PonyFans.com

I fully support jtstangs quest for full disclosure. I'm sure Bill Clements, B.J. (Bootsie) Larsen,Sherwood Blount, Edwin Cox, Donald Shields, Bob Hitch and Bobby Collins would prefer SMU just move on.

Dark Horse wrote:1. SMU isn't gutless â€" it's the NCAA that concluded no further punishment was needed.

You don't get it. Firing a guy and implying that he committed heinous violations and then not telling us what they were is in fact gutless, especially by using a booster to set him up when all you really wanted was to get rid of the coach because of his record after two years. But congrats, you and everybody like you will get your wish. This is the last we will ever hear from SMU on this issue, and I know that anything I post here won't make a difference. Prof X is friends with Tubbs and has asked that I drop the issue and so in deference to him and his relationship with his friend, this is the last thing I will say on this subject: What SMU did, hiding the truth, was wrong to the coach and the fans, and those of you who don't have a problem with it are wrong too and should be ashamed of yourselves.

Stallion wrote:I fully support jtstangs quest for full disclosure. I'm sure Bill Clements, B.J. (Bootsie) Larsen,Sherwood Blount, Edwin Cox, Donald Shields, Bob Hitch and Bobby Collins would prefer SMU just move on.

Great, you guys have a little party. Support the cause. It was wrong and nothing else is going to happen.

jtstang wrote:You don't get it. Firing a guy and implying that he committed heinous violations and then not telling us what they were is in fact gutless, especially by using a booster to set him up when all you really wanted was to get rid of the coach because of his record after two years.

The fact remains that we don't know exactly what prompted the coaching change, which allegations are true and which aren't, and what was discovered in SMU's internal investigation or in the NCAA's investigation. It remains a possibility -- not necessarily a fact, but at least a possibility -- that Coach Tubbs did do more wrong than the burger and detergent. We don't know and we never will know. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume he did do something worse, something that SMU officials knew about. If that's the case, and SMU found out about it, there's no need for the university to sully his name in the press or to drag it out any further. University officials came to the conclusion that whatever evidence they had was cause for a change. If there was something that might embarrass Coach Tubbs or the university, it doesn't necessarily need to be announced. I've made some choices I'm not overly proud of, but that doesn't mean I feel compelled to tell everyone who is interested in my professional business. When I see a problem in something I've done -- even if it affects others -- I try to correct that problem and see to that the problem isn't repeated. It's a real shame that Coach Tubbs lost his job, that he didn't win every game and that he did whatever it was that led to his ouster. I knew him (a little) and I genuinely like the man. But SMU did nothing that every other private organization in a similar situation would do. Let's all wish Coach Tubbs well in his future endeavors and once and for all, move on.

Maybe now that the suspense is over with, some of the local recruits will consider us again!

Buddha wrote:

jtstang wrote:You don't get it. Firing a guy and implying that he committed heinous violations and then not telling us what they were is in fact gutless, especially by using a booster to set him up when all you really wanted was to get rid of the coach because of his record after two years.

The fact remains that we don't know exactly what prompted the coaching change, which allegations are true and which aren't, and what was discovered in SMU's internal investigation or in the NCAA's investigation. It remains a possibility -- not necessarily a fact, but at least a possibility -- that Coach Tubbs did do more wrong than the burger and detergent. We don't know and we never will know. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume he did do something worse, something that SMU officials knew about. If that's the case, and SMU found out about it, there's no need for the university to sully his name in the press or to drag it out any further. University officials came to the conclusion that whatever evidence they had was cause for a change. If there was something that might embarrass Coach Tubbs or the university, it doesn't necessarily need to be announced. I've made some choices I'm not overly proud of, but that doesn't mean I feel compelled to tell everyone who is interested in my professional business. When I see a problem in something I've done -- even if it affects others -- I try to correct that problem and see to that the problem isn't repeated. It's a real shame that Coach Tubbs lost his job, that he didn't win every game and that he did whatever it was that led to his ouster. I knew him (a little) and I genuinely like the man. But SMU did nothing that every other private organization in a similar situation would do. Let's all wish Coach Tubbs well in his future endeavors and once and for all, move on.

All well and good, but then why did they release the burgers and cheer info? Because it didn't sully anybody too badly, so it was okay to publicize that? Give me a break. The whole thing stunk like hell and still stinks like hell.

Hoop Fan wrote: The whole thing stunk like hell and still stinks like hell.

We could copy and paste this response on the football board to describe PB's coaching job.

So what is the breakdown roughly?

- SMU wants to get ride of Tubbs for on court performance
- SMU supposedly uses a booster to self-report
- SMU levies it own infraction penalty, self polices, to avoid bigger NCAA penalty
- Tubbs is bought out
- Copeland gone, Orsini in
- Orsini hires Doh
- Funding + Break ground on new practice facility
- Best recruit class since Sasser/Davis/Elsey
- Improvements to Moody
- NCAA Investigation doesn't reveal anything, just says our self-policing was adequate penalty

Is that pretty much the tale of the tape?

