Thanks, Mike Vaught!!!!

by **SMU Football Blog** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:44 am

...for taking time out of your busy schedule to recommend coaches for Paul Johnson to add to his staff.

Annoyance level Ã¢â€ â€˜

The strongest ties between Wommack and Johnson are second-hand.

"He comes very highly recommended by a lot of guys I highly respect in the business," Johnson said. One example: SMU executive associate athletics director Mike Vaught, who coached with Wommack at Southwest Missouri State and with Johnson at Navy.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sport ... _1222.html

by **Top 25** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:51 am

This is all just part of the business. No reason to slam one of our strongest assets.

by **SMUer** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:53 pm

I swear, SMU is the nice guy loser of college football. Didn't we not only host Tulane football athletes but also give their staff access to our recruiting files in 2005?...to our detriment (they are 2-0 against us in subsequent seasons)? We could at least act like we're competitive with other schools...

Edit: SMU is 1-1 against Tulane in subsequent seasons

by **SMUguy** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:04 pm

I can understand the issue have with the Vaught advice to Johnson, but good god, that help to Tulane was the least we could, and absolutely the right thing to do. As much as a football junkie as I am, there are things that are more important. I agree with you that sometimes we're too nice .... but that's one case in which it would have been crass, classless and inappropriate to do anything else.

by **jtstang** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:06 pm

He's just posturing for the fallout...

by **jtstang** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:10 pm

BTW, nice blog entry today blogster. If Jones is the guy, it may well mean more good news than just a new coach as far as leveling the playing field...but then again, losing an entire recruiting class for all of this foot dragging could be devastating...

by **Cadillac** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:13 pm

jtstang wrote:BTW, nice blog entry today blogster. If Jones is the guy, it may well mean more good news than just a new coach as far as leveling the playing field...but then again, losing an entire recruiting class for all of this foot dragging could be devastating...

Maybe He'll bring in a Samoan Defensive Line with him.
That might help.

-CoS

by **couch 'em** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:15 pm

Top 25 wrote:This is all just part of the business. No reason to slam one of our strongest assets.

Hopefully this is a "scratch my back I'll scratch yours" and not "hey, let me help you, I'm a nice guy!"

by **EastStang** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:28 pm

We don't know how much of the Johnson courtship was backscratching and how much was reality. We'll probably never know.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:29 pm

EastStang wrote:We don't know how much of the Johnson courtship was backscratching and how much was reality. We'll probably never know.

It's a good point. For all we know we never had a real interest in him at all.

by **Cadillac** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:39 pm

couch 'em wrote:
EastStang wrote:We don't know how much of the Johnson courtship was backscratching and how much was reality. We'll probably never know.

It's a good point. For all we know we need had a real interest in him at all.

It's just all so "Day's of our lives." I mean, Orsini has ties to the USNA, GT and SMU, all of who were at the heart of the drama. That SMU seems to have come out of the pile without their lunch is pretty depressing. Hopefully something will happen to help it all make more sense, but I'm not holding my breath.

-CoS

by **RGV Pony** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:44 pm

Anyone else think Top 25 is SO or someone close to him? :shock:

by **perunapower** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:45 pm

SMUer wrote:I swear, SMU is the nice guy loser of college football. Didn't we not only host Tulane football athletes but also give their staff access to our recruiting files in 2005?...to our detriment (they are 2-0 against us in subsequent seasons)? We could at least act like we're competitive with other schools...

If you're going to be pissed, be pissed, by all means, but quit making up facts; Tulane and SMU are 1-1 since 2005. Obviously the recruiting sheets didn't help them in the 2005 game, so that one shouldn't be counted.

by PK » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:47 pm

couch 'em wrote:For all we know we need had a real interest in him at all.

Interpretation please.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:56 pm

PK wrote:Interpretation please.

"We need had": to never have had. :lol:

Thanks, Mike Vaught!!!!

Thanks, Mike Vaught!!!!

Who is online