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.
Verdict to me was decided years ago.
THIS!
These^^^
It's not really hard to connect the dots if you try.
I probably graduated long before you did so I have seen the good, the bad and RGTs version of totally ugly. IIRC the swimming team never went 0-11 or 0-12 when I was there. Barr would have never let that happen
redpony wrote:I probably graduated long before you did so I have seen the good, the bad and RGTs version of totally ugly. IIRC the swimming team never went 0-11 or 0-12 when I was there. Barr would have never let that happen
Water Pony wrote:Turner is not the problem. Finding scapegoats is a waste of time.
I think I met you at the first MC gathering with Mason over the Mexican lunch. What I don't understand is why you don't want to hold the President accountable for his obvious failures, or rather deliberate decisions? Turner made the wrong decisions. TCU's leaders didn't. I will give Turner credit where credit is due, and mark him down as an equivocal, luke-warm at best supporter of SMU athletics.
I will be pleased to see him leave SMU, however I fear we might find someone worse.
About 25 feet from the Hillcrest track... With the boots so tall and the writing on the wall...
Water Pony wrote:Turner is not the problem. Finding scapegoats is a waste of time.
I think I met you at the first MC gathering with Mason over the Mexican lunch. What I don't understand is why you don't want to hold the President accountable for his obvious failures, or rather deliberate decisions? Turner made the wrong decisions. TCU's leaders didn't. I will give Turner credit where credit is due, and mark him down as an equivocal, luke-warm at best supporter of SMU athletics.
I will be pleased to see him leave SMU, however I fear we might find someone worse.
As I stated in another thread:
Everybody needs to take a deep breath here. The board of trustees set the agenda. Unfortunately less than half of that board has any direct relationship to SMU. That is a result of the DP...basically an extreme knee jerk reaction to the DP. Until the Board realizes the benefits of successful football and basketball programs to the overall success of the university in terms of recognition and overall attractiveness to potential students in todays culture things aren't going to change much. Turner promotes what the board dictates he promotes. Increasing the endowment and increasing the facilities and staff have been his goals set by the board. He is president of the university, but not free to do as he likes...one way or the other.
TCU's board of trustees get it...not so sure of SMU's.
I am not necessarily trying to defend RGT, but I'm not sure we are throwing stones at the right person/group.
SMU's first president, Robert S. Hyer, selected Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue as SMU's colors to symbolize SMU's high academic standards. We are one of the few Universities to have school colors with real meaning...and we just blow them off.
I am on the fence with Turner. He does seem to fundraise well, and the campus is improving. However:
1) I work with a number of colleges and universities. Within that space, SMU is not really on the radar as an "up-and-coming" institution within the academic media. I know these things take time, but over 20 years we haven't exactly soared up the rankings.
2) There is a lack of facing reality. I admit that if it could be proved that eliminating football would push SMU into the top 25 academic universities, I would support it in a heartbeat. If we were located in the northeast or Ohio, we'd probably be ranked 5-10 spots higher and we wouldn't really need a football team or serious athletics program. However, neither of the statements is true. We are located in Dallas, Texas. If you want to be a big-boy university in Texas, you must have a decent football team. Is it right? No. Is it reality? Yes. Stanford, Northwestern, Miami, private urban schools with higher academic rankings field quality programs. We should be able to as well.
Support the Commitment! We're all SMU Mustangs fans- we should all be committed!
I think that what many complain that SMU doesn't "help" the coaches, they are really saying that we aren't letting them cheat like other school. Before hating, Think about it.
