...Turner allegedly 'vetoing' Steve O last year when word is a deal was in place for Davis, but Turner said no? Yes, I know it's only a rumor...but hell we've gotten more p!ssed off about less on this board.
Once again, whatever was in place to pay Davis, they could've piled on the $$ that went to Pony Up, as having him here wouldve created its own buzz.
Why is no one apoplectic about...
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
I'm pretty pissed about missing out on Davis. It seems like SMU misses out on a lot of things in general.
I'll be livid if I hear Turner doesn't want to hire the best possible coach because of a "controversial past."
In my opinion Turner crossed the "controversy" line when he invited Dubbya to put his third-rate propaganda machine and book mobile on campus.
He's shown me he's not averse to controversy. So I expect him not to balk on a potentiallly controversial coaching hire.
If he does balk. I'm done with SMU. I'll give my degree the Clarence Thomas treatment.
I'll be livid if I hear Turner doesn't want to hire the best possible coach because of a "controversial past."
In my opinion Turner crossed the "controversy" line when he invited Dubbya to put his third-rate propaganda machine and book mobile on campus.
He's shown me he's not averse to controversy. So I expect him not to balk on a potentiallly controversial coaching hire.
If he does balk. I'm done with SMU. I'll give my degree the Clarence Thomas treatment.
-
Insane_Pony_Posse
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4807
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:36 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
- Contact:
I think the rumor is probably true, I think Orsini wanted his own man from day one.
It was just a matter of time before Bennett was gone.
In Turner's defense he may have felt that we could save the money we would owe Bennett by allowing him another year, and he almost got us to a bowl.
Plus there had already been huge turn-over within the athletic department. He may have felt he needed to reign in Orsini a bit after Orsini had already fired so many people. (remember Scott Secules?)
I just hope Turner allows Orsini to get his man and doesn't interfere with Orsini getting the best coach available.
It was just a matter of time before Bennett was gone.
In Turner's defense he may have felt that we could save the money we would owe Bennett by allowing him another year, and he almost got us to a bowl.
Plus there had already been huge turn-over within the athletic department. He may have felt he needed to reign in Orsini a bit after Orsini had already fired so many people. (remember Scott Secules?)
I just hope Turner allows Orsini to get his man and doesn't interfere with Orsini getting the best coach available.
C-ya @ Milos!
-
bigdaddy08091
- Heisman
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:46 pm
dcpony wrote:I'm pretty pissed about missing out on Davis. It seems like SMU misses out on a lot of things in general.
I'll be livid if I hear Turner doesn't want to hire the best possible coach because of a "controversial past."
In my opinion Turner crossed the "controversy" line when he invited Dubbya to put his third-rate propaganda machine and book mobile on campus.
He's shown me he's not averse to controversy. So I expect him not to balk on a potentiallly controversial coaching hire.
If he does balk. I'm done with SMU. I'll give my degree the Clarence Thomas treatment.
DCPony, stay strong baby. It will get better, but it will take more than just your post. Stay off the boulevard until changes are made. Don't go to the games untill changes are made. This is your University!
It is about time some of you figured out the "realtruth". After 18 years of losing at THIS UNIVERSITY, what else could it be. Even some of the mediocre coaches win.
-
perunapower
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:39 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
dcpony wrote:In my opinion Turner crossed the "controversy" line when he invited Dubbya to put his third-rate propaganda machine and book mobile on campus.
He's shown me he's not averse to controversy. So I expect him not to balk on a potentiallly controversial coaching hire.
Ok now that's just stupid. He did not invite the presidential library. We were in a group of three selected by a committee. We could have declined, but why do that? It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. You get a chance at having pieces of history from one of the most controversial and influential times since the 1960s.
Presidential libraries are not monuments of adoration toward the President himself. They are institutions of research and analysis toward that administration and the events and decisions that took place underneath that administration. Now if the proper materials are not available at this library, I will be upset. As for the policy institute, if you don't think both parties already spew propaganda to save their own behinds then God help you. I don't know exactly what this policy institute is going to do. So if you have some factual basis for your claims, let it be known.
