Turner answers to....?

[mr. pony]

Ha! Ha! mr.pony-you should consider always including a small Bible in the Room when drawing any cartoon about SMU athletic officials.

Good idea.

[cutter]

In light of recent postings by NickSMU17 and ALEXLIFESON re: JJ's continued concerns of lack of support by the administration, I ask again......
If payments to student-athletes are NOT allowed/discussed/intended/inferred/etc., can the board not lean on Turner to have all NCAA-qualifiers that JJ offers to be admitted, if they chose to do so?
(If someone tells me 'no', please elaborate how that violates NCAA rules, but do not merely recite SMU history).

If the board does indeed have the ability to influence Turner's handling of student-athlete admissions in the normal course of overseeing the administration's actions, shouldn't the complaints (phone calls/emails/letters/dialogue, etc) be sent to the board instead of Turner (who likely is simply ignoring them)?

[redpony]

If the board does indeed have the ability to influence Turner's handling of student-athlete admissions in the normal course of overseeing the administration's actions, shouldn't the complaints (phone calls/emails/letters/dialogue, etc) be sent to the board instead of Turner (who likely is simply ignoring them)?

Exactly! We should also inform them that we are contacting them because Turner refuses to respond and return emails. If most of the BOT are high level business people then surely they recognize the importance of customer satisfaction (in this case alumni) and integrity in doing business with people. If Carl Sewell has unhappy customers and doesn't rectify the situation he knows they will not return in the future. If alumni are pi$$ed off they will not donate to the university. Hard to believe that Turner does not understand that.

Email Turner early- email him often

GO PONIES!!!

[PerunaPunch]

Carl Sewell wrote the book on customer satisfaction -- literally.

[ponyscott]

Most of us are NOT the big time donors at SMU, but there are some on here that are long time fund raisers like I am at the Mustang Club and Turner knows that we are part of the back bone of SMU. Even if we are not big money donors, we have many on our donor lists that we have influence over and Turner knows that as well.
As we write Turner we must remind him we are fund raisers for the school, for what its worth.

[Mexmustang]

The answer is "No One!" SMU is a non-profit, with a volunteer board. After 15 years on the job, it is highly probable that he controls the process, or at least holds a silent "veto". Most board members look upon their assignment as a reward or recognition for their own lives or business careers. With the exception of financial impropiety, their only concern is the financial stability of the university.

However, seldom does a university president or the professional head of a non-profit be allowed to serve for 15 years--it is simply not good business. They end up running the organization at their own whim, from hiring to firing, to setting the rules and the capex priorities. Our board needs a wakeup! Regardless of his fine performance in raising donations, he tenure has been too long. The longer he stays the more power he will assume without any challenge.

[redpony]

Who hired Turner? I assume it was the BOT. If so, then I would think they also have the power to remove him. They are the ones we need to be contacting. I believe if we cause enough 'pain' on their part they will inform him that he needs to adjust his attitude.

GO PONIES!!!

[cutter]

Mexmustang, thanks for the insight. It helps to see the board's role that way.
But, I stumbled across an article written in Turner's early years as president, which describes the board's search for a replacement for Pye. It does suggest a more substantive role for the board.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... ntent;col1

Though the article may be somewhat skewed in its perspective, it is enlightening to see the other factors and concerns at work within the institution which drove the board's selection process. It is also impressive to see the substantial increase to the school's endowment that Turner has overseen, as well as the number of other areas of possible significant academic improvement and perhaps, prestige.

As much as I would like to see the football program receive that same degree of attention to achieve athletic greatness, it would seem to be difficult to argue against the overall institutional benefit that Turner seems to have provided. I mean, that's an awful lot of $$$$ ($300 - 700 million!). And, the vision and implementation for academics is impressive (to an outsider).
I find it hard to believe that a board would want to cut loose that kind of president (despite any flaws) and head into the unknown. I bet Turner and the board both know that.
It may be that Mestengo's description of two equally driven platforms/agendas will have to learn it's way around each other. But, ultimately, it really may be that a lesser football program (instead of a really, really bad one) is all that SMU (as an institution) wants, and that JJ will move on to a more conducive setting to practice his art. Sad, but perhaps, reality.