If so, what is to debate, the way Tubbs was let go? Sullying his name via investigation vs. firing and a buy-out? Either way he got the buy-out and isn't a pariah. He could easily get an assistants job somewhere.

Maryland did a similar thing to Bob Wade after the Len Bias fiasco. The AD reported Wade for infractions like giving a player a ride to class etc. They wanted him gone, and the method used was having the department turn on the coach, and use an NCAA investigation as the scapegoat. The result was that the NCAA determined that the AD should have helped Wade make the transition from high school coach to ACC hoops coach. Smelling a firing conspiracy, they cited the school w/lack of institutional control and levied severe sanctions. Simply, the sanctions had as much to do w/wrong doing, as they did w/the Terp AD trying to run Wade out on a rail.

If SMU truly used the NCAA as the axe to sever Tubbs head, they opened themselves up, as a program, to tremendous scrutiny. Especially given SMUs history w/the NCAA and their notoriously uneven penalties. Seems to me, this is a risky way to fire a coach, especially when you are paying them in full. Maybe, just maybe, he did do a few things wrong, above and beyond Burgers and Cheer. Otherwise, why even get the NCAA involved?

PonyDoh wrote:So what is the breakdown roughly?

- SMU wants to get ride of Tubbs for on court performance
- SMU supposedly uses a booster to self-report
- SMU levies it own infraction penalty, self polices, to avoid bigger NCAA penalty
- Tubbs is bought out
- Copeland gone, Orsini in
- Orsini hires Doh
- Funding + Break ground on new practice facility
- Best recruit class since Sasser/Davis/Elsey
- Improvements to Moody
- NCAA Investigation doesn't reveal anything, just says our self-policing was adequate penalty

Is that pretty much the tale of the tape?

If so, what is to debate, the way Tubbs was let go? Sullying his name via investigation vs. firing and a buy-out? Either way he got the buy-out and isn't a pariah. He could easily get an assistants job somewhere.

Maryland did a similar thing to Bob Wade after the Len Bias fiasco. The AD reported Wade for infractions like giving a player a ride to class etc. They wanted him gone, and the method used was having the department turn on the coach, and use an NCAA investigation as the scapegoat. The result was that the NCAA determined that the AD should have helped Wade make the transition from high school coach to ACC hoops coach. Smelling a firing conspiracy, they cited the school w/lack of institutional control and levied severe sanctions. Simply, the sanctions had as much to do w/wrong doing, as they did w/the Terp AD trying to run Wade out on a rail.

If SMU truly used the NCAA as the axe to sever Tubbs head, they opened themselves up, as a program, to tremendous scrutiny. Especially given SMUs history w/the NCAA and their notoriously uneven penalties. Seems to me, this is a risky way to fire a coach, especially when you are paying them in full. Maybe, just maybe, he did do a few things wrong, above and beyond Burgers and Cheer. Otherwise, why even get the NCAA involved?

why? Well, we had a grandpa who basically pulled a "Daddy Ball" stunt usually reserved for the ymca and middle school leagues but he did it at the college level. He didn't like the way his grandson was being used/treated and he thought he would throw his money and influence around and raise a stink. as usual, Daddy Ball backfires in the end. Furthermore, SMU is too scared of its own shadow to keep anything in house and under wraps. Think.

Hoop Fan wrote:

PonyDoh wrote:So what is the breakdown roughly?

- SMU wants to get ride of Tubbs for on court performance
- SMU supposedly uses a booster to self-report
- SMU levies it own infraction penalty, self polices, to avoid bigger NCAA penalty
- Tubbs is bought out
- Copeland gone, Orsini in
- Orsini hires Doh
- Funding + Break ground on new practice facility
- Best recruit class since Sasser/Davis/Elsey
- Improvements to Moody
- NCAA Investigation doesn't reveal anything, just says our self-policing was adequate penalty

Is that pretty much the tale of the tape?

If so, what is to debate, the way Tubbs was let go? Sullying his name via investigation vs. firing and a buy-out? Either way he got the buy-out and isn't a pariah. He could easily get an assistants job somewhere.

Maryland did a similar thing to Bob Wade after the Len Bias fiasco. The AD reported Wade for infractions like giving a player a ride to class etc. They wanted him gone, and the method used was having the department turn on the coach, and use an NCAA investigation as the scapegoat. The result was that the NCAA determined that the AD should have helped Wade make the transition from high school coach to ACC hoops coach. Smelling a firing conspiracy, they cited the school w/lack of institutional control and levied severe sanctions. Simply, the sanctions had as much to do w/wrong doing, as they did w/the Terp AD trying to run Wade out on a rail.

