|
What Changed?Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
What Changed?Sometime in 2006 the direction of SMU changed. The hiring of Orsini and the changes to the (cue Stallion) MODEL show a definitive shift. Why did this happen? Who is responsible?
I see four possible options: 1. Turner: Turner sat on his rear and did nothing for a decade of horrible football. It's obviously not him. 2. Athletic Director: Surely Orsini did not come to SMU and suddenly inform them of the need for model changes. Orsini did not have the power to change things by himself, and others in the University had to have known about changes that were needed anyway. Plus, I think changes started before Orsini was hired. Not him. 3. Secret deal: Someone comes to SMU and tells them to compete, and get a huge reward. Did the SEC or someone show up in 2005 and tell SMU that they want to expand to Texas in a few years, and to start playing ball? Extremely unlikely/wishful thinking, and we have no way to know this anyway. 4. Board of Trustees: New faces came to power and wanted real football. The Board has the power to make this happen. Unfortunately I cannot find a list of who came and left active roles. So I will venture a guess to get discussion started: Lamar Hunt. Lamar Hunt died of prostate cancer in December 2006. It stands to reason that he would have been uninvolved in SMU for a year or more before that to fight his cancer, which he battled for 10 years. Orsini was hired in June 2006. Lamar was one of, if not the, most powerful boosters at SMU. He would have been around in the death penalty era, but not participating in the 'extra efforts'. Was Lamar Hunt so traumatized by the death penalty that he would support uncompetitive policies in athletics in a misguided effort to protect the University? "I think Couchem is right."
-EVERYONE
Re: What Changed?I was able to find on wikipedia that Carl Sewell became Chairman of the Board of Trustees in 2006. He's a noted athletics booster. Perhaps Sewell is responsible?
"I think Couchem is right."
-EVERYONE
Re: What Changed?what changed was a new 42-60 million dollar football stadium put pressure to "do something"
so Turner hired an energetic, driven, persuasive, no-nonsense AD that had helped UCF the new AD cleaned house....pissed some people off then they both set out to "shock the world" with a huge coach hire lots of work...a lot of ground-work...and a little bit of luck...and here we are! ![]() Last edited by Insane_Pony_Posse on Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
C-ya @ Milos!
Re: What Changed?
kind of crappy that it took six years to "do something"
Re: What Changed?Kind of great something happened after being one of the three most miserable football programs in the NCAA for at least a couple of decades.
Re: What Changed?Nothing magically happened in 2006. To change a culture, an organization and its processes takes much longer than a couple of years. There was a new stadium (which we tried to burn down right off the bat), changes in recruiting restrictions, changes in faculty attitude (One area that Copeland had to battle was faculty. An unseen but real battle), and changes in vision. None of this happened in just a few years but over many years.
The Pony Express wasn’t born magically in 1980. It took years to get to that point. James ran behind an O-line with 4 5th years Sr. Those players were not starts as Fr. It took time to develop them so that on one play, magic seem to occur. One often repeat misconception that an action today will have a reaction immediately. Often things have to work though a natural process. And often that natural process takes years. We changed some of our recruiting processes. That allows us to recruit better players but that doesn’t mean those players are immediately ready. We hire a new coach with an entirely different offense and defense. It takes times for players to adjust and learn the new schemes. Often there must be ground work laid. Can anyone imagine Ken Pye hiring an Orsini? It took time, painful time, for the SMU organization to reach the point that an Orsini like hire was considered and executed. The success of one year in football probably took over a decade to achieve. Had SMU hired a leader other than Pye, the timeframe may have been shortening. We will have a bit of a gauge of programs' recovery with USC. It will be interesting to see if they decide to follow Alabama’s model to success after significant penalties or follow SMU’s example to failure after devastating penalties.
Re: What Changed?my uninformed opinion is that turner wanted to consentrate on the bush library and failed to understand that orsini meant what he said...steve was hired and i think turner mistakenly believed he got another ad he could control...he can..but not without a lot of pressure back from sewell,jones,ford and a few others...turner protected our bb coach,but the pressure is now on him re track and swimming...turner does nopt understand that there are folks out here that seriously want to see improvement in sports...you notice smu, as an institution, does not pay jones 'contract...that is all alum support...i know the faculty wants to be paid better,but if they dont like it,adios...would you have chosen smu over some other school if it had the kind of sports program it has had for the last 20 years?
Re: What Changed?The general hostility to President Turner on this board is remarkable to me. I'll take the contrarian view and say he's far and away the best president SMU has had that I can remember. Have you walked around the SMU campus recently? It's been transformed in the last 15 years since Turner took over. Athletics is all well and good, but it is only one small piece of a pretty large pie that a unversity president is responsible for. And even considering that, I think the athletics department under Turner has made great strides. Has it happened overnight. . .no. But as Ponyte rightly points out, building the foundation for that kind of success is a long and complicated task. When you are a university president in that situation, you are not a dictator who can simply impose your will and make things happen. You have to build coalitions that include staff, alumni, coaches and. . .yes. . .faculty. You have to earn the buy-in of all of those groups. You have to do a tremendous amount of planning and fundraising. You have to put the physical infastructure into place. That is no easy process and takes time. Especially when you are building from a base as low as SMU was in the early 1990s.
