Glass is more than half full

[Water Pony]

First, despite not getting Paul Johnson, Steve Orsini's efforts were impressive in his energy and focus to attract one of the hot prospects this year. Hard to argue with GT being more attractive, for all the reasons a BCS school and conference can offer and it being in his old backyard.

Steve O's strategy appeared to almost work. If GT had not come on strong, who knows what would have happened. PJ is a quality coach and SMU as a real option feels good, when you consider that our performance for the last twenty years.

Now, Steve and SMU have sent a strong message to the FB Coaching fraternity that we are a serious player in attracting a first class coach. Whatever direction we go, it feels like it is likely please most of us, recruits and our Dallas market.

Ultimately, Steve needed to change the game for us to be considered attractive. His first steps appear aggressive ($) and are well planned out. Can't say I know where it is headed, but I choose to be optimistic with Steve driving the herd.

Any impatience or disappointment is understandable, but hardly the main point in this critical search. The game is changing and SMU FB will be better for it.

[Billy Joe]

Well said. There has been a lot of negative posts on this board recently and I attribute it to the performance (or lack thereof) of the team in the last 20 years. Changes are being made and steps taken to create a more competitive environment to compete. I am encouraged by the rumored names associated with the SMU job. A proven winning coach with some changes to the rules and restrictions SMU has put on itself should lead to a winning season and bowl appearance. The restrictions were briefly brought up in Bennett's press conference and Orsini understands what needs to be done. As an AD, I would not publicly state we are going to be top 25 in everything unless he knows changes are and will be made to the model in which SMU currently competes under. Pony Up!!!!!

[SMU89]

First, despite not getting Paul Johnson, Steve Orsini's efforts were impressive in his energy and focus to attract one of the hot prospects this year. Hard to argue with GT being more attractive, for all the reasons a BCS school and conference can offer and it being in his old backyard.

Steve O's strategy appeared to almost work. If GT had not come on strong, who knows what would have happened. PJ is a quality coach and SMU as a real option feels good, when you consider that our performance for the last twenty years.

Now, Steve and SMU have sent a strong message to the FB Coaching fraternity that we are a serious player in attracting a first class coach. Whatever direction we go, it feels like it is likely please most of us, recruits and our Dallas market.

Ultimately, Steve needed to change the game for us to be considered attractive. His first steps appear aggressive ($) and are well planned out. Can't say I know where it is headed, but I choose to be optimistic with Steve driving the herd.

Any impatience or disappointment is understandable, but hardly the main point in this critical search. The game is changing and SMU FB will be better for it.

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

[Hoop Fan]

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

so did the rest of us. time is of the essence. why waste it?

[bigdaddy08091]

First, despite not getting Paul Johnson, Steve Orsini's efforts were impressive in his energy and focus to attract one of the hot prospects this year. Hard to argue with GT being more attractive, for all the reasons a BCS school and conference can offer and it being in his old backyard.

Steve O's strategy appeared to almost work. If GT had not come on strong, who knows what would have happened. PJ is a quality coach and SMU as a real option feels good, when you consider that our performance for the last twenty years.

Now, Steve and SMU have sent a strong message to the FB Coaching fraternity that we are a serious player in attracting a first class coach. Whatever direction we go, it feels like it is likely please most of us, recruits and our Dallas market.

Another empathy post. Good Lord people stay off the board with this [deleted]. We don't have a coach. Okay, give Little Stevie an E for effort. Hell give the team an E for effort. We don't have a coach! We are not recruiting, we have players on campus with no direction, HS players not even considering SMU ( Not Even The 1 & 2 Star Recruits), players wondering when and you post some empathy [deleted]. Hey, the Patriots are playing and Driving MIss Daisy is on. GET OFF THE BOARD!

Ultimately, Steve needed to change the game for us to be considered attractive. His first steps appear aggressive ($) and are well planned out. Can't say I know where it is headed, but I choose to be optimistic with Steve driving the herd.

Any impatience or disappointment is understandable, but hardly the main point in this critical search. The game is changing and SMU FB will be better for it.

[SMU89]

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

so did the rest of us. time is of the essence. why waste it?

Why hurry to be financially committed to a bad coach for the next 5 years?

We are not signing someone at the $500k/yr level anymore.

[Hoop Fan]

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

so did the rest of us. time is of the essence. why waste it?

Why hurry to be financially committed to a bad coach for the next 5 years?

We are not signing someone at the $500k/yr level anymore.

who said anything about committing anything to a bad coach? What kind of straw man argument is this? Still need to get on with signing a good coach and not losing a year of recruiting that this program can most certainly not afford to lose.

