PonyFans.com

couch 'em wrote:Much thanks to R Gerald Turner

Ken Pye probably deserves some love as well.............

Pye deserves a heavy portion of the blame, but Turner has been here almost 20 years and only got serious about football five years ago. That's a black eye on what has otherwise been a pretty impressive tenure for RGT at SMU.

Everyone is to blame. Pye, Turner, the Board, alumni, students, doners. Everyone gets to eat a big sh*t sandwich because we/they didn't do what was needed to stop this grab-as*ing tomfoolery 20 years ago.

I guess that's why I sent my children to Northwestern and Stanford. Sorry to say it, but my alma mater became a joke when they let the limp dicks take over in the mid/late 80's. Turner reminds me of a watered down Methodist version of Joel Olsteen.

Pye gets zero blame. He was at SMU for 7 years. Turner has been here since '95. Some incoming freshmen may have been born after Turner came to SMU. Plenty of time to accomplish fixing sports if he were interested in doing so.

couch 'em wrote:Pye gets zero blame. He was at SMU for 7 years. Turner has been here since '95. Some incoming freshmen may have been born after Turner came to SMU. Plenty of time to accomplish fixing sports if he were interested in doing so.

Didn't Pye turn a lot of control over to the faculty senate?

PonySnob wrote:

couch 'em wrote:Pye gets zero blame. He was at SMU for 7 years. Turner has been here since '95. Some incoming freshmen may have been born after Turner came to SMU. Plenty of time to accomplish fixing sports if he were interested in doing so.

Didn't Pye turn a lot of control over to the faculty senate?

Yes, he gave the Senate the keys to the athletics department which is why we had such great policies like no official visits allowed until the recruit was accepted for admission to the University. Of course academics were never the problem...it was the paying of players that brought us the DP.

Never knew that about the Faculty Senate basically dictating who we could recruit. No wonder we sucked.

Pye!!! Pye!!!! It's all his fault!!!

Why don't we blame the founders of the university while we're at it? They have just as much to do with SMU's current policies.

Which of our current policies are a problem? The point, I believe, is that we self flagellated and set ourselves back at least a generation and maybe even permanently. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing everything possible with all haste to get back in the game.

Back to this thread's point, on one hand I hate TCU with all my being. On the other, I congratulate them for making all the right moves -- and finding a great deal of luck as well. I am jealous, for sure.

Money isn't everything when it comes to competing on the field. If that was so UT would be national champions every year. Scholarships are limited so the way to compete is for the SMU fans to pack the stands and actually care. Make sure coaches are hired who can compete and not just have an attitude that "we can win some at home and steal a few on the road." SMU has much to offer what with being in one of the greatest cities in the world with so much to offer. Kids want to play in front of big crowds and with good coaches though. TCU is the role model on how to do it. You have to appeal to the citizens of the north texas area as being their team and not just a snob school team.

ghost wrote:Money isn't everything when it comes to competing on the field. If that was so UT would be national champions every year. Scholarships are limited so the way to compete is for the SMU fans to pack the stands and actually care. Make sure coaches are hired who can compete and not just have an attitude that "we can win some at home and steal a few on the road." SMU has much to offer what with being in one of the greatest cities in the world with so much to offer. Kids want to play in front of big crowds and with good coaches though. TCU is the role model on how to do it. You have to appeal to the citizens of the north texas area as being their team and not just a snob school team.

Most coaches "pencil in" losses don't they?