I don't think Turner has been sitting on his hands. I think the commitment has been there. The groundwork has and is being laid. It takes time. I'll take Turner any day of the week over Kenneth Pye or clownzo L. Donald Shields.
Re: What Changed?I don't carry Turner's briefcase and I don't claim to understand the inside politics of SMU, but I do applaud the steps that have been taken in the athletic department. Since Turner is President and Orsini is the athletic director they get the credit just as they will get the blame if it all turns south.
Re: What Changed?I generally agree with 1983 Cotton Bowl. Turner had far greater battles to wage when he took over and they took time. I have had heard nothing but enthusiastic support from Turner in my limited conversations with him in the past several year. He is a CEO and his first priorities are to the various colleges and the academic side. However, he may have under estimated the value of a good athletic department as it affects the alumni support, applicants, contributions, PR....etc. If he did, in fact, under estimate he certainly got the full picture in the last 10 months. At any rate, I sense that he is totally on board now and that the Athletic Department has his confidence and support.
Re: What Changed?
Hunt is the only individual that would have been so infatuated with Bennett that he actually believed extending his contract was in the university's best interest. Unless, that is, we are now blaming the faculty for the infamous contract extension. SMU has only lost one major football booster in several years, and it was only after that death that a radical departure was made from the past. SMU had its share of problems, but the contract extension falls squarely upon the boosters. Lamar died and the boosters suddenly changed. That does not sound like a coincidence to me. Far East Conference
Re: What Changed?From an outsider looking in for only two years I can only address my personal experiences with SMU.
When HB Pony Daughter told me she was applying to SMU I was shocked and my first statement to her was "Why do you want to go there? Their Football Team $ucks!" She was legacy USC and was accepted by some of the finest academic Universities across the nation. SMU however invited her for the President's scholarship interview process and I reluctantly agreed to accompanying her for the process. Our initial impression of SMU was overwhelming! I told my daughter that SMU reminded me of USC when I attended in ancient times. The size of USC had tripled since my sojourn there but SMU was comparable in size today as was USC when I attended. The beauty of the campus, the surrounding area, and the fact that her brother lived two miles from the campus also weighed heavily in her decision processing. We were amazed that SMU knew so much about her (as well as me) and started selling her on the advantages of SMU in comparison to USC. It was a foregone conclusion to most everyone that being legacy USC she was going there no matter where she was accepted. I had a business meeting in Houston and was driving there within a few days. I told my daughter that since we were so close to UT and Rice (where she was already accepted by both schools) she should come with me to visit them. Dean Niemi of the Cox Business School, during our lunch together, advised her that he really wanted her to visit "The City" that is UT Austin, to visit Rice as well, and compare them to SMU. (As an aside he also advised her that she would freeze in the forests of New Hampshire!). HB Pony Daughter, being her Mother's clone, was more interested in shopping at Neiman's and Nordstrom's, than traveling with her father to Austin and Houston. However, she finally agreed to go with me. She now admits that decision was quite enlightening in SMU's favor. Long story shortened, SMU made a serious commitment to invite the best High School Scholars in the country, and the faculty, staff, facilities, and location sealed the deal. Athletic achievements were not even a consideration for her. I truly believe that the same effort and serious commitment to invite the best High School Athletes will result in similar positive results for SMU. SMU may have been asleep at the wheel for awhile, but as a USC alum I can tell you they are back in the game! SMU - IT'S YOUR TURN
FIRE JUNE JONES ![]() USC Trojan for Life and SMU Dad!
Re: What Changed?When did Bobby Leach become a member of the Board of Trustees?
Re: What Changed?Turner is very pro-athletics (always has been). Sewell becoming chair of the BOT didn't change much - remember that Ford was the chair before Sewell. There are elements of the BOT that were/are significantly pro-academics in the academics vs. athletics debate (time will tell whether new chair Caren Prothro is one of those elements).
Truthfully, what changed was that Copeland retired. Copeland was a good guy who may not have delivered results in football or basketball, but the facilities improvements (Ford Stadium) and non-revenue sports success guaranteed job security at a school where many on the BOT assumed that football and basketball success was simply impossible to achieve. No matter what Turner thought about Copeland's performance, he couldn't simply get rid of Copeland because a good amount of the BOT would have said "you fired the guy who got the stadium built!" IIRC, Ford and Copeland also had a good relationship. When Copeland retired, Turner found a man who shared his vision of a great university complemented by a nationally recognized athletic program in Steve Orsini to fill the AD chair. Orsini did what Copeland couldn't or wouldn't do - reach out to our biggest boosters (some on the BOT, some not) and show them how a successful athletic program can strengthen the academic side of a university. Some of those BOT members were doubtful that SMU could ever have a successful athletic program. Orsini reached out to former greats Dickerson, etc. in an effort to remind those doubtful BOT members that SMU had once had one of the great programs in the country, and that is what swayed some (emphasis on some) previously anti-athletics-spending BOT members to support Orsini and Turner's plan to resurrect Mustang football (and we will see if there will be a plan to resurrect basketball as well).
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests |
|