Back to football, we want a coach who can win, but we don't need to sacrifice integrity. Your analogy would be fit if Turner invited Bush to be on a board, to hold forums, or something of that nature. Otherwise, they aren't comparable.
bigdaddy08091 wrote:dcpony wrote:I'm pretty pissed about missing out on Davis. It seems like SMU misses out on a lot of things in general.
I'll be livid if I hear Turner doesn't want to hire the best possible coach because of a "controversial past."
In my opinion Turner crossed the "controversy" line when he invited Dubbya to put his third-rate propaganda machine and book mobile on campus.
He's shown me he's not averse to controversy. So I expect him not to balk on a potentiallly controversial coaching hire.
If he does balk. I'm done with SMU. I'll give my degree the Clarence Thomas treatment.
DCPony, stay strong baby. It will get better, but it will take more than just your post. Stay off the boulevard until changes are made. Don't go to the games untill changes are made. This is your University!
It is about time some of you figured out the "realtruth". After 18 years of losing at THIS UNIVERSITY, what else could it be. Even some of the mediocre coaches win.
I admit I haven't been back to campus since I graduated. But I did manage to make it to Houston last year, for what I thought was going to be a historic win against Rice.
I plan on going to the Navy game in Annapolis next year but if SMU selects Haywood Jablowme as the next coach my annual donation and support for SMU is done. I'm currently applying to graduate schools with some decent football. Maybe I'll just support my future university's athletic and ACADEMIC endeavours in general.
Not to beat a dead horse, but, look at the Ole Miss Football program under Turner's time as President there. Wow. Talk about controversy. But in all fairness to him, I'm sure it was hard to know what was happening in the Oxford, Mississippi Metroplex...all 3 times they got busted and then were cited for lack of institutional control.
FWMustang wrote:but for the record, you would be for SMU taking on the Clinton Presidential See-Saw & Bordello?
Hmm...Let's see. Off the top of my head. Minus Clinton's ladies problem he presided over a stronger economy than dubbya, the US was respected around the world, Clinton didn't have incompetent and corrupt cronies assisiting him with running the country into the ground, he didn't falsely claim a country had WMDs and then attack said country in the most volatile part of the world thus making the world less secure, he didn't increase government spending more than LBJ did in his entire administration, he didn't sign off on making torture a signature method of the armed forces, he didn't increase corporate welfare to obscene levels while essentially raising taxes on the middle class, the dollar didn't lose 20-30% of its value against major currencies, and best of all he didn't sit on his [deleted] and watch one of America's greatest cities get destroyed.
I can go on forever...
The bottom line is that Dubbya's more controversial than Clinton or any college football coach. So I don't want Turner playing the controversy card when it comes to this hire.
-
perunapower
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:39 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
dcpony wrote:FWMustang wrote:but for the record, you would be for SMU taking on the Clinton Presidential See-Saw & Bordello?
Hmm...Let's see. Off the top of my head. Minus Clinton's ladies problem he presidided over a stronger economy than dubbya, the US was respected around the world, Clinton didn't have incompetent and corrupt cronies assisiting him with running the country into the ground, he didn't falsely claim a country had WMD's and then attack said country in the most volatile part of the world thus making the world less secure, he didn't increase government spending more than LBJ did in his entire administration, he didn't sign off on making torture a signature method of the armed forces, he didn't increase corporate welfare to obscene levels while essentially raising taxes on the middle class, the dollar didn't lose 20-30% of its value against major currencies, and best of all he didn't sit on his [deleted] and watch one of America's greatest cities get destroyed.
I can go on forever...
The bottom line is that Dubbya's more controversial than Clinton or any college football coach. So I don't want Turner playing the controversy card when it comes to this hire.
Why don't you address what I brought up earlier in this thread?