If SMU truly used the NCAA as the axe to sever Tubbs head, they opened themselves up, as a program, to tremendous scrutiny. Especially given SMUs history w/the NCAA and their notoriously uneven penalties. Seems to me, this is a risky way to fire a coach, especially when you are paying them in full. Maybe, just maybe, he did do a few things wrong, above and beyond Burgers and Cheer. Otherwise, why even get the NCAA involved?

why? Well, we had a grandpa who basically pulled a "Daddy Ball" stunt usually reserved for the ymca and middle school leagues but he did it at the college level. He didn't like the way his grandson was being used/treated and he thought he would throw his money and influence around and raise a stink. as usual, Daddy Ball backfires in the end. Furthermore, SMU is too scared of its own shadow to keep anything in house and under wraps. Think.

That makes for a fun story, but it couldn't be any further from the truth.

ok, thats fine but thats sure the way it looked. enlighten us.

jtstang wrote:

Dark Horse wrote:1. SMU isn't gutless â€" it's the NCAA that concluded no further punishment was needed.

You don't get it. Firing a guy and implying that he committed heinous violations and then not telling us what they were is in fact gutless, especially by using a booster to set him up when all you really wanted was to get rid of the coach because of his record after two years. But congrats, you and everybody like you will get your wish. This is the last we will ever hear from SMU on this issue, and I know that anything I post here won't make a difference. Prof X is friends with Tubbs and has asked that I drop the issue and so in deference to him and his relationship with his friend, this is the last thing I will say on this subject: What SMU did, hiding the truth, was wrong to the coach and the fans, and those of you who don't have a problem with it are wrong too and should be ashamed of yourselves.

Does firing Tubbs for his record, lack of quality recruits, and poor selling of this program help Jimmy Tubbs in any way? I believe that these three flaws are what got him fired, but how does saying that enhance Tubbs' chances of a coaching career in the future? Hell, I wish they would have just said that if it made this topic end. Not sure that would have been the kindest thing to do to Tubbs, but it would be the almighty truth that everyone seems to "deserve" from their leaders.

Blunt Pony wrote:Does firing Tubbs for his record, lack of quality recruits, and poor selling of this program help Jimmy Tubbs in any way? I believe that these three flaws are what got him fired, but how does saying that enhance Tubbs' chances of a coaching career in the future?

What's worse, those three reasons or the reasons given by Copeland? Which would you rather have attached to your name?

If the three reasons stated above were the actual reasons, then as much (if not more fault) lay with SMU than Tubbs.
Record - What could have been reasonably expected in only two seasons?
Recruits - Again, what could have been reasonably expected in only two seasons? No one walks into a losing a program and produces top 10 recruiting classes in less than two years.
Selling - SMU knew they weren't hiring an experienced coach, so why blame the guy for not being experienced? If you want a salesman, hire a salesman!

CA Mustang wrote:

Blunt Pony wrote:Does firing Tubbs for his record, lack of quality recruits, and poor selling of this program help Jimmy Tubbs in any way? I believe that these three flaws are what got him fired, but how does saying that enhance Tubbs' chances of a coaching career in the future?

What's worse, those three reasons or the reasons given by Copeland? Which would you rather have attached to your name?

If the three reasons stated above were the actual reasons, then as much (if not more fault) lay with SMU than Tubbs.
Record - What could have been reasonably expected in only two seasons?
Recruits - Again, what could have been reasonably expected in only two seasons? No one walks into a losing a program and produces top 10 recruiting classes in less than two years.
Selling - SMU knew they weren't hiring an experienced coach, so why blame the guy for not being experienced? If you want a salesman, hire a salesman!

Outside of record, Doh has done the latter in less than a year. Not top 10 recruits (never said that was an expectation) but top quality recruits, and what a salesperson he is for the program. You guys that [deleted] about how this went down are the same guys that complain that we do not act like a big time program acts. Big time programs are not always warm and cuddly, they run like a business and in the case of Tubbs, my opinion is they cut bait because they figured it was not going to get any better. Welcome to the buisiness of college athletics, spin and all.

CA Mustang wrote:

Blunt Pony wrote:Does firing Tubbs for his record, lack of quality recruits, and poor selling of this program help Jimmy Tubbs in any way? I believe that these three flaws are what got him fired, but how does saying that enhance Tubbs' chances of a coaching career in the future?

What's worse, those three reasons or the reasons given by Copeland? Which would you rather have attached to your name?

If the three reasons stated above were the actual reasons, then as much (if not more fault) lay with SMU than Tubbs.
Record - What could have been reasonably expected in only two seasons?
Recruits - Again, what could have been reasonably expected in only two seasons? No one walks into a losing a program and produces top 10 recruiting classes in less than two years.
Selling - SMU knew they weren't hiring an experienced coach, so why blame the guy for not being experienced? If you want a salesman, hire a salesman!

Oh, and to answer your question, I would rather have a burgers and cheer story to explain my demise than a questioning of my coaching and recruiting ability. In case you have not noticed, scandals rarely prevent a coach from finding a job. Lack of ability however can be a career killer.