PonyFans.com

My friends in the former Big East are pointing their finger directly to our own Gerald Turner--

The sudden inclusion of Tulane was the breaking point for the basketball schools.

--No matter if they win or lose their respective RPI would have gone down by scheduling them in the conference.
--Tulane especially since the hurricane has become completely irrelevant in both football and basketball. As anyone attending this year's game could readily see. How many Tulane fans were there? 600?
--Not a single Big East school supported the addition of Tulane, but one--that's right our own SMU.
--Gerald Turner sits on the Knight Commission with the current president of Tulane.
--Gerald Turner was seeking a place for his friend and an ally to improve the academic standards of athletics in the Big East. Something the basketball schools couldn't support. Success in basketball won't permit it. Basketball is too important to allow the confence to start questioning admittance and academics.

Makes sense to me.

Who else would have supported Tulane's membership into the conference? I honestly can't think of one!
Orsini would have blocked such an obvious mistake, of course he also would have had a "heads up" on Notre Dame's departure.

SMU did not have a vote. 12 schools had a vote: Louisville, UConn, Cincy, USF, Temple, and the Catholic 7.

The first three of those abstained, as they all were trying to get in the ACC at the time.

Tulane thus had to get 5 of the 9 votes. At least three of the schools that are leaving voted for Tulane.

Stick to blaming Turner in areas that he is actually to blame.

lol SMU had NOTHING to do with Tulane, are you kidding me? That's like saying the country of Sweden was responsible for voting in Barrack Obama. Tulane represents and crystallizes all that is wrong with the Big East, and really, it's everyone but Tulane's fault for what happened.

Orsini would not have had a "heads up" on anything related to Notre Dame, which had a chance to hire him and didn't. That was no accident. The way the college landscape looked at the time the Big East invited us, every AD in the country would have taken the offer.

Turner would not have supported Tulane, it would be another stop in a 3rd world country with no media coverage instead of on TV back east.

This is a really ridiculous post.

Not to mention, Orsini was also not interested in bringing LB in, correct?

I laughted when I saw this post last nite. Mexmustang is consumed with his hatred of Gerald Turner. Might have been drinking heavily. This was the funniest line of the entire post-must be VOTER FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!:

"--Not a single Big East school supported the addition of Tulane, but one--that's right our own SMU"

To my understanding Turner was not happy about Tulane joining the Big East.

The basketball schools are claiming that they didn't vote, one way or another. No one even asked their opinion. What is the truth?

Who would have pushed for Tulane?
TV coverage? Expanding the demographics?
Football and basketball records?
I didn't make this up, it is what many feel.

We all know it is about money and power, but the straw that broke the conference was Tulane. Are you people telling me that Tulane was on your top five? top ten? top 50? for schools to be added?

Gerry can go suck a [deleted], but this thread is insane.

Stallion--You and I will never agree on Turner. Why? Because he doesn't tell the truth. Only last week he assured a number of us personally, that the conference was stable and that he was close with the other presidents. That's right, only last week! He especially assured us about Boise. Well let's see.

The man sustained Pye's academic restrictions for over ten year! He then led campaigns that many of us donated money to (I know you didn't) to resurect the program, only to do lip service. Like it or not it was only with June's hiring that we came close to a level playing field on admissions. He had over a decade to get things right. When we didn't win, all we did was fire another coach.

When we finally went to Hawaii, I listened to him and Cheves deny that our bowl appearance had anything to do with the dramatic increase in applications (80-90%) in the application year following the bowl victory. This was three months after Orsini showed us the study and marketing implications of the bowl that definitely showed that the applications tic was due to this appearance. When asked, Turner and Cheves did a little dance of ignorance and said they really didn't know what to attribute it to.

Well, TCU gets it. Their applications are now significantly--a mulitiple above SMU's. It is only a matter of time before their academic ratings will challenge our own. The ratio of applications to enrollment is a significant factor in the ratings compilations. The higher the number applicants the higher the average SAT can be acheived by selection.

Believe what you want to believe. But with less than 24 months remaining on his watch, the rats are realizing that a new president will clean house of the mess that this university has become. Ask our Provost how he is doing on his job search? He had been here now for what five years?

No Tulane wasn't in anybody's top 10 but how exactly did Turner steal the bbs votes to get Tulane in?

They didn't vote, nor were they even advised beforehand--that is what they are claiming. I don't know the rules, and we won't be there (Big East) long enough for me to care enought to find out. All I am relating is what these well connected men have told me. Yes, it is true that I have never trusted Turner, ever since he was runout at Ole Miss, and I served on Pye's board.

I'm sorry, but there is not one iota of truth in this post.

A million reasons to be anti-Turner, many of which were laid out by Mex but this doesn't make sense.

If Turner was the only yes vote, why would they bother to vote at all? And if the votes were all 'no' except one Turner 'yes', the blame is with the conference ignoring their own vote. Turner didn't tip the scales with his vote. Illogical.