Page 1 of 5

Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:24 pm
by smumustang1980
Why would any SMU alumnus trust Turner to fully support a competitive football program when he serves as an integral member of the Knight Commission? Are we fools?

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:25 am
by smumustang1980
Although many of us contribute to the Mustang Club and purchase season tickets, a valid argument has been raised in other posts as to the absence of a transparent strategic plan and how this transparency should be a quid pro quo for support going forward.

Alumni deserve the truth if SMU wants the dinero.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:38 am
by blackoutpony
Been saying that for years

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:40 am
by ponyscott
Couchems post of the history of Turner with Football or no football programs.... is interesting.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:56 pm
by smumustang1980
I had lunch last week with one of our former prominent players, who had in turn spent a few hours with Eric D.and Carl Sewell discussing the future of the program. During my lunch, the impression was one of sadness because Sewell offered nothing to encourage them that SMU was serious. I am an eternal optimist, however in this case I continue to wonder.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:13 pm
by SMUer
#noplan #nodirection #novision

seriously, if we arent blowing fairy dust up the [gary patterson]'s of our richest, most fervent donors, what the hell is anyone doing over there?

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:15 pm
by redpony
smumustang1980 wrote: . During my lunch, the impression was one of sadness because Sewell offered nothing to encourage them that SMU was serious.


That is truly very very sad if that is the attitude of some of the CofC members. Seems more and more like we are destined to DIII.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:04 pm
by SoCal_Pony
redpony wrote:
smumustang1980 wrote: . During my lunch, the impression was one of sadness because Sewell offered nothing to encourage them that SMU was serious.


That is truly very very sad if that is the attitude of some of the CofC members. Seems more and more like we are destined to DII.


Life doesn't work that way redpony.

FB is hemorrhaging cash. You or anyone else please provide a scenario where moving down to DII makes us even cash neutral. Gone are out of conference opponents that generate ticket revenues, MC contributions take a hit. Attendance plummets and Ford truly becomes a mausoleum.

All this occurring when the alternative is to shut down the program and I am assuming dramatically reduce useless women's sports programs which are also cash cows.

All this occurring when the P5 get richer and richer and the ability to somewhat compete with former SWC opponents becomes even more and more difficult. Not that we have been competitive in the past 25 years.

I will laugh my [deleted] off if they bulldoze Ford, which is exactly the proper thing to do if they indeed move to DII and then to obsolescence. Laugh my [deleted] off while also crying.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:20 pm
by redpony
I guess to me DII is moving to obsolescence. They are taking a major hit financially because they refused to get rid of tiki after the ASU fiasco and many people prefer not to support the program until major changes are made. JMHO.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:36 pm
by RGV Pony
It would be III not II. See you Chicago, centenary, U. New Orleans (though I think they reconsidered)

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:43 pm
by couch 'em
FBS or bust.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:07 pm
by smumustang1980
I tried to put everything in perspective. I think they might have seen the light, but they continue to say we will be competitive within the American conference. Read into this what you wish, because my group can't figure them out. I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Remember, I wasn't in the room. As I've learned in business, people have differing impressions of reality. Having said this, it appears that they are taking the same approach: hire a new coach and play the cards we are dealt. Apparently, the trustees are not as enthusiastic as we would hope.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:17 pm
by Puckhead48E
To quote Stallion and Jack Nicholson, "We want Turner on that wall, we need Turner on that wall!"

Why, you ask? "We don't want a plan or standards to turn this program around....we can't handle a plan or standards!"

Because, you know...."we should be happy to sleep warmly under the blanket of football success that Turner provides us with."

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:21 pm
by redpony
1980- thanks for the input. IMO without a major commitment from the CofC and the admin. we will just continue to be mediocre without any emphasis on moving up. Most of us realize that the P5 train left the station a long time ago but always have the hope that maybe something will break for us in a favorable way in the future.

Re: Turner, Knight Commission, and SMU Football

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 7:04 pm
by Water Pony
This thread is inane. Seriously.