Page 3 of 3
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:56 am
by jtstang
You can read what you said. I say you don't limit your selection pool. SMU has been horrible for 20 years. We'd be lucky of any of these unethical coaches even sniffed in our direction.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:57 am
by RGV Pony
Phxfan wrote:EastStang wrote:I love how people here spend other people's money. Also, many of those big $$$$$ coaches have no clue how to recruit for a school like SMU with its incumbent academic handicaps. If Clemson fired Tommy Bowden for instance, he would be a great choice given what he did at Tulane. Barnett clearly would get it. Willingham with his experiences at Stanford and Notre Dame would understand. Fran would work within the system. But someone like Pat Hill would not have a clue how to recruit for SMU given his historical reliance upon JUCO's and partial to non-qualifiers. And salary is not the sole ingredient of money going to a coach. There are endorsement deals, shoe deals, television deals and the bigger the school and the more exposure they have, the more $$$$ he's going to get. Also, the BCS schools can pay more. If they want someone, they can outbid us without blinking an eye because they have bowl and TV money which is 25 times as large as what we get. So, dream on. Unless you have $15-20 Million sitting in money market to throw at a coach for a five year deal, don't tell other people how to spend their donations.
$ is not the only consideration, agreed. Dallas (SMU) is about to get a $500,000,000.00 library with $ donated by rich friends of W. You have an alumni base that would blow the socks off most schools financially speaking. So hire Barnett, Fran etc for $1-2 million. You get what you pay for. Auburn is private, ND is private, Stanford is private and all in the BCS.
All are getting those $ endorsements from Nike, TV, etc. SMU is not in the BCS for ONE reason. If this is done right they may get there. If SMU would have spent the $ 20 yr.s ago they would probably be in the BCS. It's the snowball effect. Hire a great coach, get national attention, get great recruits, get endorsements and TV.
Auburn's public. At least it has been since 1872.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_University
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:06 pm
by Phxfan
RGV Pony wrote:Phxfan wrote:EastStang wrote:I love how people here spend other people's money. Also, many of those big $$$$$ coaches have no clue how to recruit for a school like SMU with its incumbent academic handicaps. If Clemson fired Tommy Bowden for instance, he would be a great choice given what he did at Tulane. Barnett clearly would get it. Willingham with his experiences at Stanford and Notre Dame would understand. Fran would work within the system. But someone like Pat Hill would not have a clue how to recruit for SMU given his historical reliance upon JUCO's and partial to non-qualifiers. And salary is not the sole ingredient of money going to a coach. There are endorsement deals, shoe deals, television deals and the bigger the school and the more exposure they have, the more $$$$ he's going to get. Also, the BCS schools can pay more. If they want someone, they can outbid us without blinking an eye because they have bowl and TV money which is 25 times as large as what we get. So, dream on. Unless you have $15-20 Million sitting in money market to throw at a coach for a five year deal, don't tell other people how to spend their donations.
$ is not the only consideration, agreed. Dallas (SMU) is about to get a $500,000,000.00 library with $ donated by rich friends of W. You have an alumni base that would blow the socks off most schools financially speaking. So hire Barnett, Fran etc for $1-2 million. You get what you pay for. Auburn is private, ND is private, Stanford is private and all in the BCS.
All are getting those $ endorsements from Nike, TV, etc. SMU is not in the BCS for ONE reason. If this is done right they may get there. If SMU would have spent the $ 20 yr.s ago they would probably be in the BCS. It's the snowball effect. Hire a great coach, get national attention, get great recruits, get endorsements and TV.
Auburn's public. At least it has been since 1872.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_University
My mistake. Maybe we should see if Bobby Collins needs a job. I think thats his name. He won a bunch of games.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:17 pm
by peruna81
Collins would be fine with me...he did win a few games..by COACHING (see Tech, 1982 )...
Orsini hired George O'Leary in Orlando when he was personna non gratta on most campuses, and he has brought UCF out of the post-Culpepper doldrums to respectability. This will be a hire that I think will be much more challenging...some of the 'damaged goods' coaches just might turn SMU down.
That said, bring on relevance, stained or not.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:22 pm
by BRStang
Phxfan wrote:Auburn is private
No, it's not. Just saying.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:14 pm
by EastStang
You also mentioned Pete Carroll as an example of a coach at a clean program. USC is currently being investigated for a number of boosterish violations including putting Reggie Bush's family in a house rent free, etc. I'm not saying the Pete Carroll is not an ethical coach, nor am I saying that he knew anything about any possible payola. Coaches tend to imitate an ostrich when things go on that they really can't control. They just try and ignore them and hope they blow over. Bobby Collins did at SMU. Gary Barnett did at Colorado. If anything bad is going on at UT, I suspect Mack Brown is not in the middle of it because the guy is a straight shooter. Jackie Sherrill on the other hand was in the middle of it. Dave Smith was in the middle of it. Dave Bliss was in the middle of it. Jerry Tarkanian was in the middle of it. There are differences, one ignores it. The other eggs it on.