[Mexmustang]

Thanks. I remember Bob Dedman and Ray Hunt along with Pye saving the university. But, the article gets a little biased as it moves forward. Both Turner and Copeland had run out their welcomes at their respective universities. Until hiring June, Turner should get little credit for rapidly turning around athletics--he has been here 15 years. While he has raised money we remain stuck at no 54 in terms of endowment (maintaining our place) and while our SAT's have risen by 80 points, I am told and don't personally know the facts, that that is less than the "inflation" in the SAT's scores when they had to make adjustments in their testing process from bias claims.

I happend to believe that both Pye and Turner failed to reunite the university community-especially the alumns. Why are we even discussing this? Simply because many feel that we have been mislead for over twenty years about competing.

I find it difficult to accept Turner's misprepresentations regarding athletic admissions and NCAA standards. I also feel mislead about the department of education, which now requires a 2.5 gpa to enter. Most of all, I feel 15 years is too long for any executive manager of any non-profit organization,regardless of athletics.

[phillipjr]

For those interested here is the Board.

http://smu.edu/trustees/

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

Isn't it time yet again in this thread for Stallion to remind us all again and again and again and again and again and again and again how terrible and corrupt SMU was almost 25 years ago? Now that we have a great coach and are winning again Stallion must concentrate on events of a quarter century ago. Down the road Stallion will be in the nursing home slobbering and babbling about how bad SMU was and how everybody else was so wonderful. What a guy!

[cutter]

Isn't it time yet again in this thread for Stallion to remind us all again and again and again and again and again and again and again how terrible and corrupt SMU was almost 25 years ago? Now that we have a great coach and are winning again Stallion must concentrate on events of a quarter century ago. Down the road Stallion will be in the nursing home slobbering and babbling about how bad SMU was and how everybody else was so wonderful. What a guy!

ha. I think he already did that at the very beginning of this thread. But, I gotta say that it sorta seems like there might be a small degree of happy acceptance of the direction of the program in his demeanor. Just my take on it.
Still......he does have good info.

and.....when he's in the nursing home, should we visit him and tell him that SMU received the death penalty a second time??

[ponyscott]

Isn't it time yet again in this thread for Stallion to remind us all again and again and again and again and again and again and again how terrible and corrupt SMU was almost 25 years ago? Now that we have a great coach and are winning again Stallion must concentrate on events of a quarter century ago. Down the road Stallion will be in the nursing home slobbering and babbling about how bad SMU was and how everybody else was so wonderful. What a guy!

IPP that is a riot....

[couch 'em]

Thanks. I remember Bob Dedman and Ray Hunt along with Pye saving the university. But, the article gets a little biased as it moves forward. Both Turner and Copeland had run out their welcomes at their respective universities. Until hiring June, Turner should get little credit for rapidly turning around athletics--he has been here 15 years. While he has raised money we remain stuck at no 54 in terms of endowment (maintaining our place) and while our SAT's have risen by 80 points, I am told and don't personally know the facts, that that is less than the "inflation" in the SAT's scores when they had to make adjustments in their testing process from bias claims.

This is interesting. Everyone always gives Turner credit for money raised and student quality going up. Granted, many new buildings have been built, but if relative endowment has not gone up, and relative SAT has not gone up, what has Turner accomplished?

Really, Turner's academic success matches his athletic success - improvements in facilities and not much else.

I find it difficult to accept Turner's misprepresentations regarding athletic admissions and NCAA standards. I also feel mislead about the department of education, which now requires a 2.5 gpa to enter. Most of all, I feel 15 years is too long for any executive manager of any non-profit organization,regardless of athletics.

I thought the whole point of the School of Education was to keep athletes eligable? Who would pay SMU's tuition to become a teacher?

[Mexmustang]

In defense of the new school of education, there are a number majors that have been proposed that are a far cry from simply preparing lesson plans and student teacher assignments for prospective gradeschool teachers. In fact, I was pleasantly impressed with the courses, some of which could be offered in Cox (depute mediation, labor mediation, negotiation, etc.).

Secondly, if I was in a position to endow a new school, I don't beleive I would be too thrilled about donating to a school that would be known to cater to marginal students--"Oh, Mexmustang College, the one for dummies". Maybe the better route is simply to have the athletic department itself have a couple of courses of study in PE, coaching, or whatever and supplement the courses in the new department of education?