look from the MWC as we have had terrible things going on in the athletic department all on the President's watch. He's still here and a big reason we can't move forward.

Turner's budgets are from a consumer's perspective are simply "out of control". I have had four students attend SMU beginning eight years ago. I have two still attending the school, a junior and a senior. Despite the state of the economy, despite the level of inflation, the student fees and tuition have risen "double-didget" percentages I believe annually. I am out of the country now--maybe someone can check my numbers. But, there has been no explanation for these increases, I know that faculty members at other schools have not had large, if any salary increases. I have been upset with Turner's condecending attitude toward, alumns and parents for years. He listens to very few people and not that often. At fund raising events, at awards events and his events honoring those of us that have given to SMU, he looks right through people and seeks out those he is comfortable with, especially those top donors as opposed to the "rank and file". If SMU has an elitest reputation, he has perpetuated it.
If June were to leave his "Unbridaled" campaign would turn on its heals and the university would be split again--the second time in twenty years. A number of people would be asking for his "head" and not just some fan web site poll. This is so stupid, SMU as a university and football program is so close to success...and his lack of leadership in unifying the alumns, administration and faculty could jeopardize everything.

I think some perspective is needed. The last thing SMU needs is publicity ffor running a President out town because he won't let marginal students in.

Perspective-I don't have a good feeling for why Hall was denied admission but the current admissions to the university are about 10 times better than Pye. Let's be honest-June Jones is trying to get a lot of VERY marginal players into the university. a convict, the highest number of non-qualifiers of any school in Texas, guys like Scardino Daniels who have been trying to get eligible ANYWHERE for years, kids that double sign with JUCOs on signing date, JUCOs who inevitably were non-qualifiers out of high school, Summer JUCOs as opposed to Mid-Term Jucos who struggle to graduate from JUCOs. And look at the number of marginal kids let in to the athletic department-we now actually have admitted a NONQUALIFIER directly out of high school(see Rivals), a kid who flunked high school and got a GED, transfers who were on disciplinary probation at their old school, transfers who have trouble passing local Community College courses to get eligible at SMU, Prep Schoolers, late qualifiers, JUCOs, Division 1A Transfers in record numbers. We have kids with well publicized legal problems. In addition, we have recently admitted another kid to the athletic department who had legal problems that I know about but haven't mentioned on this board. A lot of marginal kids

The issues are on the margin and it appears more prominent now because we are recruiting on the margins like never before.

This ain't exactly the same as Ken Pye requiring SMU recruits to be closely scrutinized if they score 250 points above the NCAA minimum. It is very possible that Hall might not have been admitted under the old NCAA rules which required a 700 SAT minimum because the new NCAA sliding scale has deemphasized the importance of the SAT. There is no minimum SAT per se anymore on the sliding scale. I'm not so sure its really so outrageous that SMU for example might not admit a kid with a sub 700 SAT. If that was the case that still does not excuse the fact that someone dropped the ball in advising Hall to retake the SAT

So from my perspective I certainly don't think SMU should fire Turner because of this type of athletics admission issue especially when SMU is trying to get such a high number of marginal kids in comparison to our opponents.

Stallion wrote:I think some perspective is needed. The last thing SMU needs is publicity ffor running a President out town because he won't let marginal students in.

Perspective-I don't have a good feeling for why Hall was denied admission but the current admissions to the university are about 10 times better than Pye. Let's be honest-June Jones is trying to get a lot of VERY marginal players into the university. a convict, the highest number of non-qualifiers of any school in Texas, guys like Scardino Daniels who have been trying to get eligible ANYWHERE for years, kids that double sign with JUCOs on signing date, JUCOs who inevitably were non-qualifiers out of high school, Summer JUCOs as opposed to Mid-Term Jucos who struggle to graduate from JUCOs. And look at the number of marginal kids let in to the athletic department-we now actually have admitted a NONQUALIFIER directly out of high school(see Rivals), a kid who flunked high school and got a GED, transfers who were on disciplinary probation at their old school, transfers who have trouble passing local Community College courses to get eligible at SMU, Prep Schoolers, late qualifiers, JUCOs, Division 1A Transfers in record numbers. We have kids with well publicized legal problems. In addition, we have recently admitted another kid to the athletic department who had legal problems that I know about but haven't mentioned on this board. A lot of marginal kids

The issues are on the margin and it appears more prominent now because we are recruiting on the margins like never before.

This ain't exactly the same as Ken Pye requiring SMU recruits to be closely scrutinized if they score 250 points above the NCAA minimum. It is very possible that Hall might not have been admitted under the old NCAA rules which required a 700 SAT minimum because the new NCAA sliding scale has deemphasized the importance of the SAT. There is no minimum SAT per se anymore on the sliding scale. I'm not so sure its really so outrageous that SMU for example might not admit a kid with a sub 700 SAT. If that was the case that still does not excuse the fact that someone dropped the ball in advising Hall to retake the SAT

So from my perspective I certainly don't think SMU should fire Turner because of this type of athletics admission issue especially when SMU is trying to get such a high number of marginal kids in comparison to our opponents.

Good points and running Turner out because of not allowing a few athletes in won't happen, as we just don't know why Hall didn't get in and may never know,but what has and is is going on at SMU is many more marginal student athletes have matriculated here at SMU and others are coming in and the admisions office is probably feeling mucho heat because of the new volume of marginal student/athletes.
Isn't it ironic that that SMU admission applications are up 30-35% from last year as a result of the publicity of the Hawaii Bowl game and probably allows SMU to globally pick the cream of the HS crop now only serves to make it more difficult for the Football team to get in additional marginal students.

