Big12Mustang wrote:I think that after seeing TCU get in the Big 12, RGT has changed his views significantly
But yet he apparently still does not link the success of TCU's or even SMU's Football team with increased applications. The jury is still out as the admin still hampers athletes at SMU including not allowing the athletes to register earlier than the student body to allow them to get the classes they need for timing purposes, etc. JC transfers need a 3. GPA instead of a 2.75 or 2.8 that most universities allow. We will see how committed he is in 30-60 days....
You are 100% wrong. My best friend was a football player who always got to register first. My girlfriend was a cheerleader, which isn't even an NCAA sport, and she got to register at the same time as him. It didn't matter what year in school they were.
I think the admin is a joke when it comes to athletics and Turner is a huge part of the problem, but this simply isn't true.
Big12Mustang wrote:I think that after seeing TCU get in the Big 12, RGT has changed his views significantly
But yet he apparently still does not link the success of TCU's or even SMU's Football team with increased applications. The jury is still out as the admin still hampers athletes at SMU including not allowing the athletes to register earlier than the student body to allow them to get the classes they need for timing purposes, etc. JC transfers need a 3. GPA instead of a 2.75 or 2.8 that most universities allow. We will see how committed he is in 30-60 days....
You are 100% wrong. My best friend was a football player who always got to register first. My girlfriend was a cheerleader, which isn't even an NCAA sport, and she got to register at the same time as him. It didn't matter what year in school they were.
I think the admin is a joke when it comes to athletics and Turner is a huge part of the problem, but this simply isn't true.
Thats not what I heard last week from a VERY good source. There is some inconsistencies evidently blackoutpony.
Well unless something ridiculous has changed in two years.... They both always got to register before me and I was allowed to register before the rest of the student population becuase I got extended time on tests.
They had to go first so they could schedule classes around practice. It was always a day or two before me too. I don't know who your source is, but just go ask any athlete. It's not some big secret, Call a counselor.
BOP - Providing insensitivity training for a politically correct world since 1989.
It's like Obama campaigning this weekend for 'Hope & Change'. Voters will decide Tuesday, most likely harshly, whether or not they agree with his policies. But the bigger point is he has a 6 year track record that he simply can't hide from.
Same goes for RGT but its 20 years, not 6.
1) Zero men's conference championships in FB or BB under his watch. And we are not talking about P5-type conference affiliation either.
2) Zero men's NCAA BB appearances under his watch, which says we have failed to be a Top 65 team in any of these years. Simply Amazing.
3) Zero women's NCAA BB tourney victories.
4) All the positives we discuss about SMU: location, campus, academics, networking. Maybe they aren't big selling points for FB/BB, but they should be for the country club sports. We use to be good at these sports. Lately, not so much.
5) As another poster commented, SMU use to be a top school in the Sears Cup, now called the Capital One Cup. Last year SMU was ranked #72 in men's, tied with a school called Edinboro??? and unranked on the women's side (96 schools earned points, SMU did not). This last year was not an anomaly.
SoCal_Pony wrote:To me this isn't really debatable any longer.
It's like Obama campaigning this weekend for 'Hope & Change'. Voters will decide Tuesday, most likely harshly, whether or not they agree with his policies. But the bigger point is he has a 6 year track record that he simply can't hide from.
Same goes for RGT but its 20 years, not 6.
1) Zero men's conference championships in FB or BB under his watch. And we are not talking about P5-type conference affiliation either.
2) Zero men's NCAA BB appearances under his watch, which says we have failed to be a Top 65 team in any of these years. Simply Amazing.
3) Zero women's NCAA BB tourney victories.
4) All the positives we discuss about SMU: location, campus, academics, networking. Maybe they aren't big selling points for FB/BB, but they should be for the country club sports. We use to be good at these sports. Lately, not so much.
5) As another poster commented, SMU use to be a top school in the Sears Cup, now called the Capital One Cup. Last year SMU was ranked #72 in men's, tied with a school called Edinboro??? and unranked on the women's side (96 schools earned points, SMU did not). This last year was not an anomaly.
SoCal_Pony wrote:5) As another poster commented, SMU use to be a top school in the Sears Cup, now called the Capital One Cup. Last year SMU was ranked #72 in men's, tied with a school called Edinboro??? and unranked on the women's side (96 schools earned points, SMU did not). This last year was not an anomaly.
We were always highly placed in that competition under Copeland. He was fired because football and basketball weren't good enough. Orsini dumped on everything but football and basketball. There's no way to win here.
blackoutpony wrote:Well unless something ridiculous has changed in two years.... They both always got to register before me and I was allowed to register before the rest of the student population becuase I got extended time on tests.
They had to go first so they could schedule classes around practice. It was always a day or two before me too. I don't know who your source is, but just go ask any athlete. It's not some big secret, Call a counselor.
sssshhhh. Let's not bring actual facts into this. Let the old guys think the ghost of Ken Pye still roams the campus and all student athletes have to take calculus every semester.
Exactly. Many universities use the director's cup or capital one cup to measure the success of their athletics department. Do we even care at SMU? Maybe we would shoot up the rankings if these rankings counted equestrian.
fifty wrote:Exactly. Many universities use the director's cup or capital one cup to measure the success of their athletics department. Do we even care at SMU?
SoCal_Pony wrote:5) As another poster commented, SMU use to be a top school in the Sears Cup, now called the Capital One Cup. Last year SMU was ranked #72 in men's, tied with a school called Edinboro??? and unranked on the women's side (96 schools earned points, SMU did not). This last year was not an anomaly.
We were always highly placed in that competition under Copeland. He was fired because football and basketball weren't good enough. Orsini dumped on everything but football and basketball. There's no way to win here.
Pre-Copeland / Pre-Pye we were ranked much higher. This has been a steady slide for some 30 years, most of it under the leadership of Turner, not Pye.
When you're running an almost $20MM annual deficit, you have to focus resources on football and men's hoops like Orsini did. Capital One Cups are nice but increasingly tough for G5 schools which have P5 aspirations.
tristatecoog wrote:When you're running an almost $20MM annual deficit, you have to focus resources on football and men's hoops like Orsini did. Capital One Cups are nice but increasingly tough for G5 schools which have P5 aspirations.
Sooooo, before when we were not giving the football team nearly as much support as we do today, and when athletics were even more on the back burner, we actually won something...sometimes....in anything. Now, when we have boosters paying coaches salaries and we have opened the doors wide for all under NCAA rules to enter, we suck in all sports. How exactly does that work. At least we have basketball...not only so we can be competitive in something but so many of the fans can somehow make the leap in logic that basketball success will somehow translate into football success once we get an above average coach.
Oh, wait, forgot my promise. I will trust in Turner and Hart to say the same things but get different results.
