FRONT PAGE

by **DickerJames** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:12 pm

If Gary Barnett is really serious about wanting to coach here, then I say get the contract signed. It is imperative that SMU hire someone that has gotten the job done as a head coach. We simply can't afford to take a chance on anyone that isn't a proven winner at this time in our history.

If Orsini can hire Barnett or somone else with his credentials it will be an amazing day on the hilltop!

by **OR-See-Nee** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:46 pm

Barnett is what we need:

--Proven winner at the highest levels in difficult conferences.

--Proven winner in difficult situations.

--Proven recruiter.

Allegations are allegations. Anyone can make one. If it's something that's a deal breaker, then put in a morals clause in his contract (I'm sure there's one in there anyway) to silence the critics.

Now is not the time to take chances with an unknown quantity. We need someone who has been to the promised land and can right this ship.

by **Pony Soup** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:05 pm

Texas once offered Barnet?

by **BRStang** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:54 pm

Yep, the more I think about it and read about him, I am starting to think Barnett needs to be our hire, even over Bowden if he was interested. Hell, Barnett has already said he's interested. Sign the guy, what else are we waiting for? Tuberville to say he wouldn't use a written offer from SMU to wipe his hiney?

I suppose the only issue would be the public relations to calm the PC Nazis if he gets the nod.

by **gostangs** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:00 pm

From what I know I like him a ton.

Can anyone remind me the basic drift of the comments on the kicker?

by **ThadFilms** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:06 pm

gostangs wrote:From what I know I like him a ton.

Can anyone remind me the basic drift of the comments on the kicker?

When responding to her rape allegations.... he went to this response, instead of something.... more sensitive: "Not only is she a girl, but she's terrible."

by **ThadFilms** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:07 pm

Yes it was all out of context... but still, never say that.... maybe until long after, if you feel you have to.

by **BRStang** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:09 pm

I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

by **ThadFilms** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:12 pm

BRStang wrote:I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

I think that's all political. People saying "is this him campaigning" blah, blah, blah... I think this is all maneuvering.... I see all of this pointing to Barnett being a/one of the favorite(s) for the post.

by **QuikSStang** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:13 pm

ThadFilms wrote:
BRStang wrote:I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

I think that's all political. People saying "is this him campaigning" blah, blah, blah... I think this is all maneuvering.... I see all of this pointing to Barnett being a/one of the favorite(s) for the post.

i dont think we can make any assumptions at this point. its been a week and the committee was just formed.

by **BRStang** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:15 pm

ThadFilms wrote:
BRStang wrote:I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

I think that's all political. People saying "is this him campaigning" blah, blah, blah... I think this is all maneuvering.... I see all of this pointing to Barnett being a/one of the favorite(s) for the post.

I don't follow what you're saying...but I hope you're right about him being a favorite. If he is, I don't see why an announcement shouldn't be forthcoming soon, right. Why would we give him time to see if other jobs become available that he might be considered for?

by **ThadFilms** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:15 pm

QuikSStang wrote:
ThadFilms wrote:
BRStang wrote:I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

I think that's all political. People saying "is this him campaigning" blah, blah, blah... I think this is all maneuvering.... I see all of this pointing to Barnett being a/one of the favorite(s) for the post.

i dont think we can make any assumptions at this point. its been a week and the committee was just formed.

No time to discuss this in committee!
I am not a committee!

Maybe. But I think we will see an announcement sooner rather than later.

by **QuikSStang** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:21 pm

ThadFilms wrote:
QuikSStang wrote:
ThadFilms wrote:
BRStang wrote:I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

I think that's all political. People saying "is this him campaigning" blah, blah, blah... I think this is all maneuvering.... I see all of this pointing to Barnett being a/one of the favorite(s) for the post.

i dont think we can make any assumptions at this point. its been a week and the committee was just formed.

No time to discuss this in committee!
I am not a committee!

Maybe. But I think we will see an announcement sooner rather than later.

very true, i would expect someone chosen by at least the last game

by **gostangs** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:27 pm

By the way - it only takes about an hour for the committee to have a phone call to confirm the decision -

by **ThadFilms** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:36 pm

BRStang wrote:
ThadFilms wrote:
BRStang wrote:I am wondering if the fact that "he has no immediate plans to visit SMU" is a sign that we are not even considering him. I think it is a big mistake, if we aren't.

I think that's all political. People saying "is this him campaigning" blah, blah, blah... I think this is all maneuvering.... I see all of this pointing to Barnett being a/one of the favorite(s) for the post.

I don't follow what you're saying...but I hope you're right about him being a favorite. If he is, I don't see why an announcement shouldn't be forthcoming soon, right. Why would we give him time to see if other jobs become available that he might be considered for?

Kate Hairopolus is bound by journalistic ethics.... she knows more then she can print. Orsini says publicly that he has received lots of interest. Off the record he likely tells her some of the names.

Perhaps she contacts them and they have no comment. Not newsworthy.

Barnett is likely a name she heard from Orsini, then she hears that he has spoken to the search firm. Now, she calls Barnett, he's will to go on the record. No need to read that he's fishing, as I don't think he contacted them.

Read into it that he is allowing his name to be out there and potentially linked to the SMU job.

The "no immediate plans" bit... that's more likely to mean that he cannot comment... or that he his up to the moment plans don't include a trip, but that doesn't meant there isn't one in the works.

The fact that Barnett's name is out there is LIKELY a ploy to test the temperature of the move. These are guesses.... only because as a writer this is how I might script it.

And if PF.com is any barometer - the powers that be are likely to explore this move. Which leads me to believe he is a strong (if not a lock) candidate.

Expect another name in the next week though, unless as rumored SMU makes an announcement tonight. Which they absolutely won't.

FRONT PAGE

Who is online