[SMU89]

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

so did the rest of us. time is of the essence. why waste it?

Why hurry to be financially committed to a bad coach for the next 5 years?

We are not signing someone at the $500k/yr level anymore.

who said anything about committing anything to a bad coach? What kind of straw man argument is this? Still need to get on with signing a good coach and not losing a year of recruiting that this program can most certainly not afford to lose.

Wish things were as easy as implied, but they aren't.

Negotiations don't move at your pace.

You are dealing with multiple people and multiple parties all of which are not on your timeline.

So to be quicker as you would like, you can throw your hands in the air and go to the next guy on your list (less desirable coach) or try to close the deal with the more preferred.

[Hoop Fan]

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

so did the rest of us. time is of the essence. why waste it?

Why hurry to be financially committed to a bad coach for the next 5 years?

We are not signing someone at the $500k/yr level anymore.

who said anything about committing anything to a bad coach? What kind of straw man argument is this? Still need to get on with signing a good coach and not losing a year of recruiting that this program can most certainly not afford to lose.

Wish things were as easy as implied, but they aren't.

Negotiations don't move at your pace.

You are dealing with multiple people and multiple parties all of which are not on your timeline.

So to be quicker as you would like, you can throw your hands in the air and go to the next guy on your list (less desirable coach) or try to close the deal with the more preferred.

you yourself suggested PJ was a longshot and Orsini knew it. You tell me what kind of sense that makes to focus on longshots. And make your ultimate hire a clear second choice in the process. sorry, none.

[SMU89]

Agree.

Only thing I would add is that Steve knew there would be an x% chance that we actually get PJ when he went after him.

so did the rest of us. time is of the essence. why waste it?

Why hurry to be financially committed to a bad coach for the next 5 years?

We are not signing someone at the $500k/yr level anymore.

who said anything about committing anything to a bad coach? What kind of straw man argument is this? Still need to get on with signing a good coach and not losing a year of recruiting that this program can most certainly not afford to lose.

Wish things were as easy as implied, but they aren't.

Negotiations don't move at your pace.

You are dealing with multiple people and multiple parties all of which are not on your timeline.

So to be quicker as you would like, you can throw your hands in the air and go to the next guy on your list (less desirable coach) or try to close the deal with the more preferred.

you yourself suggested PJ was a longshot and Orsini knew it. You tell me what kind of sense that makes to focus on longshots. And make your ultimate hire a clear second choice in the process. sorry, none.

I believe I stated Steve knew there was an x% chance we would not get PJ.

I will also state that Duke knew there was an x% chance they would not get PJ.

I will also state that GT knew there was an x% chance they would not get PJ.

I will also state that Navy knew there was an x% chance they would not get PJ.

According to you, all of the above were wrong in their approach.

I'm on your side. I want SMU to win, etc.

The fact is we are raising the bar not lowering it.

That means you go after people others also want to hire. When there is one coach and multiple openings, not everyone is going to win.

We could go after someone nobody wants, but that doesn't make sense when you are raising the bar. Sorry, None.

[Hoop Fan]

as long as we did not delay the process or forego any good options due to the longshot flirtation with PJ. Better to have a good candidate now than a marginally better (albeit subjective) candidate two weeks from now. Thing is, PJ was not even a clearcut best fit for this job anyway.

[FordtoTolbert]

Well said, have not really heard this yet...bring this back up to the top...GREAT thread.

[SMU89]

[quote="Thing is, PJ was not even a clearcut best fit for this job anyway.[/quote]

Agree. No matter who we hire, only time will tell if they work out or not.

All we can do is try to get what we think will be the best and give them all the support needed to succeed.

[Water Pony]

as long as we did not delay the process or forego any good options due to the longshot flirtation with PJ. Better to have a good candidate now than a marginally better (albeit subjective) candidate two weeks from now. Thing is, PJ was not even a clearcut best fit for this job anyway.

Good recap. We need a coach, who has a formula for success specifically designed for SMU. Our needs are significant and the solution needs to be urgently applied. Hiring the right guy is not as urgent as his formula for success

[SMU89]

as long as we did not delay the process or forego any good options due to the longshot flirtation with PJ. Better to have a good candidate now than a marginally better (albeit subjective) candidate two weeks from now. Thing is, PJ was not even a clearcut best fit for this job anyway.

Good recap. We need a coach, who has a formula for success specifically designed for SMU. Our needs are significant and the solution needs to be urgently applied. Hiring the right guy is not as urgent as his formula for success

"Hiring the right guy is not as urgent as his formula for success"

??????????

The right guy would have the right formula; otherwise, he would not be the right guy.