Thank you for some perspective Stallion. I have held off commenting about the Hall situation because I don't know the facts. But I've been amazed at the anti-Turner vitrol that this situation has unleashed here. Whether Turner played any role in the non-admission of this particular student-athlete, or whether it would be appropriate for a university president to directly intervene in the business of the admissions committee regarding a specific admission decision, are both highly doubtful to me.

Maybe someone at SMU dropped the ball with respect to Hall, or maybe not. We'll probably never know. But to lay that at Turner's door and call for his head is extreme.

Personally, I think Turner has been great for SMU as an institution for a number of reasons. With respect to athletics in particular, Stallion says it all. Things have changed. . .that's a fact. I have no idea what happened with Hall, and I wish him well, but to extrapolate that particular situation into the question of whether Turner is a "friend or enemy" or whether "SMU should seek a new president" is taking things way too far.

Also, I take issue with the way the DMN reported the story. The article implies that the only relevant facts are: (1) Hall is an NCAA qualifier; and (2) SMU rejected him anyway. That doesn't strike me as the whole story. Commonsense would dictate that there was some other factor or factors in the admissions committee decision. Otherwise, why haven't other qualifiers in this class been rejected?

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:I have no idea what happened with Hall, and I wish him well, but to extrapolate that particular situation into the question of whether Turner is a "friend or enemy" or whether "SMU should seek a new president" is taking things way too far.

It is not simply in regards to the Jeremy Hall incident, but pertains towards his concern for the image of the university throughout his time as president. His mistakes continue into SMU's consistently raising tuition. Making an expensive university even more expensive is not an accomplishment to be celebrated.

It is not enough to simply be better than Pye. Turner must become better than himself.

You guys are insane.

Listen, I love sports as much as the next guy, but this is a UNIVERSITY. I didn't even know it was possible to get a SAT score under 700. Trophies are great, but lets not sell the farm to get them. Could you imagine taking a class with someone like that?

Also, speaking from a class of 2010 perspective, this paranoia about the faculty is crazy. I don't know what it was like back in the 70's or whatever, but I've never encountered any professors who held a grudge against athletics.

It's just the Pony Nation in its usual overreaction mode. Yeah, yeah, I'm guilty of it too.

I think we need to give the powers that be the opportunity to either explain the decision (although it had better be a damn good one for these kids that are getting yanked at the 11th hour) or correct the issue.

f4shionablecha0s wrote:Also, speaking from a class of 2010 perspective, this paranoia about the faculty is crazy. I don't know what it was like back in the 70's or whatever, but I've never encountered any professors who held a grudge against athletics.

Habla Espanol?

f4shionablecha0s wrote:You guys are insane.

Listen, I love sports as much as the next guy, but this is a UNIVERSITY. I didn't even know it was possible to get a SAT score under 700. Trophies are great, but lets not sell the farm to get them. Could you imagine taking a class with someone like that?

Also, speaking from a class of 2010 perspective, this paranoia about the faculty is crazy. I don't know what it was like back in the 70's or whatever, but I've never encountered any professors who held a grudge against athletics.

Blah blah blah. First, in my time at SMU (2001-2005) I met several people who, had they not gone to expensive private school or HP and had high dollar tutors work them over, probably would have had an unbelievably low SAT like 700. They were let in to come pay full tuition so daddy's money can help fund a building. That's how it is at every private university.

I don't see any difference between someone buying in with daddy's money or an athlete buying in with their athletic performance. Neither really has any affect on the value of the SMU diploma (rich kids are far more damaging, really) and they both add value to the university in non-academic ways. At least with the athlete you are giving someone a chance who otherwise would have few avenues to success in life.

Perhaps the difference for you is more related to what kind of car daddy can buy them, or how resistant they are to sunburns.

On you last point, the views of certain faculty towards athletics is well documented here in their own words and actual writing.

[quote="f4shionablecha0s"]You guys are insane.

Listen, I love sports as much as the next guy, but this is a UNIVERSITY. I didn't even know it was possible to get a SAT score under 700. Trophies are great, but lets not sell the farm to get them. Could you imagine taking a class with someone like that?

Also, speaking from a class of 2010 perspective, this paranoia about the faculty is crazy. I don't know what it was like back in the 70's or whatever, but I've never encountered any professors who held a grudge against athletics.[/quote]


I don't agree with a lot of what's been said on here regarding this issue, but I understand where the feelings of "paranoia" come from. For many years around here, the faculty and administration generally did hold a grudge against athletics and put in place standards that would not permit SMU to compete with other peer schools in football and basketball. And I'm not talking about the 1970s. I'm talking about the 1990s and even the first half of this decade. It was very, very difficult to watch the Mustangs get pounded every week knowing that we were being kept from fielding a competitive team by these policies.

Of course, it is fair to point out that the administration and faculty's hostility probably had something to do with the fact that SMU sold out its institutional integrity to win football games in the 1980s and it ended in a massive scandal that rocked SMU to its core. But whatever the reason, the hostility was real for a long time.

That being said, things are definitely different now. I don't think we are living in the era of institutional hostility to athletics at SMU anymore. That's why I think the screaming on this board about this issue is way overdone. But I was there in the dark days. . .I understand why they scream.

f4shionablecha0s wrote: Listen, I love sports as much as the next guy, but this is a UNIVERSITY. I didn't even know it was possible to get a SAT score under 700. Could you imagine taking a class with someone like that?

You really think he would go to class? Seriously.

This thread is a joke. College athletics from BC$ to mid-majors is in trouble because of inane supporters, who feel we can only value our degrees and self-worth based on a FB program. Get a life.

Water Pony wrote:This thread is a joke. College athletics from BC$ to mid-majors is in trouble because of inane supporters, who feel we can only value our degrees and self-worth based on a FB program. Get a life.

I'm sorry nobody cares to watch swimming.