Gerald Turner

by **NavyCrimson** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:57 am

Well said - Samurai

by **smu diamond m** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:02 pm

Why are you guys railing Turner so bad? You obviously don't think he's "done" a bad job, just that he is a puppet? If he's a puppet, he's got a good master. He is also a pretty good public speaker (better than some presidents...) and beyond your petty whining, he still will go down in the proverbial record books for his tenure.

by **CalallenStang** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:08 pm

smu diamond m wrote:Why are you guys railing Turner so bad? You obviously don't think he's "done" a bad job, just that he is a puppet? If he's a puppet, he's got a good master. He is also a pretty good public speaker (better than some presidents...) and beyond your petty whining, he still will go down in the proverbial record books for his tenure.

What amazes me is this: whenever we are discussing what Pye did, it was his idea...but whenever we are discussing what Turner did/is doing, he is simply taking orders from others. :roll:

by **OC Mustang** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:14 pm

Samurai Stang wrote:
SMU Football Blog wrote:Turner picked Orsini.

Turner has his faults; he is slow to act and probably loyal to a fault. I.e. It took him too damn long to get rid of Copeland (even though Turner didn't hire Copeland). When he does make changes, he makes good ones.

Let us be careful not to give Turner too much credit for Orsini, as he only followed the recommendation of the committee hired to find an AD. I find it far too coincidental that the powers behind athletics and the university were shifting just as many of these changes were coming about. Turner simply started taking commands from a new group of individuals.

Very good point. Very, very good point.

by **Samurai Stang** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:14 pm

Turner's position in regards to athletics has changed depending upon the powers that be. Pye remained consistent. As such, you are left with the conclusion that Turner is schizophrenic or adapts to the needs of his new masters. Pye's consistency demonstrates that he held to his own goals, no matter how unpopular, indicating that he wanted to maintain his own vision and not that of others. Do not read this as though I am praising Pye, as false ideals are not worth holding onto.

That, Calallen Stang, is why Pye can be seen to have acted on his own while Turner has been following orders.

by **friarwolf** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:33 pm

Samurai Stang wrote:Turner's position in regards to athletics has changed depending upon the powers that be. Pye remained consistent. As such, you are left with the conclusion that Turner is schizophrenic or adapts to the needs of his new masters. Pye's consistency demonstrates that he held to his own goals, no matter how unpopular, indicating that he wanted to maintain his own vision and not that of others. Do not read this as though I am praising Pye, as false ideals are not worth holding onto.

Actually, his position regarding athletics has remained fairly constant. What has changed is the powers that be have loosened the restrictions he has had to operate under. The realization that athletics is a powerful "tie that binds" for alumni and thus a conduit for contributions has finally occurred to the board..............

by **couch 'em** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:38 pm

Just curious - was it Bennett, Turner, or the board that benched Willis for slugging that stalker (and cost us a bowl game)?

by **couch 'em** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:44 pm

smu diamond m wrote:Why are you guys railing Turner so bad? You obviously don't think he's "done" a bad job,

Nobody is saying that Turner has been horrible, nor is anyone really railing on him badly. I just don't find him to be the amazing best president of all time that some people want to paint him as.

People want to say that someone is pulling his strings because what has happened related to athletics in the last 2 years is very different from what has happened in the 11 before that.

by **Samurai Stang** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:01 pm

friarwolf wrote:Actually, his position regarding athletics has remained fairly constant. What has changed is the powers that be.

Thank you for proving my point.

by **friarwolf** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:04 pm

Samurai Stang wrote:
friarwolf wrote:Actually, his position regarding athletics has remained fairly constant. What has changed is the powers that be.

Thank you for proving my point.

Don't think so. Put the entire sentence in your quote.............

by **smu diamond m** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:08 pm

couch 'em wrote:
smu diamond m wrote:Why are you guys railing Turner so bad? You obviously don't think he's "done" a bad job,

Nobody is saying that Turner has been horrible, nor is anyone really railing on him badly. I just don't find him to be the amazing best president of all time that some people want to paint him as.

Neither do I. I simply do not understand the Turner bashing. Just because you don't think he is the best ever, doesn't means he's the worst.

couch 'em wrote:People want to say that someone is pulling his strings because what has happened related to athletics in the last 2 years is very different from what has happened in the 11 before that.

Have you not considered the option that Turner has been let loose, whereas 3 years ago the Board et al. wouldn't let him do certain things, particularly with respect to the athletic department? Taking advantage of a new opportunity is by no means being a puppet.

by **Samurai Stang** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:08 pm

friarwolf wrote:
Samurai Stang wrote:
friarwolf wrote:Actually, his position regarding athletics has remained fairly constant. What has changed is the powers that be.

Thank you for proving my point.

Don't think so. Put the entire sentence in your quote.............

Actually, it does not need to be added. Your statement that the powers that be are what led to changes is what is important. I simply illuminated what you were not aware you wrote. You already admitted that Turner had no power and the "powers that be" are what changed.

by **smu diamond m** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:14 pm

Samurai Stang wrote:
friarwolf wrote:
Samurai Stang wrote:
friarwolf wrote:Actually, his position regarding athletics has remained fairly constant. What has changed is the powers that be.

Thank you for proving my point.

Don't think so. Put the entire sentence in your quote.............

Actually, it does not need to be added. Your statement that the powers that be are what led to changes is what is important. I simply illuminated what you were not aware you wrote. You already admitted that Turner had no power and the "powers that be" are what changed.

Turner works in conjunction with the board... They both have to be in agreement for a lot of this stuff to happen, no? What you are saying is ignorance. Just because you have said "the powers that be" instead of "those people that have to agree to everything" doesn't mean they puppet him around. He gets some folks in there with the same goals and objectives that he has and viola! Why is this so hard to understand?

by **FWMustangGirl** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:14 pm

SMU Football Blog wrote: if they ever try to name a building after Pye, I am going to retch.

You won't be the only one.

by PK » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:14 pm

Let's be realistic here folks. The job of every president, whether it be for a company or for a university is to carry out the plans and edicts of the governing board. To do otherwise results in your being fired. What varies from one president to the next is the manner in which those tasks are carried out. It has generally been noted that Turner was and is athletics friendly. I am sure when given the opportunity to push the cause with the Board of Trustees he presented his views on the subject, but ultimately had to follow the directions of his boss...just like the rest of us have to do. The good news is that everyone seems to have finally gotten on the same page...so let's rejoice and enjoy the coming improvements.

Gerald Turner

Who is online