Moral Majority

by **mrydel** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:07 am

Hoop Fan wrote:I'm not so sure there is anything more than has now been reported mrydel. I'm gathering that SMU has a hypersensitive in-house legal guy. Apparently Tubbs didnt tell this guy what he wanted to hear in the way he wanted to hear it. Sounds like Tubbs got mad and very defensive maintaining his position. Might not be the way you deal with university counsel. Combine that with Max wanting you out and the situation teetered to untenable.

Now you have to blame Tubbs for not keeping his cool if thats what happened. But still, Max setup this situation and SMU failed to handle it with common sense and tact. Thats what is so ridiculous.

There may not be anymore and I could accept that even if I did not agree with the action. But what I want (and you and most others) is full disclosure to those of us that support the program. And I agree that if there was nothing more this is ridiculous.

by **mrydel** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:11 am

jtstang wrote:
mrydel wrote:Then I can move on with my life and either continue to cheer (no pun intended) or take a lesson from Jtstang and adopt another team.

Just for the record, adoption of another team does not require abandonment of your team. I still have hope, if not expectations, for the Mustangs.

I truly apologize if I gave any type of impression I would abandon my school. Never will happen. I even upped my Mustang Club donation 10 fold and have no regrets for doing so. I just want to be a member of "the family" and be let in on details that I feel the fan base deserves to know. Nothing that is earth shattering or inappropriate for disclosure, just want to be part of the team. I bet if there were good news it would be shouted from the mountain top.

by **ponyboy** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:42 am

Hoop Fan wrote:...the ncaa has yet to release its findings, but that shouldnt prevent smu from announcing and self reporting the major violations if they exist.

I don't mean to continue question you on this, HF, but is this really the case? My understanding is that they have an OBLIGATION NOT to release until the NCAA does.

BTW, Happy Good Friday to all!

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:45 am

mrydel wrote:I truly apologize if I gave any type of impression I would abandon my school. Never will happen. I even upped my Mustang Club donation 10 fold and have no regrets for doing so. I just want to be a member of "the family" and be let in on details that I feel the fan base deserves to know. Nothing that is earth shattering or inappropriate for disclosure, just want to be part of the team. I bet if there were good news it would be shouted from the mountain top.

Actually, I thought you might have been under the impression that's what I was advocating by my adoption of UT this past football season. I was just clearing the record in my own defense.

And yes, as SMU athletic supporters (punny stuff!!) we absolutely have standing to demand the full disclosure of all alleged violations. The folks who feel otherwise should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are true SMU fans or something else...

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:47 am

ponyboy wrote:I don't mean to continue question you on this, HF, but is this really the case? My understanding is that they have an OBLIGATION NOT to release until the NCAA does.

If this is true, and I don't know the answer, don't you have a moral obligation, or a least a common sense one, not to pull the trigger on firing somebody until you can announce why you are doing it?

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:54 am

Ponyboy is misinformed once again. There is nothing preventing SMU from releasing this information as long as the names of student/athletes are redacted.

by **mrydel** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:02 am

I would assume that when SMU turned its findings over to the NCAA SMU also proposed self imposed penalties for what ever transgressions were committed. Unless there is something extremely blatant that is being withheld, I will be disappointed if we propose anything less than a slight slap on the wrist and also should include in our self imposed penalties the banning of Max Williams as a booster if the reports as given are true.

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:21 am

mrydel wrote:... and also should include in our self imposed penalties the banning of Max Williams as a booster if the reports as given are true.

I second that.

by **Hoop Fan** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:29 am

you have a third. Its the only way.

by **McClown27** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:40 am

I agree that Max Williams should be banished, I also agree that SMU should divulge all of the information in a timely manner.

I only contest the assertion that these infractions have not been proven. The timing of the firing coupled with Copeland's surgery seem to suggest that something will come out. They have already released the proven allegations.

Otherwise, we should have just been honest, and used the rationale we all know. It was obvious to everyone that the Tubbs tenure witnessed new lows for attendance and campus enthusiasm. My brother went to two conference games and claimed less than a 1,000 were there, but President Turner & wife were there. Boy, I wonder what he thought.

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:50 am

McClown27 wrote:I agree that Max Williams should be banished, I also agree that SMU should divulge all of the information in a timely manner.

I only contest the assertion that these infractions have not been proven. The timing of the firing coupled with Copeland's surgery seem to suggest that something will come out. They have already released the proven allegations.

Otherwise, we should have just been honest, and used the rationale we all know. It was obvious to everyone that the Tubbs tenure witnessed new lows for attendance and campus enthusiasm. My brother went to two conference games and claimed less than a 1,000 were there, but President Turner & wife were there. Boy, I wonder what he thought.

Hey, if he got fired for running an already bad program into the ground after TWO YEARS, so be it. It's insane to fire a coach for that in this situation, but so be it. JUST SAY SO.

by **EastStang** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:33 pm

Yeah, attendance stunk. We had a local Dallas star player and arguably the most interesting newcomer in the metro area in Bamba Fall. That alone should have helped attendance. Games at home were routinely close. Why did attendence stink? Close games, interesting center, and Dallas star player, why didn't the fans come? Changing coaches is not going to make that any better unless of course we go on a tear. But really why does our attendance stink? Is it game times? Is it that our opponents are uninteresting? Is it that our style of play was too conservative? Is it our location in North Dallas? If we played our basketball games at AA Center would we get more fans or would it look even more empty? Do our fans have bad body odor? What does everyone think and how does changing coaches change attendance?

by **mrydel** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:03 pm

You might follow up on that body odor thing.

by **MustangIcon** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:07 pm

Changing coaches will get us more wins. People like to watch winners. (although I am willing to consider the body odor theory as being valid).

by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:11 pm

The old LXA house had a distinct odor that permeated the clothes of all who resided there, as well as their overnight guests. Moody is directly across the street. Perhaps there is a connection. Also, the old LXA backs up to Wescott Field. Maybe there is something to this odor thing.

Moral Majority

Who is online