Dwan wrote:If true, this is sad. It means the same old, same old. Get ready for boring assistant from a mid level Big 12 school and hope he turns out to be a diamond in the rough. That should be our motto, our players and coaches are diamonds in the rough. We should change our mascot to the Miners.
Wont take a chance on a coach with some controversy in his past, but will bring in the Presidential Library of the most controversial and unpopular President in the history of the country and world. That should do wonders for the schools reputation as an ultra conservative regional University where rich kids from Texas go to school. SMU will be a top 25 terrorist target in the nation, but got forbid we hire Gary Barnett.
All this post DP, Pye, turn the school into a Vanderbilt and shed the image of a regional party school for rich kids where they pay football players. Its sad
I agree with you. Turner's logic is puzzling. He doesn't want to hire the best available coach, even if he has a questionable past, but he wants the Bush Book Mobile on campus?
One could argue Dubbya's administration has been Nixonian its ethics. SMU acceptance of Bush's library and oxymoronical "Think Tank"could equal support for torture, elimination of habeus corpus, corruption, incompetence etc...
I don't rember Barnett, Bowden, Neuhesial wire tapping their players phones, or torturing players for bad play, or practicing gross nepotism. etc...
If that President Turner's standard then the library shouldn't be here.
Why don't you stick to talking about the football coach and spare us opinions on the current president. If you have to, say "it's questionable that he would welcome a controversial library, but takes this standing on a football coach."
I really don't want your opinion on the president.
It is relevant because if he does not want to be associated with controversial figures he should be consistent. Bush like him or not is the most controversial figure in the world.
Then you call him a controversial figure. Everyone knows who he is, everyone has a reasonable idea. But everything after that is opinion, and has nothing to do with a potential football coach. If you really want to make the point you say:
If that's Turner's opinion, than I find it hard to believe because he is welcoming a controversial library/museum and is now taking this stance with hiring a football coach.
As I added above I am criticizing President Turner, not President Bush! Also, I am defending Gary Barnett. I would use the same defense of Barnett that you use for Bush!
mustangxc wrote: It is relevant because if he does not want to be associated with controversial figures he should be consistent. Bush like him or not is the most controversial figure in the world.
Edit: I am criticizing President Turner, not President Bush!
Every President in the modern era is considered controversial by some groups in this country or abroad. Having lived through the LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 administrations, I can assure you the current one is NOT the most controversial no matter how much liberals wish it was.
Any Presidential library is an asset to a university even if you happen to disagree with the President's policies. I would have been thrilled with having the library of any of the above even though I disagree with most on various issues.
Man, I wish this search was over. This speculation and sniping is getting ridiculous.
"Once the number 3, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
ponyte hit it 5 X 5...the need is for a coach that can manage 6 days and coach on gameday. That most often comes from experience. Gill is getting a boatload of it at UB, but may have opportunities greater than the Hilltop to consider. If they pass on him, I am intrigued enough to look.
Nevertheless, this hire needs to be someone who has had his hand on the till.
stable-boy for the four horsemen of the apocalypse
If you dig deep enough everyone has a questionable act in their past. I am sure you could find something Mack Brown and Les Miles have done prior to Texas and LSU that may not have been to the NCAA's liking. Even the very best in each profession have to bend the rules a little bit in order to be a champion.
Compensating players and questionable acts are a common practice throughout college football's Top 25 teams. On February 26, 1987 there were several coaches of perennial football programs calling SMU boosters to ask what "deals" were in place for certain SMU players who were instantly granted the right to transfer. These coaches wanted to meet or beat the compensation package SMU had with each respective player. Virtually all of those perennial football programs are in the BCS Top 25 right at this moment. To be a winner you must accept coaches with some skeletons in the closet, otherwise you should just decide SMU will be a cellar dweller.
"Don't ever underestimate the heart of a champion" - Rudy T.
Chow at least has some cred since he was the OC on a National Championship team, but Malzahn and Applewhite are so untested, that hiring them would be like hiring Tubbs. Everyone would be all atwitter about how they can recruit in Dallas, and then after the first blowout loss next year everyone will be saying, "a coach with any brains would have done....." Then will come the first recruiting class after the 0-12 year and we'll go, oops. This is our opportunity to make a splash and it is the most important hire in Orsini's career. Hire a dud and Orsini will be out of here like Copeland. Hire a stud, and Orsini gets offers to be AD at a BCS school. So, if you're Orsini, do you hire an unproven OC with no head coaching experience, or do you hire someone who will: (a) make a splash when hired, (b) not need on the job training, (c) who has had success in similar environments, and (d) has big enough cojones that he can tell the administration what changes have to be made and their time table to make them.
ponyboy wrote:If I'm right and we already have our man, Turner isn't tying anyone's hands. He's ameliorating negative public perception that is coming from rumors that we're looking at Bowden, Barnett, and Neuheisel.
I thought the same thing.
More likely he is signaling that those guys are down on our list, but not ruling them out in case the top ones fall through
