Does SMU have a case of "escalating commitment"?

by **ponyinNC** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:23 pm

I had never heard of this before, but seems apres peau:

"In organizational decision-making situations, there's a powerful force called 'escalating commitment'. It refers to a mental tendency of the original decision-maker to double-down, throw good money after bad, even when objective evidence indicates that the original decision has proven to be a poor one.

It's why, e.g., a general might throw a fresh wave of troops against a defensive line even after a first rush was emphatically repulsed, why a CEO might tell his engineers to spend more money drilling in an area even if the wells have come up dry, and ... why an AD/Booster might say "let's give him another year or two" when a coach is an obvious loser.

Basically, the psychological mechanism has to do with "saving face", avoiding the embarrassment of being publicly proven wrong. Especially in cases where an AD /University President was publicly identified with the hiring of a coach, it is particularly hard for them to dump that guy, because it reflects badly on them."

Is this what is happening with RGT and the CofC?

by **StallionsModelT** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:30 pm

Essentially, the "Naughty Nine" have been replaced by the "Circle of Champions". These individuals make all the decisions and control the fate of the program by themselves. We will live or die by their decisions. Since it looks like June's approval rating among the CoC is still skyhigh it really doesn't matter that literally 99.9% of the rest of us want him gone.

by **peruna11** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:49 pm

Perhaps we should be flooding their inboxes instead?

by **feelthehorsepower** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:50 pm

StallionsModelT wrote:Essentially, the "Naughty Nine" have been replaced by the "Circle of Champions". These individuals make all the decisions and control the fate of the program by themselves. We will live or die by their decisions. Since it looks like June's approval rating among the CoC is still skyhigh it really doesn't matter that literally 99.9% of the rest of us want him gone.

That's how things are...the top 1% decide for the 99%

:lol:

by **blackoutpony** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:01 pm

peruna11 wrote:Perhaps we should be flooding their inboxes instead?

Not a bad idea.....

by **RednBlue11** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:05 pm

StallionsModelT wrote:Essentially, the "Naughty Nine" have been replaced by the "Circle of Champions". These individuals make all the decisions and control the fate of the program by themselves. We will live or die by their decisions. Since it looks like June's approval rating among the CoC is still skyhigh it really doesn't matter that literally 99.9% of the rest of us want him gone.

EXCEPT THE NAUGHTY 9 WON US SOME STUFF!

by **rlm1951** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:13 pm

Who makes up the CofC?

by **StallionsModelT** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:15 pm

Sewell, Ford, Dedmans, Hunt, etc. The same lot that have 90% of the school named after them.

by **ponyinNC** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:16 pm

Usual folks you would think of (Sewell, Ford) and a few "newer" boosters as well.

by **PerunaPunch** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Rather than "escalating commitment", I think it's been more an issue of "half measures" in that our administration wanted to dip their proverbial toes into the idea of returning SMU to glory rather than going all in like (most of) our competition. They were aiming at being competitive in WAC, CUSA and now the American rather than being competitive with our natural and traditional rivals.

by **No Quarter** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:40 pm

IMO there is an argument that "doubling down" in this situation would be for the C of C to buy out Jones and also to commit to fund his replacement. The Circle was assembled by an AD no longer at SMU and with goals / promises that can no longer be reached with the demise of the old Big East and our landing in the rump end of the conference with no immediate BCS or P5 prospects.

To me "donor fatigue" as otherwise discussed on this board explains what we see.

I suspect any new agreement for deep pocketed enthusiasts to support football will be after a lot of talk withe university administration. I see those talks as surely scheduled, perhaps under way, or maybe concluded.

I also believe that the university president does not care much one way or the other about the sports programs. If a sports program enhancement is funded by money from fans that goes for coaches salaries and so on, that is good. It frees up money otherwise received by the university for purposes which may have nothing to do with sports. SMU writes the actual paychecks and there is perhaps less risk of an NCAA violation. And if the school permits the sports donors to pay for football or basketball, maybe one of them will someday make a gift to the endowment which is probably of greater interest outside the athletic department.

by **SMUer** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:57 pm

Post their names and find their emails!

by **Insane_Pony_Posse** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:04 pm

ponyinNC wrote:Is this what is happening with RGT and the CofC?

But can't they see next year will be an even bigger disaster?
and make them look more foolish?
June did the program some good
why not capitalize on that & use that to begin a new "next step" era with a new coach?
after next year...God Forbid...they may need to thriple down!
we may be toast until Turner retires...
isn't he approaching 70?
i wonder how long Turner intends to stay?

by **feelthehorsepower** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:37 pm

What will we do if June's 2014 squad is actually really good and they come away with a 9-3?

by **PlanoStang** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:42 pm

" why a CEO might tell his engineers to spend more money drilling in an area even if the wells have come up dry, and ... why an AD/Booster might say "let's give him another year or two" when a coach is an obvious loser."

The "obvious loser" has done much better than the previous 4 dry wells (Gregg, Rossley, Cavan,
Bennett) drilled :!: